Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:44 AM - 3 bladed prop issue (Wayne Edgerton)
2. 04:53 AM - Gear leg geometry (McGANN, Ron)
3. 05:55 AM - Re: 3 bladed prop issue (Tim Olson)
4. 06:10 AM - Re: Re: Eggenfellner delivered. (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
5. 06:15 AM - Re: Re: Eggenfellner delivered. (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
6. 06:15 AM - Re: Gear leg geometry (Jesse Saint)
7. 06:23 AM - Re: Establishing gross weight (James K Hovis)
8. 06:35 AM - Re: Establishing gross weight (Jesse Saint)
9. 06:35 AM - Re: Gear leg geometry (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
10. 06:44 AM - Re: Re: Eggenfellner delivered. (Jesse Saint)
11. 06:54 AM - Re: Door Hardware - you'll want these! (Deems Davis)
12. 07:12 AM - Re: Gear leg geometry (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
13. 07:18 AM - Re: Establishing gross weight (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
14. 07:20 AM - Re: Establishing gross weight (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
15. 07:26 AM - looking for accommodations during a trip (Rob Kermanj)
16. 07:27 AM - Re: Comm antenna placement (Vern W. Smith)
17. 07:43 AM - Re: Establishing gross weight (James K Hovis)
18. 07:48 AM - Re: Establishing gross weight (Deems Davis)
19. 08:31 AM - Re: Establishing gross weight (Rick)
20. 08:34 AM - Re: Establishing gross weight (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
21. 09:01 AM - Re: Establishing gross weight (JSMcGrew@aol.com)
22. 09:25 AM - Re: Establishing gross weight (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
23. 09:26 AM - FW: [OhioValleyRVators] Clinic Pics & the 'RV Flight' (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
24. 10:42 AM - Re: Establishing gross weight (Phillips, Jack)
25. 11:03 AM - Rosen Visor Pics (Jesse Saint)
26. 11:18 AM - Re: Establishing gross weight (KiloPapa)
27. 11:47 AM - Re: Establishing gross weight (James K Hovis)
28. 01:21 PM - Re: Rosen Visor Pics (Larry Rosen)
29. 01:40 PM - Re: Establishing gross weight (JSMcGrew@aol.com)
30. 01:42 PM - Re: Gear leg geometry (The McGough Family)
31. 02:37 PM - Screw removal (Eric_Kallio)
32. 02:50 PM - AHRS/magnetometer location (Jay Rowe)
33. 02:59 PM - Re: AHRS/magnetometer location (Condrey, Bob (US SSA))
34. 03:00 PM - Re: Screw removal (Rob Kermanj)
35. 03:01 PM - Re: AHRS/magnetometer location (JSMcGrew@aol.com)
36. 03:19 PM - Re: AHRS/magnetometer location (Rob Kermanj)
37. 04:17 PM - Re: Gear leg geometry (McGANN, Ron)
38. 04:44 PM - Re: Gear leg geometry (The McGough Family)
39. 05:32 PM - Re: Comm antenna placement (Marcus Cooper)
40. 05:38 PM - Re: AHRS/magnetometer location (Marcus Cooper)
41. 06:15 PM - Re: Gear leg geometry (dogsbark@comcast.net)
42. 08:01 PM - Re: Establishing gross weight (John W. Cox)
43. 08:16 PM - Re: AHRS/magnetometer location (DejaVu)
44. 09:08 PM - Re: Establishing gross weight (Dave Leikam)
45. 10:10 PM - Re: Gear leg geometry (John Dunne)
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: | 3 bladed prop issue |
I have a 3 bladed Aercomposite prop and I had the fellow making my
interior make me a set of blade covers for when I take the cowling on or
off, see attachment. I saw where some of the 3 bladed props had dings
from the cowling removal. It might be worth considering for anyone with
more than 2 blades.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
Dan,
I have a MT three blade prop and its a challenge to get the lower
cowl off
and not ding the prop with the piano hinge or scrap the front gear
leg
fairing. Any issues with the four blade prop and removing the
cowl?
Mark
N410MR
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: | Gear leg geometry |
G'day all,
I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the fuse is
still resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck in
pitch and roll. When I measured the distance between the floor and
bottom of the wheel I found a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat.
