Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:17 AM - Garmin /Apollo SL 40 radio (The McGough Family)
2. 04:30 AM - Re: Garmin /Apollo SL 40 radio (Jesse Saint)
3. 05:46 AM - Re: Garmin /Apollo SL 40 radio (Matt Reeves)
4. 06:06 AM - Battery and CG (Jesse Saint)
5. 06:11 AM - Raving about a new tool (Tim Olson)
6. 06:29 AM - Re: Pics of Dual battery tray (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
7. 06:43 AM - Re: Raving about a new tool (Rob Kermanj)
8. 06:46 AM - Re: Battery and CG (John Jessen)
9. 06:51 AM - Re: Battery and CG (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
10. 07:14 AM - Re: Battery and CG (John Gonzalez)
11. 07:22 AM - Re: Raving about a new tool (Tim Olson)
12. 07:40 AM - Re: Raving about a new tool (Rob Kermanj)
13. 07:45 AM - POM (Sam Marlow)
14. 08:04 AM - Re: Battery and CG (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
15. 08:15 AM - Re: Battery and CG & alternative power (Chris Johnston)
16. 08:15 AM - Re: QB Wings (johngoodman)
17. 08:32 AM - looong step tube (Jay Brinkmeyer)
18. 08:59 AM - Re: Battery and CG & alternative power (Tim Olson)
19. 09:00 AM - Re: looong step tube (Jay Rowe)
20. 09:00 AM - Re: looong step tube (Tim Olson)
21. 09:02 AM - Re: looong step tube (Condrey, Bob (US SSA))
22. 09:04 AM - Re: Battery and CG & alternative power (John Jessen)
23. 09:04 AM - Re: Battery and CG (John Jessen)
24. 09:25 AM - Re: Interior paint! (Vern W. Smith)
25. 09:34 AM - Re: Battery and CG & alternative power (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
26. 09:39 AM - Re: Battery and CG & alternative power (Vern W. Smith)
27. 09:48 AM - Re: Battery and CG (James K Hovis)
28. 09:50 AM - Re: Interior paint! (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
29. 09:57 AM - Re: Battery and CG (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
30. 10:27 AM - Re: Battery and CG (Tim Olson)
31. 10:27 AM - Re: Interior paint! (Vern W. Smith)
32. 10:41 AM - Re: Battery and CG & alternative power (John W. Cox)
33. 10:57 AM - Re: Battery and CG (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
34. 11:04 AM - Re: Interior paint! (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
35. 11:37 AM - Re: Interior paint! (Pascal)
36. 11:38 AM - Re: Battery and CG (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
37. 11:39 AM - Re: Battery and CG & alternative power (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
38. 11:42 AM - Re: Interior paint!- correction (Pascal)
39. 11:58 AM - Re: Interior paint! (Vern W. Smith)
40. 11:58 AM - Re: Garmin /Apollo SL 40 radio (Bill DeRouchey)
41. 12:32 PM - Re: Interior paint! (John Gonzalez)
42. 12:38 PM - Re: Battery and CG (John Gonzalez)
43. 12:46 PM - Re: Battery and CG & alternative power (John W. Cox)
44. 01:41 PM - Sam James Plenum Inquiry (Deems Davis)
45. 01:50 PM - Re: Battery and CG (gary)
46. 01:56 PM - Re: Battery and CG & alternative power (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
47. 02:02 PM - Re: Sam James Plenum Inquiry (John W. Cox)
48. 02:04 PM - Re: Battery and CG & alternative power (John W. Cox)
49. 02:21 PM - Re: Battery and CG & alternative power (John W. Cox)
50. 03:12 PM - Re: POM (Richard Reynolds)
51. 04:25 PM - Aluminum body filler recommendations sought (Deems Davis)
52. 04:53 PM - Manuals (Deems Davis)
53. 05:00 PM - Re: Aluminum body filler recommendations sought (gary)
54. 05:06 PM - Oopss - I've done it again (Deems Davis)
55. 06:09 PM - Re: Aluminum body filler recommendations sought (ddddsp1@juno.com)
56. 06:36 PM - Re: POM (Rick)
57. 07:42 PM - Re: POM (Jesse Saint)
58. 10:24 PM - Re: Aluminum body filler recommendations sought (John Gonzalez)
59. 10:53 PM - Re: Aluminum body filler recommendations sought (Steven DiNieri)
60. 10:56 PM - Re: QB Wings (KiloPapa)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Garmin /Apollo SL 40 radio |
Has anyone used or had dramas with above radio as I am getting
conflicting reports
Chris
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: | Garmin /Apollo SL 40 radio |
I have used it a fair bit and have no complaints. I have recommended it and
continue to do so.
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 The McGough
Family
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 5:16 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Garmin /Apollo SL 40 radio
Has anyone used or had dramas with above radio as I am getting conflicting
reports
Chris
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: Garmin /Apollo SL 40 radio |
Awesome radio, cool that you can monitor one frequency while on another BUT, don't
try to use the internal intercom feature - too complicated and is very UN-user
friendly.
Matt
The McGough Family <VHMUM@bigpond.com> wrote:
Has anyone used or had dramas with above radio as I am getting conflicting
reports
Chris
---------------------------------
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
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 |
|
I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but this does come up every once in a
while. I understand that some people want to fly this plane most of the
time as if it were a 2-seat airplane. As such, it does ride very close to
the forward CG, especially with full tanks. However, putting another
battery in the back to help this "problem", IMHO, is very counterproductive.
I realize that Van's put the first battery back there for most likely this
very reason, but with the stock setup, the airplane flies fine throughout
all CG configurations (light/forward CG or heavy/aft CG). If you mount a
permanent battery aft of the baggage wall and want to fly the airplane like
it was designed to fly (2700lbs), you better keep your speeds up, because if
you stall and get into a spin, then good luck getting out of it. Would it
not be easier, when flying light, to add some ballast in the baggage area or
rear seat? It certainly doesn't make sense to have to add ballast under the
cowling when you are flying heavy.
All JMHO!
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
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: | Raving about a new tool |
Last night I got to try a new tool that I bought. A couple weeks
ago I went to visit SteinAir in their new building (well, new
since I'd been there). Stein showed me some cool new stuff they
sell, and I grabbed up a few items just based on the recommendation
of Stein himself. The one I need to rave about is the "Wire Spoon".
http://www.steinair.com/tools.htm
I didn't know that this would be a big deal. I wired my entire plane
without one. But last night I had to run a couple of wires through
my existing bundles for some new lights, and I tried the spoon.
10 minutes later I was THOROUGHLY impressed and I had to call
Stein and chew him out for not telling me about these things
sooner. What a stinkin' bastage he was to let a good customer
like me build an entire airplane without one of these babies.
Anyway, apparently he only recently started selling them on a
recommendation that people would find them useful. He's always
looking for those useful things for the builders that he can offer.
I'm just telling you today that if you're going to wire your own plane,
you want one of these things. It will easily make a difference in
how nicely you can feed wires into existing bundles.
It's these little things that you can glean from Stein that makes
him such a worthy business to support.
--
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Pics of Dual battery tray |
I will spill the beans as all three of us have been talking behind the
scenes! I am proud of the fact that I am pushing the envelope and
installing an Eggenfellner, with a turbo, and with a James cowl, and a
dual battery tray, and a 4 bladed prop. With such a non-standard install
I am sure the plane will just fall apart and come tumbling out of the
sky....All in humor of course, It is so close to flying that I am
getting antsy to get in the air.
I go to Oregon at the end of April for transition training and will be
making my first flight shortly after. Hopefully I will have great news
to report to everyone, but I will give a sneak preview of something
cool, with liquid cooling and the great heater that comes with it I was
able to create a multi-zone heating arrangement, ala a car set up. I
have the standard front and rear heat, but in addition I have dual zone
heating for the front passengers! The Eggenfellner solution just gets
better and better!
Now if I can just get numbers to report then we will all have things to
really discuss...
Dan
N289DT (sanding, sanding, and painting parts...)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:33 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Pics of Dual battery tray
<rvbuilder@sausen.net>
You guys crack me up!
Michael
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
millstees@ameritech.net
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 5:13 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Pics of Dual battery tray
John:
I know what engine you are planning...I am doing the same, and just
completed my battery tray along the same lines. I don't blame you for
not
wanting to get it started again !
Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Pics of Dual battery tray
<indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
The batteries are odyssey PC625s, with a little knowledge you should be
able
to tell which engine these are used for. Don't want to start a
new/revisited
topic.
As for the parts, the only thing that comes with the tail kit is the
base
and the bellcrank. No, I will not be kitting this...I think I would be
making about three dollars and hour after buying the materials.
JOhn G.
>From: kilopapa@antelecom.net
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Pics of Dual battery tray
>Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:05:49 -0800
>
>
>What 2 batteries is it designed for? Looks nice and strong.
>
>Kevin
>40494
>
>----- Original Message Follows -----
>From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Pics of Dual battery tray
>Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:48:59 -0700
>
> >I spent a fair amount of time putting this thing together,
> >a surprising amount of time. It was acutally more complex
> >than it looks.
> >
> >JOhn G. 409
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >[Attachment: RV 10 013.jpg]
> >[Attachment: RV 10 015.jpg]
> >[Attachment: RV 10 017.jpg]
> >[Attachment: RV 10 022.jpg]
> >[Attachment: RV 10 024.jpg]
> >[Attachment: RV 10 027.jpg]
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Raving about a new tool |
Tim, What do you mean "through my existing bundles"? Do you mean
through bundles that have been tie wrapped or through conduits with
bundles loosely wired through it?
Thanks
On Mar 30, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Last night I got to try a new tool that I bought. A couple weeks
> ago I went to visit SteinAir in their new building (well, new
> since I'd been there). Stein showed me some cool new stuff they
> sell, and I grabbed up a few items just based on the recommendation
> of Stein himself. The one I need to rave about is the "Wire Spoon".
> http://www.steinair.com/tools.htm
>
> I didn't know that this would be a big deal. I wired my entire plane
> without one. But last night I had to run a couple of wires through
> my existing bundles for some new lights, and I tried the spoon.
> 10 minutes later I was THOROUGHLY impressed and I had to call
> Stein and chew him out for not telling me about these things
> sooner. What a stinkin' bastage he was to let a good customer
> like me build an entire airplane without one of these babies.
>
> Anyway, apparently he only recently started selling them on a
> recommendation that people would find them useful. He's always
> looking for those useful things for the builders that he can offer.
> I'm just telling you today that if you're going to wire your own
> plane,
> you want one of these things. It will easily make a difference in
> how nicely you can feed wires into existing bundles.
>
> It's these little things that you can glean from Stein that makes
> him such a worthy business to support.
>
> --
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>
>
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 |
|
They may have a heavier engine, but they were not saying. Something with
water sloshing around, perhaps. However, you raised, once again, a horse
that was on my mind, as well, when I took a look at the dual battery tray
(nice job on the tray, nonetheless). I plan to go with either integrated
battery backup, or something similar to Tim's setup, light and cheap.
Careful with aft CG, guys. Calculate this one verrrrry carefully.
John J
do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Battery and CG
I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but this does come up every once in a
while. I understand that some people want to fly this plane most of the
time as if it were a 2-seat airplane. As such, it does ride very close to
the forward CG, especially with full tanks. However, putting another
battery in the back to help this "problem", IMHO, is very counterproductive.
I realize that Van's put the first battery back there for most likely this
very reason, but with the stock setup, the airplane flies fine throughout
all CG configurations (light/forward CG or heavy/aft CG). If you mount a
permanent battery aft of the baggage wall and want to fly the airplane like
it was designed to fly (2700lbs), you better keep your speeds up, because if
you stall and get into a spin, then good luck getting out of it. Would it
not be easier, when flying light, to add some ballast in the baggage area or
rear seat? It certainly doesn't make sense to have to add ballast under the
cowling when you are flying heavy.
All JMHO!
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
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 |
|
I want to stress to people reading this, it is a very valid point and
when adding dual batteries or any weight that far aft serious thought
should be considered. I agree with Jesse that the best way to add and
subtract weight is a collapsible water container. This way the pilot can
add weight for situations and dump it on the ramp when it is not needed
and store the flat container.
What myself, John and others are talking about is making a dual battery
tray to support a dual electrical system to ensure redundancy for an
electrically dependant alternative engine install. What we are using for
our dual batteries are PC 625 batteries. These only weigh 12-13 pounds a
piece, and with the addition of the tray and dual contactors we are less
than 1 pound difference of the original install made by Tim with a 925 .
I made the decision to mount these at the original location of Vans
battery tray because it works there for NOW. But I will stress, we have
not done a weight and balance with an installed Eggenfellner package on
a completed 10 yet. Mine will be the first and based on my equipage, we
will make the determination for the final install location of the dual
batteries, as these are the easiest items to move to balance the CG. I
expect the W&B of the RV10E will be very close to matching the Lycoming
install, but we will not know until I get the engine and cowl final
installed.
I just wanted to put this out there, so people can make the distinction
between the Eggenfellner install versus trying to do a dual install for
a lycoming. We are not talking about dual 925's as this would be over 50
pounds of batteries in an aft CG location, that would be permanent. Once
again we are talking dual 625's.
Dan
N289DT
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:06 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Battery and CG
I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but this does come up every once
in a while. I understand that some people want to fly this plane most
of the time as if it were a 2-seat airplane. As such, it does ride very
close to the forward CG, especially with full tanks. However, putting
another battery in the back to help this "problem", IMHO, is very
counterproductive. I realize that Van's put the first battery back
there for most likely this very reason, but with the stock setup, the
airplane flies fine throughout all CG configurations (light/forward CG
or heavy/aft CG). If you mount a permanent battery aft of the baggage
wall and want to fly the airplane like it was designed to fly (2700lbs),
you better keep your speeds up, because if you stall and get into a
spin, then good luck getting out of it. Would it not be easier, when
flying light, to add some ballast in the baggage area or rear seat? It
certainly doesn't make sense to have to add ballast under the cowling
when you are flying heavy.
All JMHO!
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
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 |
|
All understood and very important that the numbers in the end are in the CG
range. There is a requirement for two batteries and putting both of these on
the firewall could make for an even worse senario.
If I recal, we are looking at 25-26 pounds of batteries. Other than these
two mentioned locations. I do not believe there are hardpoints anywhere else
with enough strength to handle the positive and negative Gs. That is a lot
of weight. My tray added 1 pound nine onces inaddition to the batteries.
Don't want the batteries falling out of the tray and rolling to the tail of
the plane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JOhn G
>From: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:46:20 -0700
>
>They may have a heavier engine, but they were not saying. Something with
>water sloshing around, perhaps. However, you raised, once again, a horse
>that was on my mind, as well, when I took a look at the dual battery tray
>(nice job on the tray, nonetheless). I plan to go with either integrated
>battery backup, or something similar to Tim's setup, light and cheap.
>Careful with aft CG, guys. Calculate this one verrrrry carefully.
>
>John J
>
>do not archive
>
> _____
>
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
>Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Battery and CG
>
>
>I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but this does come up every once in
>a
>while. I understand that some people want to fly this plane most of the
>time as if it were a 2-seat airplane. As such, it does ride very close to
>the forward CG, especially with full tanks. However, putting another
>battery in the back to help this "problem", IMHO, is very
>counterproductive.
>I realize that Van's put the first battery back there for most likely this
>very reason, but with the stock setup, the airplane flies fine throughout
>all CG configurations (light/forward CG or heavy/aft CG). If you mount a
>permanent battery aft of the baggage wall and want to fly the airplane like
>it was designed to fly (2700lbs), you better keep your speeds up, because
>if
>you stall and get into a spin, then good luck getting out of it. Would it
>not be easier, when flying light, to add some ballast in the baggage area
>or
>rear seat? It certainly doesn't make sense to have to add ballast under
>the
>cowling when you are flying heavy.
>
>
>All JMHO!
>
>
>Jesse Saint
>
>Saint Aviation, Inc.
>
>jesse@saintaviation.com
>
>www.saintaviation.com
>
>Cell: 352-427-0285
>
>Fax: 815-377-3694
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Raving about a new tool |
I mean through tie wrapped bundles and through all the adel clamp
looking things. You just stuff the spoon in, and then can shove
the wire right through, and it was FAR easier to get that wire
to run under the tie wrap and down the bundle in a straight line.
Without it, you either have to cut all the wraps, and then
they'll flop all over the place, or you have to stuff it in
whatever gap in the tiewrap you can find, even if the wire
isn't going straight down the bundle. These spoons let you
quickly feed it through, and they're not sharp so you don't
have worries about tearing up insulation like if you were
to just stuff a screwdriver in the bundle. Very cool indeed.
It's such a simple tool, yet it's elegantly designed to work
exactly as needed.
Wouldn't do much good in conduit. But in conduit I was
able to pull a wire through using another tip from the
great and powerful Oz (John Cox). In my conduits I left
lengths of plastic string-trimmer line. It's light,
and won't rub through your other wire's insulation.
So when I had to pull a wire through some tight conduit,
I attached it, plus a new string-trimmer section, and pulled it
through. Sure makes these late projects easier. Thanks John!
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Rob Kermanj wrote:
>
> Tim, What do you mean "through my existing bundles"? Do you mean
> through bundles that have been tie wrapped or through conduits with
> bundles loosely wired through it?
>
> Thanks
>
> On Mar 30, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> Last night I got to try a new tool that I bought. A couple weeks
>> ago I went to visit SteinAir in their new building (well, new
>> since I'd been there). Stein showed me some cool new stuff they
>> sell, and I grabbed up a few items just based on the recommendation
>> of Stein himself. The one I need to rave about is the "Wire Spoon".
>> http://www.steinair.com/tools.htm
>>
>> I didn't know that this would be a big deal. I wired my entire plane
>> without one. But last night I had to run a couple of wires through
>> my existing bundles for some new lights, and I tried the spoon.
>> 10 minutes later I was THOROUGHLY impressed and I had to call
>> Stein and chew him out for not telling me about these things
>> sooner. What a stinkin' bastage he was to let a good customer
>> like me build an entire airplane without one of these babies.
>>
>> Anyway, apparently he only recently started selling them on a
>> recommendation that people would find them useful. He's always
>> looking for those useful things for the builders that he can offer.
>> I'm just telling you today that if you're going to wire your own plane,
>> you want one of these things. It will easily make a difference in
>> how nicely you can feed wires into existing bundles.
>>
>> It's these little things that you can glean from Stein that makes
>> him such a worthy business to support.
>>
>> --Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Raving about a new tool |
Thanks, I will have to try it.
Rob.
On Mar 30, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> I mean through tie wrapped bundles and through all the adel clamp
> looking things. You just stuff the spoon in, and then can shove
> the wire right through, and it was FAR easier to get that wire
> to run under the tie wrap and down the bundle in a straight line.
> Without it, you either have to cut all the wraps, and then
> they'll flop all over the place, or you have to stuff it in
> whatever gap in the tiewrap you can find, even if the wire
> isn't going straight down the bundle. These spoons let you
> quickly feed it through, and they're not sharp so you don't
> have worries about tearing up insulation like if you were
> to just stuff a screwdriver in the bundle. Very cool indeed.
> It's such a simple tool, yet it's elegantly designed to work
> exactly as needed.
>
> Wouldn't do much good in conduit. But in conduit I was
> able to pull a wire through using another tip from the
> great and powerful Oz (John Cox). In my conduits I left
> lengths of plastic string-trimmer line. It's light,
> and won't rub through your other wire's insulation.
> So when I had to pull a wire through some tight conduit,
> I attached it, plus a new string-trimmer section, and pulled it
> through. Sure makes these late projects easier. Thanks John!
>
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Rob Kermanj wrote:
>> Tim, What do you mean "through my existing bundles"? Do you mean
>> through bundles that have been tie wrapped or through conduits
>> with bundles loosely wired through it?
>> Thanks
>> On Mar 30, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>
>>> Last night I got to try a new tool that I bought. A couple weeks
>>> ago I went to visit SteinAir in their new building (well, new
>>> since I'd been there). Stein showed me some cool new stuff they
>>> sell, and I grabbed up a few items just based on the recommendation
>>> of Stein himself. The one I need to rave about is the "Wire Spoon".
>>> http://www.steinair.com/tools.htm
>>>
>>> I didn't know that this would be a big deal. I wired my entire
>>> plane
>>> without one. But last night I had to run a couple of wires through
>>> my existing bundles for some new lights, and I tried the spoon.
>>> 10 minutes later I was THOROUGHLY impressed and I had to call
>>> Stein and chew him out for not telling me about these things
>>> sooner. What a stinkin' bastage he was to let a good customer
>>> like me build an entire airplane without one of these babies.
>>>
>>> Anyway, apparently he only recently started selling them on a
>>> recommendation that people would find them useful. He's always
>>> looking for those useful things for the builders that he can offer.
>>> I'm just telling you today that if you're going to wire your own
>>> plane,
>>> you want one of these things. It will easily make a difference in
>>> how nicely you can feed wires into existing bundles.
>>>
>>> It's these little things that you can glean from Stein that makes
>>> him such a worthy business to support.
>>>
>>> --Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
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 |
|
Where do I start? Do one of you guys already flying have a source for a
manual?
Thanks,
Sam Marlow
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 |
|
It is not that we are not saying anything about the weight, rather no
one has one on the plane yet and can discuss the true weights. Can
anyone tell me the Firewall forward weight of a Lycoming with everything
installed? No? Not even with more than 70 flying? SO how do you expect
their to be a published number of a FWF weight of an engine that has not
been installed yet? Exactly, but what Eggenfellner has done is come up
with a new methodology of weighing each and every FWF package, including
the prop before shipping, so every builder will now what it weighs,
including all fluids. I will gladly post this number for all concerned
to review, once I receive my engine package.
I would challenge the Lycoming users/ nay Sayers claiming Eggenfellner
has a higher weight, to do the same thing with a complete FWF/ Prop
combo of an RV10 to post their results as well, before making such a
blanket statement. Lets keep in mind there is a whole bigger weight
issue of a IO540 versus an IO360.
Dan
N289DT
RV10E
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:46 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
They may have a heavier engine, but they were not saying. Something
with water sloshing around, perhaps. However, you raised, once again, a
horse that was on my mind, as well, when I took a look at the dual
battery tray (nice job on the tray, nonetheless). I plan to go with
either integrated battery backup, or something similar to Tim's setup,
light and cheap. Careful with aft CG, guys. Calculate this one
verrrrry carefully.
John J
do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Battery and CG
I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but this does come up every once
in a while. I understand that some people want to fly this plane most
of the time as if it were a 2-seat airplane. As such, it does ride very
close to the forward CG, especially with full tanks. However, putting
another battery in the back to help this "problem", IMHO, is very
counterproductive. I realize that Van's put the first battery back
there for most likely this very reason, but with the stock setup, the
airplane flies fine throughout all CG configurations (light/forward CG
or heavy/aft CG). If you mount a permanent battery aft of the baggage
wall and want to fly the airplane like it was designed to fly (2700lbs),
you better keep your speeds up, because if you stall and get into a
spin, then good luck getting out of it. Would it not be easier, when
flying light, to add some ballast in the baggage area or rear seat? It
certainly doesn't make sense to have to add ballast under the cowling
when you are flying heavy.
All JMHO!
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 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: | Battery and CG & alternative power |
hey all -
i'm reading the discussion about batteries, CG, and alternative power,
and I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the positive attitude so
far displayed by the forum members regarding new thinking and different
ideas. We have excellent ideas by builders, and further excellent
insight by those already flying, and it's all in a pursuit of safety,
speed, and super-neato-ness. I'm on board with that! I also want to
applaud those who've made the commitment to go with alternative power.