The distance between the floor and spar corners is within 1/8",
suggesting a difference in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8".
Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear
leg weldments to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this?
Is the 3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly
aligning the wheel pants?
Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little surprised
with this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal.
thanks in advance
Ron
187 finishing
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: 3 bladed prop issue |
Cool cover Wayne, is that a hanger you're in, or do you just park
it in your living room. What a wonderful place!
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Wayne Edgerton wrote:
> I have a 3 bladed Aercomposite prop and I had the fellow making my
> interior make me a set of blade covers for when I take the cowling on or
> off, see attachment. I saw where some of the 3 bladed props had dings
> from the cowling removal. It might be worth considering for anyone with
> more than 2 blades.
>
> Wayne Edgerton #40336
>
>
>
>
> Dan,
>
> I have a MT three blade prop and its a challenge to get the lower
> cowl off
> and not ding the prop with the piano hinge or scrap the front gear
> leg
> fairing. Any issues with the four blade prop and removing the cowl?
>
> Mark
> N410MR
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Eggenfellner delivered. |
And in all fairness to reply to this, I ordered before he even had a 10
package, and have been working with him to design it. I bugged him every
week for about a year after the 10 came out, begging him to design it.
Then once he agreed to it, I have worked closely with him to provide
what was needed.
>From following the engine for over 6 years, I was well aware that
delivery dates were always slipping and I planned appropriately, like
any good PM would do, and it is that pre-planning that has allowed me to
receive the engine at exactly the correct time it was needed to continue
to make progress. His delivery date was not an impact to my project, but
had I waited until last August to order for this year then I would have
been delayed.
Yes, what you are saying happens, continually trying to upgrade the
engine can cause delays, but now that Gary is on board I think you will
see many changes, both in delivery and consistency in the engines that
are shipping.
Eggenfellner has all of the issues of a small company, they have a
product that too many want, IE they have more orders than they can keep
up with, and as such they are experiencing growing pains, and that is
the key to why Gary was hired. He will establish the procedures for
production and process change and keep the company moving forward, while
Jan can now focus on just the engineering aspect of the engine and be
able to implement the changes.
As in any project, timelines slip, but with the correct planning some of
these slips can be accounted for and dealt with. So long story short,
did the timeline slip, yes, but communication from Jan was continual and
he always was open to why and how long it would slip and each time it
was for a better product, so I was willing to wait.
Dan
N289DT RV10E
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:07 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered.
<rvbuilder@sausen.net>
And just to point out, one of the things I criticized Egg for when he
offered the package in the first place was that he seemed to have a
history of delivering a year beyond his promised dates. This was based
on reports from several of his buyers. I got the usual
anti-anything-but-Lycoming rhetoric.
Dan, when was it when you ordered again? :-) In all fairness, many
of the other things I criticized like HP, re-drive, and supercharger
have also all been changed to realistic numbers/solutions. In my
research it is those changes, and the subsequent re-engineering on the
fly, that tend to drag out his deliveries. Just something to keep in
mind when planning guys.
Nomex suit engaged. Heh
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Limbo
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ritter
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered.
The MT three blade is sexy. A four blade will be 25% more than sexy.
Send
pictures and hope all goes well.
Talked to Bill Gipson from Conroe, TX this weekend in Brenham (home of
Blue
Bell Ice Cream) and he is anxiously waiting on his Egg engine to mount
in
his RV-10. He should be happy to hear they are shipping.
Mark
N410MR
>From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered.
>Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:00:55 -0400
>
<LloydDR@wernerco.com>
>
>I will have to let you know on this, since one has not been done yet
for
>the 10. I will have the engine mounted and ready to run tonight, then I
>will have to fit the cowl before the fuse goes to paint next week. As
>soon as I get the cowl fit I will let you know how this will work out.
>The 4 blade looks awesome though.
>Dan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ritter
>Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:26 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered.
>
>
>Dan,
>
>I have a MT three blade prop and its a challenge to get the lower cowl
>off
>and not ding the prop with the piano hinge or scrap the the front gear
>leg
>fairing. Any issues with the four blade prop and removing the cowl?
>
>Mark
>N410MR
>
>
> >From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
> >To: "Dave Leikam" <DAVELEIKAM@wi.rr.com>, "matronics"
> ><rv10-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered.
> >Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 09:07:54 -0400
> >
> >No, it was not paid, as a matter of fact it was at the end of a long
> >day, and I thought he was taking pics as we were getting ready to put
>it
> >in the van, but then he kept asking questions and I realized he was
> >recording it. I got the engine home late last night and will mount it
> >this afternoon and be ready to run it in a matter of hours. I have
> >helped several people install engines, baffling etc, and comparing
this
> >install to those is night and day. Basically there are 6 bolts, a
fuel
> >feed and return and several electrical hookups and the engine is
ready
> >to run. The 4 bladed prop is sweet, no ifs, ands or butts! So at
least
> >it will look real cool on the ground!
> >Dan
> >N289DT Sleeping on the trailer with me new Egg!
> >
> > _____
> >
> >From: Dave Leikam [mailto:DAVELEIKAM@WI.RR.COM]
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:12 AM
> >To: matronics; Lloyd, Daniel R.
> >Subject: Eggenfellner delivered.
> >
> >
> >Congrads on picking up your engine! I know there are many of us
>waiting
> >to see your success. Was that a paid interview on Eggenfellners
site?
> >
> >Dave Leikam
> >40496
> >QB Wings and stuff.
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>PC Magazine's 2007 editors' choice for best Web mail-award-winning
>Windows
>Live Hotmail.
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
PC Magazine's 2007 editors' choice for best Web mail-award-winning
Windows
Live Hotmail.
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: | RE: Eggenfellner delivered. |
In correct, the prop weighs36-38Lbs, The MT 3 blade weighs 42, and the
Hartzell two blade weighs 60+. We weighed each when I was there last
summer. The way that the new prop is so light is because the engine is
so smooth that Jan was able to work with Sensi for custom blades, and
Quinti for a hub. I have not assembled the prop yet, but the blades with
the nickel leading edges, and the 14" spinner looks so sweet just
sitting there, I should have pics by the weekend of it all together and
the initial fit of the cowl done by then.
Dan
N289DT RV10E
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GRANSCOTT@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered.
What does the 4 blade weight and what effect does it have on the
aircraft's CG since it seems that the 10 is slightly forward CG to begin
with? I would have thought that a 4 blade would probably increase
climb, smoothness but slow down your cruise speed and add the weight of
the additional blade...I'd guess the 4 blades are shorter than a 2 or 3
blade set up but suspect the total weight with hardware etc would be
higher? Correct or incorrect?
Patrick
_____
See what's free at AOL.com
<http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
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: | Gear leg geometry |
Although I have not seen this difference before personally, it does not
completely surprise me. In fact, I think I remember somebody else
mentioning it on the list in the past, although I am not sure. It may
be
worth taking it off the bench and then measuring, leveling, checking to
see
if it is even then. If not, then it may be an issue because the plane
may
not sit level. On the other hand, with that long arm, =BC=94 with no
weight
could be just about anything, however minor. If the plane sits level
when
parked, then I wouldn=92t worry about it and just rig the pants for the
least
drag when flying (at 200mph nobody will be looking up and saying,
=93hey, one
of his gear legs is lower than the other). Again, the biggest issue,
IMHO,
would be whether or not the fuse will sit flat once you get the engine,
wings, pilot, passengers, etc loaded up. Even =BC=94 there probably
would be
hard to notice over 8=92, because that would be about =BC degree off
level if my
math is correct.
Is it possible that something is =93preloading=94 one of the gear legs
either on
your table or inside? Are your weldments completely secured and torqued
(with no unwanted burs/shims anywhere)?
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 McGANN, Ron
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:49 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
G'day all,
I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the fuse is
still resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck in
pitch
and roll. When I measured the distance between the floor and bottom of
the
wheel I found a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat. The distance
between the floor and spar corners is within 1/8", suggesting a
difference
in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8".
Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear
leg
weldments to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this? Is
the
3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly
aligning
the wheel pants?
Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little surprised
with
this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal.
thanks in advance
Ron
187 finishing
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: Establishing gross weight |
Legally, you can list any gross weight you want for your POH and the
paperwork to the Feds. But exceeding the designed gross weight is bad
to do for a host of reasons:
1) Affects GC location. If the added weight isn't distributed
correctly, you could end up with an unstable aircraft. Think of the
singer who was killed by the overgross, badly loaded airplane in the
Bahamas awhile back.