I'm excited to see some flying examples of new thinking out there. plus
4 blades looks cool. I guess I just wanted to drop a public note to the
guys doing different things to show support, because I think we're all
grown up enough to leave all the drama about "lyc vs. alt" to other
forums. Don't be afraid to share your progress and ideas! I want to
see that stuff!
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of John Gonzalez
Sent: Fri 3/30/2007 7:13 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
<indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
All understood and very important that the numbers in the end are in the
CG
range. There is a requirement for two batteries and putting both of
these on
the firewall could make for an even worse senario.
If I recal, we are looking at 25-26 pounds of batteries. Other than
these
two mentioned locations. I do not believe there are hardpoints anywhere
else
with enough strength to handle the positive and negative Gs. That is a
lot
of weight. My tray added 1 pound nine onces inaddition to the batteries.
Don't want the batteries falling out of the tray and rolling to the tail
of
the plane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JOhn G
>From: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:46:20 -0700
>
>They may have a heavier engine, but they were not saying. Something
with
>water sloshing around, perhaps. However, you raised, once again, a
horse
>that was on my mind, as well, when I took a look at the dual battery
tray
>(nice job on the tray, nonetheless). I plan to go with either
integrated
>battery backup, or something similar to Tim's setup, light and cheap.
>Careful with aft CG, guys. Calculate this one verrrrry carefully.
>
>John J
>
>do not archive
>
> _____
>
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
>Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Battery and CG
>
>
>I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but this does come up every once
in
>a
>while. I understand that some people want to fly this plane most of
the
>time as if it were a 2-seat airplane. As such, it does ride very close
to
>the forward CG, especially with full tanks. However, putting another
>battery in the back to help this "problem", IMHO, is very
>counterproductive.
>I realize that Van's put the first battery back there for most likely
this
>very reason, but with the stock setup, the airplane flies fine
throughout
>all CG configurations (light/forward CG or heavy/aft CG). If you mount
a
>permanent battery aft of the baggage wall and want to fly the airplane
like
>it was designed to fly (2700lbs), you better keep your speeds up,
because
>if
>you stall and get into a spin, then good luck getting out of it. Would
it
>not be easier, when flying light, to add some ballast in the baggage
area
>or
>rear seat? It certainly doesn't make sense to have to add ballast
under
>the
>cowling when you are flying heavy.
>
>
>All JMHO!
>
>
>Jesse Saint
>
>Saint Aviation, Inc.
>
>jesse@saintaviation.com
>
>www.saintaviation.com
>
>Cell: 352-427-0285
>
>Fax: 815-377-3694
>
>
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 |
|
Dave,
I followed the designs of Tim and a few others. Here is a poor shot of mine.
John
--------
#40572 Empennage Assembly.
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103880#103880
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/wingparts_128.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/qbwings_775.jpg
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | looong step tube |
I'm a slow builder (really)... This photo shows what appears to be a one piece
step tube in a quick build fuse. My steps consist of two short step tubes that
are attached to the inboard rib. Anyone know what's up with the difference?
http://lrosen.nerv10.com/Construct/Log/Fuselage/RemovTempInstall/slides/2005-07-17_RV10-097.html
(Larry - thanks for the great photos!)
Thanks,
Jay
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery and CG & alternative power |
Dang subie people.....why don't you go get a REAL engine
like an innodyn turbine. (just kidding and stirring the
pot) I agree Chris...that's one of the nice things about
the group...it's kind of rare that someone gets their head
torn off. I can't wait to hear of Dan's successes. It's
also nice to hear the reports on all the various equipment.
By the way, anyone considered a Williams FJ33 for their
RV-10? It should be much smoother than a 3-blade or 4-blade
prop, and burning something other than 100LL would be a
plus. Maybe I should start another tail kit.... ;)
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Chris Johnston wrote:
> hey all -
>
> i'm reading the discussion about batteries, CG, and alternative
> power, and I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the positive
> attitude so far displayed by the forum members regarding new thinking
> and different ideas. We have excellent ideas by builders, and
> further excellent insight by those already flying, and it's all in a
> pursuit of safety, speed, and super-neato-ness. I'm on board with
> that! I also want to applaud those who've made the commitment to go
> with alternative power. I'm excited to see some flying examples of
> new thinking out there. plus 4 blades looks cool. I guess I just
> wanted to drop a public note to the guys doing different things to
> show support, because I think we're all grown up enough to leave all
> the drama about "lyc vs. alt" to other forums. Don't be afraid to
> share your progress and ideas! I want to see that stuff!
>
> cj #40410 fuse www.perfectlygoodairplane.net do not archive
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: looong step tube |
Jay: That's just a packing tube that comes with the QB fuse. Not sure why
it is there, maybe to help secure the fuse in the shipping box. Anyway it is
to be thrown away.
Now that you are starting your QB fuse you will find a lot of things that
have not been done. Look at Tim's site for lots of advice. You will find
that you need to take a lot of the parts off the fuse before you even start.
I would just remind you that you need to go through the plans step by step
and don't try to skip ahead. Jay Rowe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Brinkmeyer" <jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 11:30 AM
Subject: RV10-List: looong step tube
>
> I'm a slow builder (really)... This photo shows what appears to be a one
> piece
> step tube in a quick build fuse. My steps consist of two short step tubes
> that
> are attached to the inboard rib. Anyone know what's up with the
> difference?
>
> http://lrosen.nerv10.com/Construct/Log/Fuselage/RemovTempInstall/slides/2005-07-17_RV10-097.html
> (Larry - thanks for the great photos!)
>
> Thanks,
> Jay
>
>
> Never miss an email again!
> Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
>
>
> --
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: looong step tube |
That's just a piece of pipe they ship the QB fuse with....gets thrown away.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Jay Brinkmeyer wrote:
>
> I'm a slow builder (really)... This photo shows what appears to be a one piece
> step tube in a quick build fuse. My steps consist of two short step tubes that
> are attached to the inboard rib. Anyone know what's up with the difference?
>
> http://lrosen.nerv10.com/Construct/Log/Fuselage/RemovTempInstall/slides/2005-07-17_RV10-097.html
> (Larry - thanks for the great photos!)
>
> Thanks,
> Jay
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | looong step tube |
Jay,
This is just temporary for shipping, it's removed when the real steps
are installed.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay
Brinkmeyer
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 10:31 AM
Subject: RV10-List: looong step tube
<jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
I'm a slow builder (really)... This photo shows what appears to be a one
piece
step tube in a quick build fuse. My steps consist of two short step
tubes that
are attached to the inboard rib. Anyone know what's up with the
difference?
http://lrosen.nerv10.com/Construct/Log/Fuselage/RemovTempInstall/slides/
2005-07-17_RV10-097.html
(Larry - thanks for the great photos!)
Thanks,
Jay
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Battery and CG & alternative power |
Again, agreed. Come on guys, have some humor. Sheesh
John J
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Johnston
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 8:12 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG & alternative power
hey all -
i'm reading the discussion about batteries, CG, and alternative power, and I
just wanted to say how much I appreciate the positive attitude so far
displayed by the forum members regarding new thinking and different ideas.
We have excellent ideas by builders, and further excellent insight by those
already flying, and it's all in a pursuit of safety, speed, and
super-neato-ness. I'm on board with that! I also want to applaud those
who've made the commitment to go with alternative power. I'm excited to see
some flying examples of new thinking out there. plus 4 blades looks cool.
I guess I just wanted to drop a public note to the guys doing different
things to show support, because I think we're all grown up enough to leave
all the drama about "lyc vs. alt" to other forums. Don't be afraid to share
your progress and ideas! I want to see that stuff!
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of John Gonzalez
Sent: Fri 3/30/2007 7:13 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
--> <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
All understood and very important that the numbers in the end are in the CG
range. There is a requirement for two batteries and putting both of these on
the firewall could make for an even worse senario.
If I recal, we are looking at 25-26 pounds of batteries. Other than these
two mentioned locations. I do not believe there are hardpoints anywhere else
with enough strength to handle the positive and negative Gs. That is a lot
of weight. My tray added 1 pound nine onces inaddition to the batteries.
Don't want the batteries falling out of the tray and rolling to the tail of
the plane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JOhn G
>From: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:46:20 -0700
>
>They may have a heavier engine, but they were not saying. Something
>with water sloshing around, perhaps. However, you raised, once again,
>a horse that was on my mind, as well, when I took a look at the dual
>battery tray (nice job on the tray, nonetheless). I plan to go with
>either integrated battery backup, or something similar to Tim's setup,
light and cheap.
>Careful with aft CG, guys. Calculate this one verrrrry carefully.
>
>John J
>
>do not archive
>
> _____
>
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
>Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Battery and CG
>
>
>I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but this does come up every once
>in a while. I understand that some people want to fly this plane most
>of the time as if it were a 2-seat airplane. As such, it does ride
>very close to the forward CG, especially with full tanks. However,
>putting another battery in the back to help this "problem", IMHO, is
>very counterproductive.
>I realize that Van's put the first battery back there for most likely
>this very reason, but with the stock setup, the airplane flies fine
>throughout all CG configurations (light/forward CG or heavy/aft CG).
>If you mount a permanent battery aft of the baggage wall and want to
>fly the airplane like it was designed to fly (2700lbs), you better keep
>your speeds up, because if you stall and get into a spin, then good
>luck getting out of it. Would it not be easier, when flying light, to
>add some ballast in the baggage area or rear seat? It certainly
>doesn't make sense to have to add ballast under the cowling when you
>are flying heavy.
>
>
>All JMHO!
>
>
>Jesse Saint
>
>Saint Aviation, Inc.
>
>jesse@saintaviation.com
>
>www.saintaviation.com
>
>Cell: 352-427-0285
>
>Fax: 815-377-3694
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Dan, I was not trying to get into any type of engine discussion. You guys
were being cute about not raising the engine debate, so I thought I'd be
cute back, water sloshing and all that. We all knew you were talking about
the Eggenfeller, and more power to you! I'm not a nay sayer, I just
wondered aloud if you had a reason for more weight in the back, for, like
Jesse, I was concerned about aft CG. I now know that you and John are using
lighter batteries, as you've explained. I, too, would like to know how much
everything weighs up front, in the panel, behind the panel. Very important
to know this stuff. Nice to know Eggenfeller is weighing his stuff. I'll
weigh mine when the time comes and post it on my site. On we go.
John J
do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 8:04 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
It is not that we are not saying anything about the weight, rather no one
has one on the plane yet and can discuss the true weights. Can anyone tell
me the Firewall forward weight of a Lycoming with everything installed? No?
Not even with more than 70 flying? SO how do you expect their to be a
published number of a FWF weight of an engine that has not been installed
yet? Exactly, but what Eggenfellner has done is come up with a new
methodology of weighing each and every FWF package, including the prop
before shipping, so every builder will now what it weighs, including all
fluids. I will gladly post this number for all concerned to review, once I
receive my engine package.
I would challenge the Lycoming users/ nay Sayers claiming Eggenfellner has a
higher weight, to do the same thing with a complete FWF/ Prop combo of an
RV10 to post their results as well, before making such a blanket statement.
Lets keep in mind there is a whole bigger weight issue of a IO540 versus an
IO360.
Dan
N289DT
RV10E
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:46 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
They may have a heavier engine, but they were not saying. Something with
water sloshing around, perhaps. However, you raised, once again, a horse
that was on my mind, as well, when I took a look at the dual battery tray
(nice job on the tray, nonetheless). I plan to go with either integrated
battery backup, or something similar to Tim's setup, light and cheap.
Careful with aft CG, guys. Calculate this one verrrrry carefully.
John J
do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Battery and CG
I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but this does come up every once in a
while. I understand that some people want to fly this plane most of the
time as if it were a 2-seat airplane. As such, it does ride very close to
the forward CG, especially with full tanks. However, putting another
battery in the back to help this "problem", IMHO, is very counterproductive.