2) More weight will require more power to fly at a given speed. At say
200 kts, you'd need 2,900 lbs of lift to stay in level flight if your
gross is 2,900 lbs. To generate this lift, you'd need a few more
horsepower from your engine and a little higher angle of attack. All
the while generating a little more drag which will need a little more
horsepower and consuming more fuel which will affect your overall
range. Plus, the engine you chose may not have the power output to get
you to the goal of 200 kts, so you'd need a bigger engine, which
brings it's own viscious cycle of effects noted below.
3) The main issues are structural issues. As noted in no. 2, you might
need a bigger motor, but the engine mount/fuselage interface is
designed for a certain max weight engine. Will your bigger one exceed
that weight? Increased drag will affect flutter tolerance and if you
can exceed Vne, well Van has covered that before. Your wing structure
may not be able to handle the maximum loadings you could experience if
gross was say 2900 lbs. Van's tested this wing for a 2,700 lb gross
experiencing 3.8G pull up. They applied a 1.5 margin of safety to this
figure so the wing was tested for no failure at 15,390 lbs. This
sounds like alot, but is really isn't. If you do a high bank turn, you
can get close to max loading, then if you hit a gust or strong
updraft, you can eat up the margin of safety. This is why Va is set.
At speeds above Va, you should keep any abrupt manuevers to a minimum.
Closer you get to top cruise speed, the easier it is to exceed max
loading condition if a strong gust or updraft is encountered.
Van's did a lot of engineering with this design that you pay for when
yuou buy the kit (among other things). My advise would be to trust
their numbers and not exceed 2,700 lb gross. This lowers your useful
payload if your on the heavy side of empty weight, but this'll keep
you from possibly becoming a statistic later on. Otherwise I'd hire an
engineer to analize your gross weight increase to be safe.
Kevin Hovis.
On 5/16/07, Wayne Edgerton <wayne.e@grandecom.net> wrote:
> I saw on a weight and balance list at www.rvproject.com/wab/ that there is
> some differences on selecting a max gross weight. Vans recommends 2700, but
> used 2758 on their 10, but on this list there's a 2850 and a 2900. How does
> one come up with the conclusion or decision to increase the gross weight
> over Vans recommended? My empty weight came in somewhat higher than the
> others at 1749 but I've put a ton of stuff in the panel and many extra items
> including a full leather interior, four place O2, overhead console, etc. It
> is what it is.
>
> Obviously it would be nice to have a higher gross weight but I'm not sure
> how one justifies going beyond the recommended gross weight.
>
> Anyone have any great insight into this? I did a archive search but didn't
> seem to find much.
>
> Wayne Edgerton #40336
>
> sent my papers off to the DAR so I'm hopefully getting close
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Establishing gross weight |
Modifying the gross weight is very little different from a lot of the other
non-Van's-approved mods. The plane was engineered for a 260HP (or less)
IO-540 with 60 gallons of fuel, 180Kts max cruise, etc. etc. etc. If you
want to put in a Subaru, Mazda, turbo-Lycoming, 120Gal tanks, tip tanks, IFR
panel (why would you do this unless you were going to fly IFR in a plane
that was designed to be strictly VFR?), etc, you are modifying the design.
The nice thing about the amateur-built experimental category is that you are
free to do that, even though you might make Van's mad.
Really and truly, I think the gross weight should be established during the
fly-off period. How is the builder going to establish a gross weight when
he hasn't even flown the plane? But, since you have to (I am sure you, as
the repairman, can modify it down the road in the log books if you choose
to) establish a pre-airworthy gross weight, then you have to guess. Most
people will go with the 2,700, many of whom will fly it however feels
comfortable, whether it is 2,700 or 3,000. Selecting a gross weight
different than what Van's recommends will really only become an issue
if/when there is an accident. If you are flying over your established gross
weight and crash, the insurance company will not want to pay if they can
establish that you were overweight. If you are flying within a gross weight
over what Van's recommends and you crash, the insurance company will not be
able to not pay because of the weight unless there is a clause in the
contract that requires that you build exactly to the plans, which I doubt
there is. Then you may start causing problems for other people because
insurance rates may go up. Some people modify their gross weight simply
because they can. The plane will carry 2,900 lbs and still climb to 15,000+
feet (I think ;-) ). From there it is completely up to you. Also, even if
you put your gross weight at 2,700, what are the implications of flying over
gross weight?