I realize that Van's put the first battery back there for most likely this
very reason, but with the stock setup, the airplane flies fine throughout
all CG configurations (light/forward CG or heavy/aft CG). If you mount a
permanent battery aft of the baggage wall and want to fly the airplane like
it was designed to fly (2700lbs), you better keep your speeds up, because if
you stall and get into a spin, then good luck getting out of it. Would it
not be easier, when flying light, to add some ballast in the baggage area or
rear seat? It certainly doesn't make sense to have to add ballast under the
cowling when you are flying heavy.
All JMHO!
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.matronics.com
/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
John,
Would you please post a picture of the ceramic glaze gun you used? I did
a web search and came up with a huge assortment of different kinds and
sizes.
Vern (#324 fuselage)
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:26 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Interior paint!
<indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Go to the Zolatone web site and they tell you to use a Binks 2001, with
a
big tip on it. I don't recal the number because I could not locate one
easily so I used a gun which shoot ceramic glaze.
John
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Battery and CG & alternative power |
I was thinking of buying a surplus small turbine from the local Navy
depot for the next one and seeing what could be done for a really noisy
solution!
Really guys do not read tone into my writing, Tim, Mike and others know
I am just a straight forward guy and what I am writing does not have
emotion behind it. Rather I just want everyone to be aware of what's
going on and not play the he said she said game.
We do not know the FWF weight of the Eggenfellner, nor do we know the
FWF weight of the Lycoming. That is all I was trying to say.
But more importantly I was trying to re-enforce Jesse's comments on
weight moving aft. This should not be undertaken without the proper
thought.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Battery and CG & alternative power
Dang subie people.....why don't you go get a REAL engine
like an innodyn turbine. (just kidding and stirring the
pot) I agree Chris...that's one of the nice things about
the group...it's kind of rare that someone gets their head
torn off. I can't wait to hear of Dan's successes. It's
also nice to hear the reports on all the various equipment.
By the way, anyone considered a Williams FJ33 for their
RV-10? It should be much smoother than a 3-blade or 4-blade
prop, and burning something other than 100LL would be a
plus. Maybe I should start another tail kit.... ;)
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Chris Johnston wrote:
> hey all -
>
> i'm reading the discussion about batteries, CG, and alternative
> power, and I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the positive
> attitude so far displayed by the forum members regarding new thinking
> and different ideas. We have excellent ideas by builders, and
> further excellent insight by those already flying, and it's all in a
> pursuit of safety, speed, and super-neato-ness. I'm on board with
> that! I also want to applaud those who've made the commitment to go
> with alternative power. I'm excited to see some flying examples of
> new thinking out there. plus 4 blades looks cool. I guess I just
> wanted to drop a public note to the guys doing different things to
> show support, because I think we're all grown up enough to leave all
> the drama about "lyc vs. alt" to other forums. Don't be afraid to
> share your progress and ideas! I want to see that stuff!
>
> cj #40410 fuse www.perfectlygoodairplane.net do not archive
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Battery and CG & alternative power |
Here are the specs. from Wikipedia:
The FJ33 has a dry weight of less than 300 lb, overall diameter of
21.05in, 47.9in overall length, and produces between 1000 and 1800 lbf
static thrust. Specific fuel consumption at 1200 lbf thrust (SLS, ISA)
is understood to be 0.486 lb/h/lbf.
Works out to about ~97 gallons an hour. Better plan on wet wings:)
Vern (#324 still riveting)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Battery and CG & alternative power
By the way, anyone considered a Williams FJ33 for their
RV-10? It should be much smoother than a 3-blade or 4-blade
prop, and burning something other than 100LL would be a
plus. Maybe I should start another tail kit.... ;)
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery and CG |
Dan,
It's simple, get your empty weight (with coolant) and compare to the
Lyc installations. I can't find it right now (thought Tim had a link
to it), but IIRC, the IO540 weighs dry around 400 to 450 lbs. Now the
dry Subie engine may not weigh as much as the Lyc, but look at the
other things you'll need to run: Radiator, coolant tubing, couple
gallons of coolant, radiator ducting (especially if you're using a
P-51 style scoop, but that's cool!), different engine mount (may be
lighter than the Lyc?) and a reduction unit. All of that leads to the
general comment that any automotive conversion weigh more than a
standard aircraft engine when the ready to run configurations are
compared. Remember the Lyc is designed from the get-go to deliver a
high percentage of its rated power for extended periods, be reliable,
and be as light weight as possible. Car engines just aren't designed
for the same parameters. Plus, the RV-10 was designed around specific
engine installations.
Please don't get me wrong, the trade-off of maybe 50 to 100 lbs loss
of useful load by going to an auto conversion may reap long-term
benefits - fuel cost savings and future overhaul costs. Remember too
that proper balancing is VERY important. The -10 is designed with the
tail surfaces set a specific distance from the wing and with specific
surface areas. This is to give good control authority and keep the
airplane flying stably over it's designed operating speeds. If your
empty CG results in having a full-load CG near or forward of the
designed limit will make it extremely difficult for the tail to lift
the nose wheel off the ground and to maintain level flight. CG at or
aft of the aft limit is just suicide, your control will be UNSTABLE!.
Now, for a whole host of reasons previously discussed, if your empty
weight ends up being say 1,650 lbs, don't assume you can just up the
gross weight spec
to 2,830 lbs to keep the Van's published 1,180 lbs of useful load
without getting a SERIOUS engineering analysis. And keep away from the
published Vne.
I'm not trying to discourage you from doing the Subie installation.
In fact I'm waiting to see how it turns out. But remember, one reason
for buying a Van's airplane is that they did the extensive engineering
legwork to determine a "good" combination of airframe and engine to
perform a specific mission. Whenever someone deviates from that
original design work, you are getting into unknown territory and you
should get serious analysis and advice from professionals so that you
can keep safe and within established aircraft standards.
Let me know how the installation goes (irt empty weight) and how well
it performs in flight!
Kevin Hovis.
On 3/30/07, Lloyd, Daniel R. <LloydDR@wernerco.com> wrote:
> It is not that we are not saying anything about the weight, rather no
> one has one on the plane yet and can discuss the true weights. Can
> anyone tell me the Firewall forward weight of a Lycoming with everything
> installed? No? Not even with more than 70 flying? SO how do you expect
> their to be a published number of a FWF weight of an engine that has not
> been installed yet? Exactly, but what Eggenfellner has done is come up
> with a new methodology of weighing each and every FWF package, including
> the prop before shipping, so every builder will now what it weighs,
> including all fluids. I will gladly post this number for all concerned
> to review, once I receive my engine package.
> I would challenge the Lycoming users/ nay Sayers claiming Eggenfellner
> has a higher weight, to do the same thing with a complete FWF/ Prop
> combo of an RV10 to post their results as well, before making such a
> blanket statement. Lets keep in mind there is a whole bigger weight
> issue of a IO540 versus an IO360.
> Dan
> N289DT
> RV10E
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:46 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
>
>
> They may have a heavier engine, but they were not saying. Something
> with water sloshing around, perhaps. However, you raised, once again, a
> horse that was on my mind, as well, when I took a look at the dual
> battery tray (nice job on the tray, nonetheless). I plan to go with
> either integrated battery backup, or something similar to Tim's setup,
> light and cheap. Careful with aft CG, guys. Calculate this one
> verrrrry carefully.
>
> John J
>
> do not archive
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Battery and CG
>
>
> I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but this does come up every once
> in a while. I understand that some people want to fly this plane most
> of the time as if it were a 2-seat airplane. As such, it does ride very
> close to the forward CG, especially with full tanks. However, putting
> another battery in the back to help this "problem", IMHO, is very
> counterproductive. I realize that Van's put the first battery back
> there for most likely this very reason, but with the stock setup, the
> airplane flies fine throughout all CG configurations (light/forward CG
> or heavy/aft CG). If you mount a permanent battery aft of the baggage
> wall and want to fly the airplane like it was designed to fly (2700lbs),
> you better keep your speeds up, because if you stall and get into a
> spin, then good luck getting out of it. Would it not be easier, when
> flying light, to add some ballast in the baggage area or rear seat? It
> certainly doesn't make sense to have to add ballast under the cowling
> when you are flying heavy.
>
>
> All JMHO!
>
>
> 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.matronics
> .com/Navigator?RV10-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
This stuff has been around for a while and is popular on some of the moldless
composites like the Long because of its ability to hide inconsistencies. Details
on spray equipment and prep is here:
http://www.zolatoneaim.com/spray.html
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Limbo
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 11:25 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Interior paint!
John,
Would you please post a picture of the ceramic glaze gun you used? I did
a web search and came up with a huge assortment of different kinds and
sizes.
Vern (#324 fuselage)
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:26 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Interior paint!
<indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Go to the Zolatone web site and they tell you to use a Binks 2001, with
a
big tip on it. I don't recal the number because I could not locate one
easily so I used a gun which shoot ceramic glaze.
John
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I apologize if my comments were taken that way, I was trying to stress
we did not add any weight, or at least less than a pound, what we did
was split the weight between two 625's instead of a single 900 series
like others are using.
If my comments came across as harsh I did not mean them too, and that is
usually what is lacking in an email environment is the laughing person
at the key board!
Dan
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:04 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
Dan, I was not trying to get into any type of engine discussion. You
guys were being cute about not raising the engine debate, so I thought
I'd be cute back, water sloshing and all that. We all knew you were
talking about the Eggenfeller, and more power to you! I'm not a nay
sayer, I just wondered aloud if you had a reason for more weight in the
back, for, like Jesse, I was concerned about aft CG. I now know that
you and John are using lighter batteries, as you've explained. I, too,
would like to know how much everything weighs up front, in the panel,
behind the panel. Very important to know this stuff. Nice to know
Eggenfeller is weighing his stuff. I'll weigh mine when the time comes
and post it on my site. On we go.
John J
do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 8:04 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
It is not that we are not saying anything about the weight, rather no
one has one on the plane yet and can discuss the true weights. Can
anyone tell me the Firewall forward weight of a Lycoming with everything
installed? No? Not even with more than 70 flying? SO how do you expect
their to be a published number of a FWF weight of an engine that has not
been installed yet? Exactly, but what Eggenfellner has done is come up
with a new methodology of weighing each and every FWF package, including
the prop before shipping, so every builder will now what it weighs,
including all fluids. I will gladly post this number for all concerned
to review, once I receive my engine package.
I would challenge the Lycoming users/ nay Sayers claiming Eggenfellner
has a higher weight, to do the same thing with a complete FWF/ Prop
combo of an RV10 to post their results as well, before making such a
blanket statement. Lets keep in mind there is a whole bigger weight
issue of a IO540 versus an IO360.
Dan
N289DT
RV10E
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:46 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
They may have a heavier engine, but they were not saying. Something
with water sloshing around, perhaps. However, you raised, once again, a
horse that was on my mind, as well, when I took a look at the dual
battery tray (nice job on the tray, nonetheless). I plan to go with
either integrated battery backup, or something similar to Tim's setup,
light and cheap. Careful with aft CG, guys. Calculate this one
verrrrry carefully.
John J
do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Battery and CG
I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but this does come up every once
in a while. I understand that some people want to fly this plane most
of the time as if it were a 2-seat airplane. As such, it does ride very
close to the forward CG, especially with full tanks. However, putting
another battery in the back to help this "problem", IMHO, is very
counterproductive. I realize that Van's put the first battery back
there for most likely this very reason, but with the stock setup, the
airplane flies fine throughout all CG configurations (light/forward CG
or heavy/aft CG). If you mount a permanent battery aft of the baggage
wall and want to fly the airplane like it was designed to fly (2700lbs),
you better keep your speeds up, because if you stall and get into a
spin, then good luck getting out of it. Would it not be easier, when
flying light, to add some ballast in the baggage area or rear seat? It
certainly doesn't make sense to have to add ballast under the cowling
when you are flying heavy.
All JMHO!
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
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
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 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery and CG |
The people that know me well know that if I'm typing away at
the keyboard, I'm almost always chuckling away while I do it.
So forgive me in advance, but take anything I say that could be
misconstrued as an attack as a feeble attempt at humor.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote:
> I apologize if my comments were taken that way, I was trying to stress
> we did not add any weight, or at least less than a pound, what we did
> was split the weight between two 625's instead of a single 900 series
> like others are using.
> If my comments came across as harsh I did not mean them too, and that is
> usually what is lacking in an email environment is the laughing person
> at the key board!
> Dan
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Michael,
Thanks for the link. I was hoping there was an alternative to buying a
pressure feed spray gun and pot. Though it would be nice to have one.
Vern (#324)
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Interior paint!
<rvbuilder@sausen.net>
This stuff has been around for a while and is popular on some of the
moldless composites like the Long because of its ability to hide
inconsistencies. Details on spray equipment and prep is here:
http://www.zolatoneaim.com/spray.html
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Limbo
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Battery and CG & alternative power |
Here is a reply from George Braly to one of the Lancair guys. It is not
meant to be inflammatory to the Alternate Guys. I for one, considered
what would be the trade-off with the Thielert Centurion 4.0 which is now
being offered to US Type Certificated aircraft under an STC. I have
also given consideration to a throttle de-rated IO-580.
Each of you should know George's credentials so I will post the
following -
Craig,
There is "another whole issue" with diesel engines.
One that NOBODY has discussed in public. It is so
"silent" that it almost appears that to bring up the subject may be like
breaking wind in church.
So... here goes - - you heard it here - - first.
The diesel exhaust is cooler. Is THAT a problem? No.
But let's think a little further.
Why?
Because the CR is much higher. So the exhaust expansion
is more. OK....
But if the CR is much higher then - - so is the peak
internal cylinder pressure.
OK... but that means that the bulk internal combustion
gas temperatures are a lot higher.
And that means that you get a LOT more BTU's transferred
into the cylinder head.
And, as everybody with some diesel experience is aware -
- they tend - - as a result to use rather large radiators.
Because that heat has to be dissipated - - - some way.
HOW? Either through air cooling through cylinder fins
or through a radiator.
EITHER WAY - - - you end up with an ENGINE that may
have a BSFC of around 0.36 to 0.37 (compared to 0.38 to 0.39 for a same
horsepower spark ignition engine ) .
However - - whatever fuel efficiency is realized - - -
is most likely MORE THAN OFFSET by the additional cooling drag
requirements.
End result - - - it likely takes more pounds of fuel to
get you from A to B - - or more Hp to get you the same air speed.
Regards, George
We are all about energy efficiency, performance, cost effective flying
and of course safety... Right. And yes, I have even lusted after the
Williams FJ33 (being a turbine and turbo-prop mechanic by night). Oh
yeh, and while the rest of you are ogling SNF '07, I am going after
certification to work on Rotax 912 engines if that tells you anything
about kit-built aircraft announcements in 2007.
John C.
Thanks Tim for the earlier note.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:39 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG & alternative power
Here are the specs. from Wikipedia:
The FJ33 has a dry weight of less than 300 lb, overall diameter of
21.05in, 47.9in overall length, and produces between 1000 and 1800 lbf
static thrust. Specific fuel consumption at 1200 lbf thrust (SLS, ISA)
is understood to be 0.486 lb/h/lbf.
Works out to about ~97 gallons an hour. Better plan on wet wings:)
Vern (#324 still riveting)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Battery and CG & alternative power
By the way, anyone considered a Williams FJ33 for their
RV-10? It should be much smoother than a 3-blade or 4-blade
prop, and burning something other than 100LL would be a
plus. Maybe I should start another tail kit.... ;)
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
And that is the point I was trying to make, that the Total weight FWF of
any engine for the RV10 is unknown, and at this time we currently do not
know any of the numbers.
What we do know is that on the Subaru side all FWF packages will be
weighed complete, with coolant radiators and prop. And my point was that
I would like to know what a wet weight with accessories, oil coolers,
hoses and prop, and wiring/probes etc a Lycoming weighs. I have the dry
weights of the engine and some accessories, but not as a complete
package for the Lycoming so it is a mute point on weight comparison
until someone does the work necessary to unbolt a complete install and
weigh it as installed.
Conversely to the smaller RV's that install the H6 and have to worry
about to much weight, I am worried about to little weight forward. I
would like nothing more than to come out with the same distribution of
weight across the gear as the Lycoming install but I do not think it
will happen, instead I will have to move the batteries forward to offset
to little engine weight, but time will tell, and that was my point. No,
and I stress no known RV10's are flying with the Eggenfellner package
yet, so anything we are saying is pure conjecture. Now in the next
several weeks I will be able to post to everyone what it weighs when it
got here and what it does to the W&B tables, but until I have it
completely installed we are just making best guesses. I guarantee I will
not fly with the CG anywhere near aft because I will be very worried
about stall recovery, matter of fact if the weight is much different
than the average RV10 install I will ballast/ move things to better
match what is the norm so I can replicate the flight parameters of the
"standard" builders plane...oh wait they are all different because we
each can do our own thing, right? (Here is an example of that poor
attempt at humor)
No offense intended just light hearted banter.
Dan
N289DT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Battery and CG
<james.k.hovis@gmail.com>
Dan,
It's simple, get your empty weight (with coolant) and compare to the
Lyc installations. I can't find it right now (thought Tim had a link
to it), but IIRC, the IO540 weighs dry around 400 to 450 lbs. Now the
dry Subie engine may not weigh as much as the Lyc, but look at the
other things you'll need to run: Radiator, coolant tubing, couple
gallons of coolant, radiator ducting (especially if you're using a
P-51 style scoop, but that's cool!), different engine mount (may be
lighter than the Lyc?) and a reduction unit. All of that leads to the
general comment that any automotive conversion weigh more than a
standard aircraft engine when the ready to run configurations are
compared. Remember the Lyc is designed from the get-go to deliver a
high percentage of its rated power for extended periods, be reliable,
and be as light weight as possible. Car engines just aren't designed
for the same parameters. Plus, the RV-10 was designed around specific
engine installations.
Please don't get me wrong, the trade-off of maybe 50 to 100 lbs loss
of useful load by going to an auto conversion may reap long-term
benefits - fuel cost savings and future overhaul costs. Remember too
that proper balancing is VERY important. The -10 is designed with the
tail surfaces set a specific distance from the wing and with specific
surface areas. This is to give good control authority and keep the
airplane flying stably over it's designed operating speeds. If your
empty CG results in having a full-load CG near or forward of the
designed limit will make it extremely difficult for the tail to lift
the nose wheel off the ground and to maintain level flight. CG at or
aft of the aft limit is just suicide, your control will be UNSTABLE!.
Now, for a whole host of reasons previously discussed, if your empty
weight ends up being say 1,650 lbs, don't assume you can just up the
gross weight spec
to 2,830 lbs to keep the Van's published 1,180 lbs of useful load
without getting a SERIOUS engineering analysis. And keep away from the
published Vne.
I'm not trying to discourage you from doing the Subie installation.
In fact I'm waiting to see how it turns out. But remember, one reason
for buying a Van's airplane is that they did the extensive engineering
legwork to determine a "good" combination of airframe and engine to
perform a specific mission. Whenever someone deviates from that
original design work, you are getting into unknown territory and you
should get serious analysis and advice from professionals so that you
can keep safe and within established aircraft standards.
Let me know how the installation goes (irt empty weight) and how well
it performs in flight!
Kevin Hovis.
On 3/30/07, Lloyd, Daniel R. <LloydDR@wernerco.com> wrote:
> It is not that we are not saying anything about the weight, rather no
> one has one on the plane yet and can discuss the true weights. Can
> anyone tell me the Firewall forward weight of a Lycoming with
everything
> installed? No? Not even with more than 70 flying? SO how do you expect
> their to be a published number of a FWF weight of an engine that has
not
> been installed yet? Exactly, but what Eggenfellner has done is come up
> with a new methodology of weighing each and every FWF package,
including
> the prop before shipping, so every builder will now what it weighs,
> including all fluids. I will gladly post this number for all concerned
> to review, once I receive my engine package.
> I would challenge the Lycoming users/ nay Sayers claiming Eggenfellner
> has a higher weight, to do the same thing with a complete FWF/ Prop
> combo of an RV10 to post their results as well, before making such a
> blanket statement. Lets keep in mind there is a whole bigger weight
> issue of a IO540 versus an IO360.
> Dan
> N289DT
> RV10E
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:46 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
>
>
> They may have a heavier engine, but they were not saying. Something
> with water sloshing around, perhaps. However, you raised, once again,
a
> horse that was on my mind, as well, when I took a look at the dual
> battery tray (nice job on the tray, nonetheless). I plan to go with
> either integrated battery backup, or something similar to Tim's setup,
> light and cheap. Careful with aft CG, guys. Calculate this one
> verrrrry carefully.
>
> John J
>
> do not archive
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Battery and CG
>
>
> I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but this does come up every
once
> in a while. I understand that some people want to fly this plane most
> of the time as if it were a 2-seat airplane. As such, it does ride
very
> close to the forward CG, especially with full tanks. However, putting
> another battery in the back to help this "problem", IMHO, is very
> counterproductive. I realize that Van's put the first battery back
> there for most likely this very reason, but with the stock setup, the
> airplane flies fine throughout all CG configurations (light/forward CG
> or heavy/aft CG). If you mount a permanent battery aft of the baggage
> wall and want to fly the airplane like it was designed to fly
(2700lbs),
> you better keep your speeds up, because if you stall and get into a
> spin, then good luck getting out of it. Would it not be easier, when
> flying light, to add some ballast in the baggage area or rear seat?
It
> certainly doesn't make sense to have to add ballast under the cowling
> when you are flying heavy.
>
>
> All JMHO!
>
>
> 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.matronics
> .com/Navigator?RV10-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
For a single use application like this you might want to check Harbor Freight or
others el cheapo's. Surprisingly, several of their guns are quiet good including
at least one of their pressure feeds. Make sure you are getting a big tip
though, that's the key. Zolatone wants something in the .020 size which is
quite large.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:27 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Interior paint!
Michael,
Thanks for the link. I was hoping there was an alternative to buying a
pressure feed spray gun and pot. Though it would be nice to have one.
Vern (#324)
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Interior paint!
<rvbuilder@sausen.net>
This stuff has been around for a while and is popular on some of the
moldless composites like the Long because of its ability to hide
inconsistencies. Details on spray equipment and prep is here:
http://www.zolatoneaim.com/spray.html
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Limbo
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interior paint! |
On sale right now for $9.99 at HF #43430
I'll be doing my own testing today as I bought it earlier this week-
http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/techinfo/HVLPspraygun.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 11:03 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Interior paint!
> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> For a single use application like this you might want to check Harbor
> Freight or others el cheapo's. Surprisingly, several of their guns are
> quiet good including at least one of their pressure feeds. Make sure you
> are getting a big tip though, that's the key. Zolatone wants something in
> the .020 size which is quite large.
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:27 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Interior paint!
>
>
> Michael,
>
> Thanks for the link. I was hoping there was an alternative to buying a
> pressure feed spray gun and pot. Though it would be nice to have one.
>
> Vern (#324)
> Do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
> (Michael Sausen)
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:50 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Interior paint!
>
> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> This stuff has been around for a while and is popular on some of the
> moldless composites like the Long because of its ability to hide
> inconsistencies. Details on spray equipment and prep is here:
>
> http://www.zolatoneaim.com/spray.html
>
> Michael Sausen
> -10 #352 Limbo
>
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Interesting proposition. Shouldn't be too hard for someone that is prior to the
FWF to weigh all the standard components for a Lyc FWF before they hang them.
I would offer but at my current rate JC might beat me.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:57 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
And that is the point I was trying to make, that the Total weight FWF of
any engine for the RV10 is unknown, and at this time we currently do not
know any of the numbers.