For others (JC's response expected here), what are the implications of
flying over you established gross weight? Does that just become an issue if
you crash and don't burn?
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 Wayne Edgerton
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
I saw on a weight and balance list at www.rvproject.com/wab/ that there is
some differences on selecting a max gross weight. Vans recommends 2700, but
used 2758 on their 10, but on this list there's a 2850 and a 2900. How does
one come up with the conclusion or decision to increase the gross weight
over Vans recommended? My empty weight came in somewhat higher than the
others at 1749 but I've put a ton of stuff in the panel and many extra items
including a full leather interior, four place O2, overhead console, etc. It
is what it is.
Obviously it would be nice to have a higher gross weight but I'm not sure
how one justifies going beyond the recommended gross weight.
Anyone have any great insight into this? I did a archive search but didn't
seem to find much.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
sent my papers off to the DAR so I'm hopefully getting close
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Gear leg geometry |
Each wheel pant is done independently of the other, IE it does not
matter where the other gear leg is. What matters is that the fuse is
level, and that you establish a flat plan of reference to measure front
and rear of the wheel pant to. Then aligning it to the centerline of the
fuse. do this on both side and it will not effect anything.
Dan
N289DT RV10E
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of McGANN, Ron
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:49 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
G'day all,
I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the fuse is
still resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck in
pitch and roll. When I measured the distance between the floor and
bottom of the wheel I found a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat.
The distance between the floor and spar corners is within 1/8",
suggesting a difference in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8".
Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear
leg weldments to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this?
Is the 3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly
aligning the wheel pants?
Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little surprised
with this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal.
thanks in advance
Ron
187 finishing
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Eggenfellner delivered. |
Come on, Dan! Let's get some pictures before you get it done. Just a
little teaser?
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 Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:15 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered.
In correct, the prop weighs36-38Lbs, The MT 3 blade weighs 42, and the
Hartzell two blade weighs 60+. We weighed each when I was there last summer.
The way that the new prop is so light is because the engine is so smooth
that Jan was able to work with Sensi for custom blades, and Quinti for a
hub. I have not assembled the prop yet, but the blades with the nickel
leading edges, and the 14" spinner looks so sweet just sitting there, I
should have pics by the weekend of it all together and the initial fit of
the cowl done by then.
Dan
N289DT RV10E
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of GRANSCOTT@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RE: Eggenfellner delivered.
What does the 4 blade weight and what effect does it have on the aircraft's
CG since it seems that the 10 is slightly forward CG to begin with? I would
have thought that a 4 blade would probably increase climb, smoothness but
slow down your cruise speed and add the weight of the additional blade...I'd
guess the 4 blades are shorter than a 2 or 3 blade set up but suspect the
total weight with hardware etc would be higher? Correct or incorrect?
Patrick
_____
See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
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 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: Door Hardware - you'll want these! |
Dave Czachoworski's e-mail is : dczachorowski@comcast.net
Deems Davis # 406
Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
http://deemsrv10.com/
>
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: | Gear leg geometry |
Your airplane will likely never sit level anywhere. The loading of each
side of the airplane is rarely equally distributed, think single pilot
operation, and this could easily make one side of the plane sit lower
than the other, uneven taxi etc. This small of a difference should not
amount to anything, as long as each wheel pant is done correctly.
Dan
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:15 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
Although I have not seen this difference before personally, it does not
completely surprise me. In fact, I think I remember somebody else
mentioning it on the list in the past, although I am not sure. It may
be worth taking it off the bench and then measuring, leveling, checking
to see if it is even then. If not, then it may be an issue because the
plane may not sit level. On the other hand, with that long arm, =BC"
with no weight could be just about anything, however minor. If the
plane sits level when parked, then I wouldn't worry about it and just
rig the pants for the least drag when flying (at 200mph nobody will be
looking up and saying, "hey, one of his gear legs is lower than the
other). Again, the biggest issue, IMHO, would be whether or not the
fuse will sit flat once you get the engine, wings, pilot, passengers,
etc loaded up. Even =BC" there probably would be hard to notice over
8', because that would be about =BC degree off level if my math is
correct.
Is it possible that something is "preloading" one of the gear legs
either on your table or inside? Are your weldments completely secured
and torqued (with no unwanted burs/shims anywhere)?
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 McGANN, Ron
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:49 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
G'day all,
I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the fuse is
still resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck in
pitch and roll. When I measured the distance between the floor and
bottom of the wheel I found a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat.
The distance between the floor and spar corners is within 1/8",
suggesting a difference in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8".
Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear
leg weldments to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this?
Is the 3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly
aligning the wheel pants?
Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little surprised
with this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal.
thanks in advance
Ron
187 finishing
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Establishing gross weight |
I agree with this, it is more of a insurance, cover your butt issue,
than a safety of flight issue (within reason of course). Think of it
this way, anytime a certified plane needs to be ferried across the pond,
they put in so much extra fuel and equipage that the plane will barely
fly, and a special permit is required, just to cover the bases with the
insurance company, and a heads up to the pilot that the plane will act
differently. While I do not agree that putting 3500 LBS in a 2500 lb
sack is a good idea, I see no reason why for insurance purposes you
would not raise your gross to 2900 or so, knowing that when you are
close to that weight the airplane will act differently.
There has been many times I have started a flight out in my Cherokee
over gross, but as fuel burn occurs I am back in, so just use your best
judgment, set it high, during flight testing make sure you are ok, and
if necassary adjust the gross weight down. You as the builder can adjust
gross weight at anytime with the correct paperwork.
Dan
N289DT RV10E
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:27 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
Modifying the gross weight is very little different from a lot of the
other non-Van's-approved mods. The plane was engineered for a 260HP (or
less) IO-540 with 60 gallons of fuel, 180Kts max cruise, etc. etc. etc.
If you want to put in a Subaru, Mazda, turbo-Lycoming, 120Gal tanks, tip
tanks, IFR panel (why would you do this unless you were going to fly IFR
in a plane that was designed to be strictly VFR?), etc, you are
modifying the design. The nice thing about the amateur-built
experimental category is that you are free to do that, even though you
might make Van's mad.
Really and truly, I think the gross weight should be established during
the fly-off period. How is the builder going to establish a gross
weight when he hasn't even flown the plane? But, since you have to (I
am sure you, as the repairman, can modify it down the road in the log
books if you choose to) establish a pre-airworthy gross weight, then you
have to guess. Most people will go with the 2,700, many of whom will
fly it however feels comfortable, whether it is 2,700 or 3,000.
Selecting a gross weight different than what Van's recommends will
really only become an issue if/when there is an accident. If you are
flying over your established gross weight and crash, the insurance
company will not want to pay if they can establish that you were
overweight. If you are flying within a gross weight over what Van's
recommends and you crash, the insurance company will not be able to not
pay because of the weight unless there is a clause in the contract that
requires that you build exactly to the plans, which I doubt there is.
Then you may start causing problems for other people because insurance
rates may go up. Some people modify their gross weight simply because
they can. The plane will carry 2,900 lbs and still climb to 15,000+
feet (I think ;-) ). From there it is completely up to you. Also, even
if you put your gross weight at 2,700, what are the implications of
flying over gross weight?
For others (JC's response expected here), what are the implications of
flying over you established gross weight? Does that just become an
issue if you crash and don't burn?
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 Wayne
Edgerton
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
I saw on a weight and balance list at www.rvproject.com/wab/ that there
is some differences on selecting a max gross weight. Vans recommends
2700, but used 2758 on their 10, but on this list there's a 2850 and a
2900. How does one come up with the conclusion or decision to increase
the gross weight over Vans recommended? My empty weight came in somewhat
higher than the others at 1749 but I've put a ton of stuff in the panel
and many extra items including a full leather interior, four place O2,
overhead console, etc. It is what it is.
Obviously it would be nice to have a higher gross weight but I'm not
sure how one justifies going beyond the recommended gross weight.
Anyone have any great insight into this? I did a archive search but
didn't seem to find much.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
sent my papers off to the DAR so I'm hopefully getting close
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Establishing gross weight |
Wow, Jesse, that has to be one of the most dangerous answers I have seen
you post to date and really reflects your lack of actual pilot training.