What we do know is that on the Subaru side all FWF packages will be
weighed complete, with coolant radiators and prop. And my point was that
I would like to know what a wet weight with accessories, oil coolers,
hoses and prop, and wiring/probes etc a Lycoming weighs. I have the dry
weights of the engine and some accessories, but not as a complete
package for the Lycoming so it is a mute point on weight comparison
until someone does the work necessary to unbolt a complete install and
weigh it as installed.
Conversely to the smaller RV's that install the H6 and have to worry
about to much weight, I am worried about to little weight forward. I
would like nothing more than to come out with the same distribution of
weight across the gear as the Lycoming install but I do not think it
will happen, instead I will have to move the batteries forward to offset
to little engine weight, but time will tell, and that was my point. No,
and I stress no known RV10's are flying with the Eggenfellner package
yet, so anything we are saying is pure conjecture. Now in the next
several weeks I will be able to post to everyone what it weighs when it
got here and what it does to the W&B tables, but until I have it
completely installed we are just making best guesses. I guarantee I will
not fly with the CG anywhere near aft because I will be very worried
about stall recovery, matter of fact if the weight is much different
than the average RV10 install I will ballast/ move things to better
match what is the norm so I can replicate the flight parameters of the
"standard" builders plane...oh wait they are all different because we
each can do our own thing, right? (Here is an example of that poor
attempt at humor)
No offense intended just light hearted banter.
Dan
N289DT
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Battery and CG & alternative power |
I'm guessing CR is referring to the Cetane Rating?
Do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:39 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG & alternative power
Here is a reply from George Braly to one of the Lancair guys. It is not mea
nt to be inflammatory to the Alternate Guys. I for one, considered what wo
uld be the trade-off with the Thielert Centurion 4.0 which is now being off
ered to US Type Certificated aircraft under an STC. I have also given cons
ideration to a throttle de-rated IO-580.
Each of you should know George's credentials so I will post the following -
Craig,
There is "another whole issue" with diesel engines.
One that NOBODY has discussed in public. It is so "silent" that it almost
appears that to bring up the subject may be like breaking wind in church.
So... here goes - - you heard it here - - first.
The diesel exhaust is cooler. Is THAT a problem? No. But let's think a
little further.
Why?
Because the CR is much higher. So the exhaust expansion is more. OK....
But if the CR is much higher then - - so is the peak internal cylinder pres
sure.
OK... but that means that the bulk internal combustion gas temperatures are
a lot higher.
And that means that you get a LOT more BTU's transferred into the cylinder
head.
And, as everybody with some diesel experience is aware - - they tend - - as
a result to use rather large radiators.
Because that heat has to be dissipated - - - some way.
HOW? Either through air cooling through cylinder fins or through a radiat
or.
EITHER WAY - - - you end up with an ENGINE that may have a BSFC of around
0.36 to 0.37 (compared to 0.38 to 0.39 for a same horsepower spark igniti
on engine ) .
However - - whatever fuel efficiency is realized - - - is most likely MORE
THAN OFFSET by the additional cooling drag requirements.
End result - - - it likely takes more pounds of fuel to get you from A to
B - - or more Hp to get you the same air speed.
Regards, George
We are all about energy efficiency, performance, cost effective flying and
of course safety... Right. And yes, I have even lusted after the Williams
FJ33 (being a turbine and turbo-prop mechanic by night). Oh yeh, and while
the rest of you are ogling SNF '07, I am going after certification to work
on Rotax 912 engines if that tells you anything about kit-built aircraft a
nnouncements in 2007.
John C.
Thanks Tim for the earlier note.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:39 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG & alternative power
Here are the specs. from Wikipedia:
The FJ33 has a dry weight of less than 300 lb, overall diameter of
21.05in, 47.9in overall length, and produces between 1000 and 1800 lbf
static thrust. Specific fuel consumption at 1200 lbf thrust (SLS, ISA)
is understood to be 0.486 lb/h/lbf.
Works out to about ~97 gallons an hour. Better plan on wet wings:)
Vern (#324 still riveting)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Battery and CG & alternative power
By the way, anyone considered a Williams FJ33 for their
RV-10? It should be much smoother than a 3-blade or 4-blade
prop, and burning something other than 100LL would be a
plus. Maybe I should start another tail kit.... ;)
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interior paint!- correction |
I stand corrected. the number is 47016
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=47016 (it
is $9.99 at the store)
I bought this gun and a $6.99 regulator.
Pascal
Do not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pascal" <rv10builder@verizon.net>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Interior paint!
> On sale right now for $9.99 at HF #43430
> I'll be doing my own testing today as I bought it earlier this week-
> http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/techinfo/HVLPspraygun.html
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 11:03 AM
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Interior paint!
>
>
>> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>>
>> For a single use application like this you might want to check Harbor
>> Freight or others el cheapo's. Surprisingly, several of their guns are
>> quiet good including at least one of their pressure feeds. Make sure you
>> are getting a big tip though, that's the key. Zolatone wants something
>> in the .020 size which is quite large.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith
>> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:27 PM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Interior paint!
>>
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> Thanks for the link. I was hoping there was an alternative to buying a
>> pressure feed spray gun and pot. Though it would be nice to have one.
>>
>> Vern (#324)
>> Do not archive
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
>> (Michael Sausen)
>> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:50 AM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Interior paint!
>>
>> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>>
>> This stuff has been around for a while and is popular on some of the
>> moldless composites like the Long because of its ability to hide
>> inconsistencies. Details on spray equipment and prep is here:
>>
>> http://www.zolatoneaim.com/spray.html
>>
>> Michael Sausen
>> -10 #352 Limbo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
You're absolutely right, there's no reason to spring for a high quality
setup. Something, with the right nozzle size from Harbor Freight will do
just fine. Thanks for the tip.
Vern (#324)
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 11:04 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Interior paint!
<rvbuilder@sausen.net>
For a single use application like this you might want to check Harbor
Freight or others el cheapo's. Surprisingly, several of their guns are
quiet good including at least one of their pressure feeds. Make sure
you are getting a big tip though, that's the key. Zolatone wants
something in the .020 size which is quite large.
Michael
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Garmin /Apollo SL 40 radio |
Installed one with no issues. Good antenna power and VSWR.
Bill
do not archive
Matt Reeves <mattreeves@yahoo.com> wrote:
---------------------------------
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I'll try to do it today.
JOhn
>From: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern@teclabsinc.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Interior paint!
>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:25:25 -0700
>
>
>John,
>
>Would you please post a picture of the ceramic glaze gun you used? I did
>a web search and came up with a huge assortment of different kinds and
>sizes.
>
>Vern (#324 fuselage)
>Do not archive
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:26 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Interior paint!
>
><indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
>
>Go to the Zolatone web site and they tell you to use a Binks 2001, with
>a
>big tip on it. I don't recal the number because I could not locate one
>easily so I used a gun which shoot ceramic glaze.
>
>John
>
>
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
What is appearent however is your enthusiasm at being the person at the head
of the calvary. You are proud and excited, obviously you see the light at
the end of the tunnel. Keep pluggin away.
get back to work!!!
>From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:57:00 -0400
>
>I apologize if my comments were taken that way, I was trying to stress
>we did not add any weight, or at least less than a pound, what we did
>was split the weight between two 625's instead of a single 900 series
>like others are using.
>If my comments came across as harsh I did not mean them too, and that is
>usually what is lacking in an email environment is the laughing person
>at the key board!
>Dan
>
> _____
>
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
>Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:04 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
>
>
>Dan, I was not trying to get into any type of engine discussion. You
>guys were being cute about not raising the engine debate, so I thought
>I'd be cute back, water sloshing and all that. We all knew you were
>talking about the Eggenfeller, and more power to you! I'm not a nay
>sayer, I just wondered aloud if you had a reason for more weight in the
>back, for, like Jesse, I was concerned about aft CG. I now know that
>you and John are using lighter batteries, as you've explained. I, too,
>would like to know how much everything weighs up front, in the panel,
>behind the panel. Very important to know this stuff. Nice to know
>Eggenfeller is weighing his stuff. I'll weigh mine when the time comes
>and post it on my site. On we go.
>
>John J
>
>do not archive
>
> _____
>
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
>R.
>Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 8:04 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
>
>
>It is not that we are not saying anything about the weight, rather no
>one has one on the plane yet and can discuss the true weights. Can
>anyone tell me the Firewall forward weight of a Lycoming with everything
>installed? No? Not even with more than 70 flying? SO how do you expect
>their to be a published number of a FWF weight of an engine that has not
>been installed yet? Exactly, but what Eggenfellner has done is come up
>with a new methodology of weighing each and every FWF package, including
>the prop before shipping, so every builder will now what it weighs,
>including all fluids. I will gladly post this number for all concerned
>to review, once I receive my engine package.
>I would challenge the Lycoming users/ nay Sayers claiming Eggenfellner
>has a higher weight, to do the same thing with a complete FWF/ Prop
>combo of an RV10 to post their results as well, before making such a
>blanket statement. Lets keep in mind there is a whole bigger weight
>issue of a IO540 versus an IO360.
>Dan
>N289DT
>RV10E
>
> _____
>
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
>Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:46 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
>
>
>They may have a heavier engine, but they were not saying. Something
>with water sloshing around, perhaps. However, you raised, once again, a
>horse that was on my mind, as well, when I took a look at the dual
>battery tray (nice job on the tray, nonetheless). I plan to go with
>either integrated battery backup, or something similar to Tim's setup,
>light and cheap. Careful with aft CG, guys. Calculate this one
>verrrrry carefully.
>
>John J
>
>do not archive
>
> _____
>
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
>Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Battery and CG
>
>
>I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but this does come up every once
>in a while. I understand that some people want to fly this plane most
>of the time as if it were a 2-seat airplane. As such, it does ride very
>close to the forward CG, especially with full tanks. However, putting
>another battery in the back to help this "problem", IMHO, is very
>counterproductive. I realize that Van's put the first battery back
>there for most likely this very reason, but with the stock setup, the
>airplane flies fine throughout all CG configurations (light/forward CG
>or heavy/aft CG). If you mount a permanent battery aft of the baggage
>wall and want to fly the airplane like it was designed to fly (2700lbs),
>you better keep your speeds up, because if you stall and get into a
>spin, then good luck getting out of it. Would it not be easier, when
>flying light, to add some ballast in the baggage area or rear seat? It
>certainly doesn't make sense to have to add ballast under the cowling
>when you are flying heavy.
>
>
>All JMHO!
>
>
>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.matronics
>.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
>.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>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 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Battery and CG & alternative power |
Compression Ratio - CR. Diesel is not a spark ignition cycle but rather
a heat cycle due to compression heating of the fuel/air mixture.
Instead of 7.5, 8.7, 9.5 or 10.0:1 try something more like 20+:1. The
parts have to sustain greater combustion pressures as well. George can
be the Grand Poo Baa when it comes to understanding and studying LOP/ROP
and combustion pressures.
The Thielert 1.7 liter twin (the Diamond D-42) obtained miserly
smashingly low fuel consumption on their way back over the pond. The
need for heat dissipation puts our lowly Avgas powered units to shame.
Air transfer cooling and water cooling are not to be taken lightly hence
his post. His comment focuses interest in drag induced P-51 like
induction cowls and their effect on desired airspeed. The RVator and my
favorite author did a piece on a heat to head competition of an ALT Auto
conversion against a Lycosaurus. In climb, noise, cruise speed and fuel
economy. Its time for a stroll down the archive halls. At high
altitudes, Jet A wins out over ignition and avgas every time. At lower
FL like 120/160/180 you better have a turbo prop or an RV-10.
Don't guess Grasshopper.
John
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 11:39 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG & alternative power
I'm guessing CR is referring to the Cetane Rating?
Do not archive
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Sam James Plenum Inquiry |
Has anyone ALREADY ordered /received the SAM James Plenum for the
IO-540? If you have would you contact me off list to compare notes?