While it is true that the builder can absolutely establish the gross weight
at any number he wants, the aircraft was structurally designed to a specif
ic number. In the RV-10 case it's 2700 lbs. You exceed that number and th
e structural fatigue goes up rapidly. It also cascades down a whole bunch
of other things like maneuvering speed, stall speeds, CG, and on and on.
Sure you probably won't fall out of the sky anytime soon but you don't know
where that magic number is where you may encounter a series of conditions
when that part can't handle the extra forces and fail. Not trying to slam
you here but messing around with things like gross weight is just slightly
better than messing with CG limits. Make sure you have a good understandin
g of a subject like this before you comment on it.
And for the insurance, Rick or someone in the know here can step in, but
I'm fairly certain most insurance companies are going to look at what you i
nsured it as and what the vendor has designed it to when they decide if the
y want to deny a claim.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 limbo
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:27 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
Modifying the gross weight is very little different from a lot of the other
non-Van's-approved mods. The plane was engineered for a 260HP (or less) I
O-540 with 60 gallons of fuel, 180Kts max cruise, etc. etc. etc. If you wa
nt to put in a Subaru, Mazda, turbo-Lycoming, 120Gal tanks, tip tanks, IFR
panel (why would you do this unless you were going to fly IFR in a plane th
at was designed to be strictly VFR?), etc, you are modifying the design. T
he nice thing about the amateur-built experimental category is that you are
free to do that, even though you might make Van's mad.
Really and truly, I think the gross weight should be established during the
fly-off period. How is the builder going to establish a gross weight when
he hasn't even flown the plane? But, since you have to (I am sure you, as
the repairman, can modify it down the road in the log books if you choose
to) establish a pre-airworthy gross weight, then you have to guess. Most p
eople will go with the 2,700, many of whom will fly it however feels comfor
table, whether it is 2,700 or 3,000. Selecting a gross weight different th
an what Van's recommends will really only become an issue if/when there is
an accident. If you are flying over your established gross weight and cras
h, the insurance company will not want to pay if they can establish that yo
u were overweight. If you are flying within a gross weight over what Van's
recommends and you crash, the insurance company will not be able to not pa
y because of the weight unless there is a clause in the contract that requi
res that you build exactly to the plans, which I doubt there is. Then you
may start causing problems for other people because insurance rates may go
up. Some people modify their gross weight simply because they can. The pl
ane will carry 2,900 lbs and still climb to 15,000+ feet (I think ;-) ). F
rom there it is completely up to you. Also, even if you put your gross wei
ght at 2,700, what are the implications of flying over gross weight?
For others (JC's response expected here), what are the implications of flyi
ng over you established gross weight? Does that just become an issue if yo
u crash and don't burn?
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com<mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
www.saintaviation.com<http://www.saintaviation.com>
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
I saw on a weight and balance list at www.rvproject.com/wab/<http://www.rvp
roject.com/wab/> that there is some differences on selecting a max gross w
eight. Vans recommends 2700, but used 2758 on their 10, but on this list th
ere's a 2850 and a 2900. How does one come up with the conclusion or decisi
on to increase the gross weight over Vans recommended? My empty weight came
in somewhat higher than the others at 1749 but I've put a ton of stuff in
the panel and many extra items including a full leather interior, four plac
e O2, overhead console, etc. It is what it is.
Obviously it would be nice to have a higher gross weight but I'm not sure h
ow one justifies going beyond the recommended gross weight.
Anyone have any great insight into this? I did a archive search but didn't
seem to find much.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
sent my papers off to the DAR so I'm hopefully getting close
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
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: | looking for accommodations during a trip |
Hello all,
I will be travailing to New Mexico a week from tomorrow and am
looking for hangar space for my 10 at Albuquerque, Alamogordo or
Ruidoso area. Will trade rides, discussion, advice or $$$ (or all)
for a hangar space during my ten day trip.
Please email me off the list if you can help.
Thanks, Rob.
Do not archive
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Comm antenna placement |
Marcus,
Have you had a chance to compare the performance of the foil roof mount
to your bent whip?