(I've already spoken with Ed Hayden and Gary Foster)
THANKS
Deems Davis # 406
Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
http://deemsrv10.com/
>
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I appreciate your sense of humor through all of this. Experimenting is what
homebuilding is all about. Talk to all who are concerned and make sure you
have addressed the issues they raise, then forge forward. Ain't the
freedom great.
Gary
41274
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 1:57 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
And that is the point I was trying to make, that the Total weight FWF of
any engine for the RV10 is unknown, and at this time we currently do not
know any of the numbers.
What we do know is that on the Subaru side all FWF packages will be
weighed complete, with coolant radiators and prop. And my point was that
I would like to know what a wet weight with accessories, oil coolers,
hoses and prop, and wiring/probes etc a Lycoming weighs. I have the dry
weights of the engine and some accessories, but not as a complete
package for the Lycoming so it is a mute point on weight comparison
until someone does the work necessary to unbolt a complete install and
weigh it as installed.
Conversely to the smaller RV's that install the H6 and have to worry
about to much weight, I am worried about to little weight forward. I
would like nothing more than to come out with the same distribution of
weight across the gear as the Lycoming install but I do not think it
will happen, instead I will have to move the batteries forward to offset
to little engine weight, but time will tell, and that was my point. No,
and I stress no known RV10's are flying with the Eggenfellner package
yet, so anything we are saying is pure conjecture. Now in the next
several weeks I will be able to post to everyone what it weighs when it
got here and what it does to the W&B tables, but until I have it
completely installed we are just making best guesses. I guarantee I will
not fly with the CG anywhere near aft because I will be very worried
about stall recovery, matter of fact if the weight is much different
than the average RV10 install I will ballast/ move things to better
match what is the norm so I can replicate the flight parameters of the
"standard" builders plane...oh wait they are all different because we
each can do our own thing, right? (Here is an example of that poor
attempt at humor)
No offense intended just light hearted banter.
Dan
N289DT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Battery and CG
<james.k.hovis@gmail.com>
Dan,
It's simple, get your empty weight (with coolant) and compare to the
Lyc installations. I can't find it right now (thought Tim had a link
to it), but IIRC, the IO540 weighs dry around 400 to 450 lbs. Now the
dry Subie engine may not weigh as much as the Lyc, but look at the
other things you'll need to run: Radiator, coolant tubing, couple
gallons of coolant, radiator ducting (especially if you're using a
P-51 style scoop, but that's cool!), different engine mount (may be
lighter than the Lyc?) and a reduction unit. All of that leads to the
general comment that any automotive conversion weigh more than a
standard aircraft engine when the ready to run configurations are
compared. Remember the Lyc is designed from the get-go to deliver a
high percentage of its rated power for extended periods, be reliable,
and be as light weight as possible. Car engines just aren't designed
for the same parameters. Plus, the RV-10 was designed around specific
engine installations.
Please don't get me wrong, the trade-off of maybe 50 to 100 lbs loss
of useful load by going to an auto conversion may reap long-term
benefits - fuel cost savings and future overhaul costs. Remember too
that proper balancing is VERY important. The -10 is designed with the
tail surfaces set a specific distance from the wing and with specific
surface areas. This is to give good control authority and keep the
airplane flying stably over it's designed operating speeds. If your
empty CG results in having a full-load CG near or forward of the
designed limit will make it extremely difficult for the tail to lift
the nose wheel off the ground and to maintain level flight. CG at or
aft of the aft limit is just suicide, your control will be UNSTABLE!.
Now, for a whole host of reasons previously discussed, if your empty
weight ends up being say 1,650 lbs, don't assume you can just up the
gross weight spec
to 2,830 lbs to keep the Van's published 1,180 lbs of useful load
without getting a SERIOUS engineering analysis. And keep away from the
published Vne.
I'm not trying to discourage you from doing the Subie installation.
In fact I'm waiting to see how it turns out. But remember, one reason
for buying a Van's airplane is that they did the extensive engineering
legwork to determine a "good" combination of airframe and engine to
perform a specific mission. Whenever someone deviates from that
original design work, you are getting into unknown territory and you
should get serious analysis and advice from professionals so that you
can keep safe and within established aircraft standards.
Let me know how the installation goes (irt empty weight) and how well
it performs in flight!
Kevin Hovis.
On 3/30/07, Lloyd, Daniel R. <LloydDR@wernerco.com> wrote:
> It is not that we are not saying anything about the weight, rather no
> one has one on the plane yet and can discuss the true weights. Can
> anyone tell me the Firewall forward weight of a Lycoming with
everything
> installed? No? Not even with more than 70 flying? SO how do you expect
> their to be a published number of a FWF weight of an engine that has
not
> been installed yet? Exactly, but what Eggenfellner has done is come up
> with a new methodology of weighing each and every FWF package,
including
> the prop before shipping, so every builder will now what it weighs,
> including all fluids. I will gladly post this number for all concerned
> to review, once I receive my engine package.
> I would challenge the Lycoming users/ nay Sayers claiming Eggenfellner
> has a higher weight, to do the same thing with a complete FWF/ Prop
> combo of an RV10 to post their results as well, before making such a
> blanket statement. Lets keep in mind there is a whole bigger weight
> issue of a IO540 versus an IO360.
> Dan
> N289DT
> RV10E
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:46 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG
>
>
> They may have a heavier engine, but they were not saying. Something
> with water sloshing around, perhaps. However, you raised, once again,
a
> horse that was on my mind, as well, when I took a look at the dual
> battery tray (nice job on the tray, nonetheless). I plan to go with
> either integrated battery backup, or something similar to Tim's setup,
> light and cheap. Careful with aft CG, guys. Calculate this one
> verrrrry carefully.
>
> John J
>
> do not archive
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Battery and CG
>
>
> I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but this does come up every
once
> in a while. I understand that some people want to fly this plane most
> of the time as if it were a 2-seat airplane. As such, it does ride
very
> close to the forward CG, especially with full tanks. However, putting
> another battery in the back to help this "problem", IMHO, is very
> counterproductive. I realize that Van's put the first battery back
> there for most likely this very reason, but with the stock setup, the
> airplane flies fine throughout all CG configurations (light/forward CG
> or heavy/aft CG). If you mount a permanent battery aft of the baggage
> wall and want to fly the airplane like it was designed to fly
(2700lbs),
> you better keep your speeds up, because if you stall and get into a
> spin, then good luck getting out of it. Would it not be easier, when
> flying light, to add some ballast in the baggage area or rear seat?
It
> certainly doesn't make sense to have to add ballast under the cowling
> when you are flying heavy.
>
>
> All JMHO!
>
>
> 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.matronics
> .com/Navigator?RV10-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Battery and CG & alternative power |
Well, technically I am also right as diesel fuel quality is measured (as
part of ASTM D 6751), by among other things, cetane (hexadecane) rating (h
ow well it auto ignites compared to (iso-)octane which is how well it doesn
't auto ignite also known as knock) which directly affects everything that
George is talking about.
As someone who owns a large bore diesel truck and has been around diesel
equipment most of my life, I am painfully aware of cooling (and heating) is
sues around operating diesel equipment, but that wasn't my question now was
it. :-) Talking diesels I just assume higher compression ratios. Sorry,
long winded answer to a long winded answer. (and I am laughing as I hit s
end!)
Michael
Do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG & alternative power
Compression Ratio - CR. Diesel is not a spark ignition cycle but rather a
heat cycle due to compression heating of the fuel/air mixture. Instead of
7.5, 8.7, 9.5 or 10.0:1 try something more like 20+:1. The parts have to s
ustain greater combustion pressures as well. George can be the Grand Poo B
aa when it comes to understanding and studying LOP/ROP and combustion press
ures.
The Thielert 1.7 liter twin (the Diamond D-42) obtained miserly smashingly
low fuel consumption on their way back over the pond. The need for heat di
ssipation puts our lowly Avgas powered units to shame.
Air transfer cooling and water cooling are not to be taken lightly hence hi
s post. His comment focuses interest in drag induced P-51 like induction c
owls and their effect on desired airspeed. The RVator and my favorite auth
or did a piece on a heat to head competition of an ALT Auto conversion agai
nst a Lycosaurus. In climb, noise, cruise speed and fuel economy. Its tim
e for a stroll down the archive halls. At high altitudes, Jet A wins out o
ver ignition and avgas every time. At lower FL like 120/160/180 you better
have a turbo prop or an RV-10.
Don't guess Grasshopper.
John
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder (Michael Sausen)
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 11:39 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG & alternative power
I'm guessing CR is referring to the Cetane Rating?
Do not archive
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Sam James Plenum Inquiry |
Deems, the Canadian had one with the three blade that flew for the first
time last month. He may be on this list.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 1:40 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Sam James Plenum Inquiry
Has anyone ALREADY ordered /received the SAM James Plenum for the
IO-540? If you have would you contact me off list to compare notes?
(I've already spoken with Ed Hayden and Gary Foster)
THANKS
Deems Davis # 406
Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
http://deemsrv10.com/
>
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Battery and CG & alternative power |
>From my Lancair Buddies:
Gang,
I wrote Thielert about the feasibility of installing their engine in
an experimental aircraft - specifically a Legacy. The reply:
Dear Mr. Keyworth,
Thank you for your interest in the CENTURION aircraft engines product
range. Currently we do offer the CENTURION 2.0 (135 PS) engine and the
CENTURION 4.0 (350 PS).
Whereas the CENTURION 2.0 (135 PS) can be fuelled with either Diesel
or Jet A1, the stronger CENTURION 4.0 is a pure Jet fuel engine. Today
the CENTURION 2.0 (135 PS) holds an EASA and an FAA type-certificate.
Our new CENTURION 4.0 is EASA type certificated and we are presently
working on the FAA certificate.
See our general brochure:
http://www.thielert.com/download/prospekt_retrofit_en.pdf (8MB)
The CENTURION 2.0 (135 PS) engine offers - in comparison to the
original engines of the Cessna 172 and Piper 28 series - many advantages
concerning the safety, comfort, performance and fuel efficiency.
Especially the enormous profitability of our engine is due to the
significant lower fuel consumption with the cheaper Diesel or Jet A1
fuel.
We do offer Retrofit-Kits for a variety of models from the Cessna 172
and Piper PA 28 series. Each Kit includes: New engine mount, engine,
reduction gear, turbocharger, starter, alternator, cooling system, prop
governor, vacuum pump, single lever control selector, FADEC, engine
instruments, wiring harness and a new MT-variable pitch propeller.
The same benefits basically will be offered by the CENTURION 4.0 Jet
Fuel engine:
The engine will be single lever controlled through our FADEC (Full
Authority Digital Engine Control).
Max power of 350 PS(DIN 15=B0C) will be available for 5 minutes;
propeller 2.300 RPM.
Full HP will be available up to approximately 12.000 ft.
Max continuous power will be appr. 330 PS(DIN 15=B0C); propeller 2.300
RPM.
At 18.000 ft we estimate approx. continuous 290 PS(DIN 15=B0C).
At FL 240 we estimate approx. continuous 250 PS(DIN 15=B0C).
Certified service ceiling is FL 250.
For the cabin pressurization a separate compressor, driven by our
accessory gear, will be available.
Full power (350 PS DIN 15=B0C) fuel consumption at sea level =
roughly 20.1 gallons per hour Best Economy (60 % rated power - 210 PS
DIN 15=B0C) = estimated 11.0 gallons per hour
We currently estimate the weight of the CENTURION 4.0 complete & dry
including the gearbox, starter, alternator, harness and FADEC depending
on the installation, at 620 lbs.
As mentioned, until today Thielert Aircraft Engines has developed
Retrofit-Kits for the Cessna 172 and PA 28 series with our smaller
CENTURION 2.0 (135 PS) engine.
Our engines show a different complexity and have a highly
sophisticated electrical system, which requires an installation
according to regulations and procedures as you find in certified
aircraft. Thus, we cannot offer the CENTURION engines for
experimental/Kit installations. [Emphasis mine]
If you do have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely
Wolfgang Biereth
John C. - just for a perspective
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Battery and CG & alternative power |
Me too, George is, I am sure laughing as well as to what he intended.
On the D-42, the cooling issue was a Big Deal. I have great pictures if
anyone wants to view my shots of my partners D-42 that was at OSH '06.
Study of the European Accident reports shows a lot of effort was focused
on the topic and its cure. Having flown over to Germany a few months
ago. They are hyper about solar, wind powered and anything non MOGAS.
Our Senator Smith (no Jimmy Stewart) is beating the drum on Investment
credits for Wind Power. Now that is a large composite blade assembly.
Hope the rest of the Alternate Engines guys enjoy the specifics on the
Centurion 4.0. With RSVM taking out everything above FL250, Jet A is a
non issue today at our FLs. The McDonald's deep fat fry cookers I
cleaned as a kid for $1.00 - now that's environmentally cheap as long as
you don't mind a plane that breaks Wind rather than cuts through it.
John
Do not Archive or post to the RV Builder Hotline either
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 1:56 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Battery and CG & alternative power
Well, technically I am also right as diesel fuel quality is measured
(as part of ASTM D 6751), by among other things, cetane (hexadecane)
rating (how well it auto ignites compared to (iso-)octane which is how
well it doesn't auto ignite also known as knock) which directly affects
everything that George is talking about.
As someone who owns a large bore diesel truck and has been around
diesel equipment most of my life, I am painfully aware of cooling (and
heating) issues around operating diesel equipment, but that wasn't my
question now was it. :-) Talking diesels I just assume higher
compression ratios. Sorry, long winded answer to a long winded answer.
(and I am laughing as I hit send!)
Michael
Do not archive
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Try searching for "POH" Pilot Operating Handbook, or AFM Airplane
Flight Manual. Take a Cessna or Piper POH and adapt it.
Richard Reynolds
On Mar 30, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Sam Marlow wrote:
> Where do I start? Do one of you guys already flying have a source
> for a manual?
> Thanks,
> Sam Marlow
>
>
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Aluminum body filler recommendations sought |
After my misstep w/ Bondo in the interior of the cabin cover I'm gun shy
about approaching the topic of body filler, But......... due to my less
than perfect riveting technique, there are some places on the airframe
the I want to 'fill' and otherwise cosmetically doctor prior to
painting. So I'm looking for recommendations. What body fillers have
people used or are planning to use? And are they compatible w/ aluminum?
I'm assuming that most auto body fillers are designed for steel. I've
been using poly fibers Super-Fil on the Fiberglass/Epoxy parts, and the
can says that it can be applied to any surface, is this a suitable filler?
Deems Davis # 406
Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
http://deemsrv10.com/
> *
> *
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
The UPS truck just dropped off 2 Lycoming manuals
1. Publication Number 60297-10 date June 2006 revision 60297-10-1
OPERATORS MANUAL est 50-100 pages
2. Detailed Specifications for Engine, Aircraft Model IO-540-D4A5,
-D4B5, D4C5 260 horsepower Direct Drive pub No. 2319-C 3 may 1990
Let me know if you want/need copies.
Deems
>
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Aluminum body filler recommendations sought |
Go to your auto store and get EverCoat Metal Glaze. Don't let them talk you
into a substitute. It is a thin bondo like material that is catalized and
you can sand it in 2 hours with 125 grit and in 4 hours 180 grit. Works
great.
Now for the primer wars-- Since I am an old Glasair builder and liked the
smooth look, and since you have to fill the transition from the cabin top to
the edges, I decided to fill all my rivets for that go-fast look. I think
it produces a better looking airframe.
Hold the flame throwers here, to each his own.
Gary
40274
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 7:25 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Aluminum body filler recommendations sought
After my misstep w/ Bondo in the interior of the cabin cover I'm gun shy
about approaching the topic of body filler, But......... due to my less
than perfect riveting technique, there are some places on the airframe
the I want to 'fill' and otherwise cosmetically doctor prior to
painting. So I'm looking for recommendations. What body fillers have
people used or are planning to use? And are they compatible w/ aluminum?
I'm assuming that most auto body fillers are designed for steel. I've
been using poly fibers Super-Fil on the Fiberglass/Epoxy parts, and the
can says that it can be applied to any surface, is this a suitable filler?
Deems Davis # 406
Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
http://deemsrv10.com/
> *
> *
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Oopss - I've done it again |
OOPPS!!!!!!!!!!!
I've done it again !!!!!!
I had intended this to be directed to a specific individual vs the
entire universe.
Please disregard my 'offer'
Deems
Message 55
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum body filler recommendations sought |
Deems,
I would use Super fill to get everything filled it you want to do.....
......then wait to acid etch and Alodine before you FINAL FILL with two
part filler like EVERCOAT Metal Glaze or Glaze coat. Then Prime as most
of these fillers are NOT waterproof and need the primer over them befor
e final paint.
We did West System on everything then acid etch and alodine...........no
w we are finishing the fine lines/holes with Glaze coat. Most shops w
anna use BONDO then finish with Metal glaze.....then prime for final pai
nt. Bondo is fast and easy that is why they use it. I was amazed how
much Epoxy we had to put on the top just forward of the windshield to ge
t a nice CURVE ..........then ribs in that area tend to be flattened out
a lot.
BTW.I will take a couple of those Lycoming Manuals..................
DEAN 40449
________________________________________________________________________
Interested in getting caught up on today's news?
Click here to checkout USA TODAY Headlines.
http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=198954&u=http://www.usatoday.com/news/f
ront.htm?csp=24
<html><P>Deems,</P>
<P> I would use Super fill to get everything filled it you want to
do...........then wait to acid etch and Alodine before you FINAL FILL w
ith two part filler like EVERCOAT Metal Glaze or Glaze coat. Then
Prime as most of these fillers are NOT waterproof and need the primer ov
er them before final paint.</P>
<P>We did West System on everything then acid etch and alodine..........
.now we are finishing the fine lines/holes with Glaze coat. &
nbsp; Most shops wanna use BONDO then finish with Metal glaze.....then p
rime for final paint. Bondo is fast and easy that is why the
y use it. I was amazed how much Epoxy we had to put on the top jus
t forward of the windshield to get a nice CURVE ..........then ribs in t
hat area tend to be flattened out a lot.</P>
<P>BTW.I will take a couple of those Lycoming Manuals..................<
/P>
<P>DEAN 40449</P>
<font face="Times-New-Roman" size="2"><br><br>______________________
__________________________________________________<br>
<a href="http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=198954&u=http://www.usatoday
.com/news/front.htm?csp=24">Interested in getting caught up on today's
news?<br>
Click here to checkout <B>USA TODAY Headlines</B>.</a><br></font>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 56
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
Message 57
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I wonder if Tim O gives full credit go GG or the other way around, because I
got one that looks a lot like that which I got from Tim O. It looks like
most of the RV-10 community has the same POH. Maybe we could do a
group-printing of POH. :-)
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 Rick
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: POM
I have been tayloring mine based on General Grumpy's...he gets full credit
for the layout and design.
Rick S.
40185
Message 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Aluminum body filler recommendations sought |
I love this stuff. Strong, really light and goes on super smooth.
JOhn G.
http://www.uschem.com/products/index.html
SPLIT-SECOND
Rapid Sanding Glazing Putty-- ONLY USC MAKES IT.
Guaranteed to sand faster and easier. Easier than anything else!
Sands in 15 minutes or less!
Super lightweight, weighs 35% less than standard polyester putties.
Adheres to galvanized metal, fiberglass and aluminum.
Stain free, tack free formula.
Sand next day without losing performance.
Ultra-smooth texture for great spreading and feather-edging.
With Raspberry Cream Hardener.
You will need a PDF reader to be able to view one of the documents below. If
you do not have the Adobe Acrobat Reader, click on the icon to the right and
follow the instructions.
PART # DESCRIPTION SIZE # / CASE WEIGHT CLICK BELOW
26020 Split-Second Squat Quart Can (1.2 lbs.) 6 8 lbs. view msds
view tech bulletin
26023 Split-Second Wide opening Squat Can (1.9 lbs.) 6 12 lbs. view msds
view tech bulletin
Return to Product List
>From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Aluminum body filler recommendations sought
>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:24:36 -0700
>
>
>After my misstep w/ Bondo in the interior of the cabin cover I'm gun shy
>about approaching the topic of body filler, But......... due to my less
>than perfect riveting technique, there are some places on the airframe the
>I want to 'fill' and otherwise cosmetically doctor prior to painting. So
>I'm looking for recommendations. What body fillers have people used or are
>planning to use? And are they compatible w/ aluminum? I'm assuming that
>most auto body fillers are designed for steel. I've been using poly fibers
>Super-Fil on the Fiberglass/Epoxy parts, and the can says that it can be
>applied to any surface, is this a suitable filler?
>
>Deems Davis # 406
>Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
>http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>>*
>>*
>
>
Message 59
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Aluminum body filler recommendations sought |
Deems,
I've had great luck with each of the fillers below. They contain aluminum
and sand easy. I used it for the aluminum, primarily to fill seams and hide
rows of rivets for a smooth look on one my first planes. I haven't noticed
any cracking or shrinking yet. I'm thinkin' the stuff expands and contracts
at a rate closer to the base material..although I've been wrong before.
Regardless, I plan to use a bunch of it on the 10 to cover my "beauty
marks"..
Steve
40205
Iflyrv10.com
U.S. Chem Metal Fillers
All-Metal Premium Aluminum Filled Repair Compound
The world's first aluminum filled repair compound. Preferred product for
restoration work and classic car repairs. Excellent adhesion to metals or
wood. Can be drilled and tapped. Prevents bleed-through and bleaching. Ideal
for metal leveling and mending, rust repair, use over spot welds and as a
finish or barrier coat over all types of fillers. Aluminum-filled, rustproof
and waterproof body filler. Requires minimal shaping or grinding. Has the
look and feel of lead. Includes All-Metal liquid reactor.
Gallon - USC 14010 | Quart - USC 14060
Metal-2-MetalT
Aluminum filled body repair filler for metal surfaces. Has excellent
corrosion resistance and superior adhesion to galvanized steel and aluminum.
Will not sag. Best known as the "nearest thing to lead." Moisture proof.
Rustproof. Easily sands to a fine featheredge. Metal-2-MetalT liquid reactor
included.
CATALOG NO.
SIZE
UNITS/CASE
WT./CASE
611
.75 oz. Reactor
24
1 lbs.
889
Quart
6
20 lbs.
MSDS 100611_Metal-2-Metal_Reactor_7-12-05.doc 100611French Liquid
Activator 10-23-02.pdf 100889cf Metal 2 Metal 1-23-07.pdf 100889
Metal-2-Metal 1-23-07.pdf <javascript:__doPostBack('ibMSDS','')> View
<http://www.evercoat.com/imgs/pis/M2MPIS.pdf> Info
<http://www.evercoat.com/imgs/salesflyers/Specialty%20Fillers%204%20pger.pdf
> Sales Flyer
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 7:25 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Aluminum body filler recommendations sought
After my misstep w/ Bondo in the interior of the cabin cover I'm gun shy
about approaching the topic of body filler, But......... due to my less
than perfect riveting technique, there are some places on the airframe
the I want to 'fill' and otherwise cosmetically doctor prior to
painting. So I'm looking for recommendations. What body fillers have
people used or are planning to use? And are they compatible w/ aluminum?
I'm assuming that most auto body fillers are designed for steel. I've
been using poly fibers Super-Fil on the Fiberglass/Epoxy parts, and the
can says that it can be applied to any surface, is this a suitable filler?
Deems Davis # 406
Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
http://deemsrv10.com/
> *
> *
Message 60
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Dave,
I had my QB Wings & Fuselage delivered by Tony Partain and they were not
scheduled to be crated but the wings still arrived in a box. Don't know
why.
Here are a couple of pics in case yours come this way also.
Kevin
40494
tail/empennage
The cradles were built from the commonly referenced design:
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Leikam
Subject: RV10-List: QB Wings
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
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! --
|