Vern (#324)
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:52 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Comm antenna placement
Vern,
I took a little different route. I put a bent whip antenna just
aft of the baggage compartment, and a $7 copper foil antenna on the
roof. I figured I wasn't out a thing to try it and it works great. It
also alleviated my concern of shadowing the antenna to tower while on
the ground, although I haven't had any issues with my belly mounted
antenna which I use with the primary radio.
Marcus
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Establishing gross weight |
I have a very simple answer for those who wish to establish a gross
weight over Van's limits: Do a static load test on your wing like
Van's did at 2,900lbs or other figure you choose. If you're willing to
fly a bird over recommended gross, you should be willing to put the
wing through a static test that could destroy it before you fly. I
guess it depends on your pucker factor, but for me, I like it that
someone has already proven the structure at a certain limit. Isn't
true that other countries require a static load test at limit G and
margin of safety before an experimental certificate is issued? Unless
your an engineer and can do the calculations (I am an aircraft
structural engineer), you have no way of knowing whether the structure
can handle any loading exceeding that already proven. Even then proof
testing is usually warranted. I guess you could do a proof test in the
air, but please wear a parachute....
Kevin Hovis.
On 5/17/07, Lloyd, Daniel R. <LloydDR@wernerco.com> wrote:
> I agree with this, it is more of a insurance, cover your butt issue,
> than a safety of flight issue (within reason of course). Think of it
> this way, anytime a certified plane needs to be ferried across the pond,
> they put in so much extra fuel and equipage that the plane will barely
> fly, and a special permit is required, just to cover the bases with the
> insurance company, and a heads up to the pilot that the plane will act
> differently. While I do not agree that putting 3500 LBS in a 2500 lb
> sack is a good idea, I see no reason why for insurance purposes you
> would not raise your gross to 2900 or so, knowing that when you are
> close to that weight the airplane will act differently.
> There has been many times I have started a flight out in my Cherokee
> over gross, but as fuel burn occurs I am back in, so just use your best
> judgment, set it high, during flight testing make sure you are ok, and
> if necassary adjust the gross weight down. You as the builder can adjust
> gross weight at anytime with the correct paperwork.
> Dan
> N289DT RV10E
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:27 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
>
>
> Modifying the gross weight is very little different from a lot of the
> other non-Van's-approved mods. The plane was engineered for a 260HP (or
> less) IO-540 with 60 gallons of fuel, 180Kts max cruise, etc. etc. etc.
> If you want to put in a Subaru, Mazda, turbo-Lycoming, 120Gal tanks, tip
> tanks, IFR panel (why would you do this unless you were going to fly IFR
> in a plane that was designed to be strictly VFR?), etc, you are
> modifying the design. The nice thing about the amateur-built
> experimental category is that you are free to do that, even though you
> might make Van's mad.
>
>
> Really and truly, I think the gross weight should be established during
> the fly-off period. How is the builder going to establish a gross
> weight when he hasn't even flown the plane? But, since you have to (I
> am sure you, as the repairman, can modify it down the road in the log
> books if you choose to) establish a pre-airworthy gross weight, then you
> have to guess. Most people will go with the 2,700, many of whom will
> fly it however feels comfortable, whether it is 2,700 or 3,000.
> Selecting a gross weight different than what Van's recommends will
> really only become an issue if/when there is an accident. If you are
> flying over your established gross weight and crash, the insurance
> company will not want to pay if they can establish that you were
> overweight. If you are flying within a gross weight over what Van's
> recommends and you crash, the insurance company will not be able to not
> pay because of the weight unless there is a clause in the contract that
> requires that you build exactly to the plans, which I doubt there is.
> Then you may start causing problems for other people because insurance
> rates may go up. Some people modify their gross weight simply because
> they can. The plane will carry 2,900 lbs and still climb to 15,000+
> feet (I think ;-) ). From there it is completely up to you. Also, even
> if you put your gross weight at 2,700, what are the implications of
> flying over gross weight?
>
>
> For others (JC's response expected here), what are the implications of
> flying over you established gross weight? Does that just become an
> issue if you crash and don't burn?
>
>
> 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 Wayne
> Edgerton
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:37 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
>
>
> I saw on a weight and balance list at www.rvproject.com/wab/ that there
> is some differences on selecting a max gross weight. Vans recommends
> 2700, but used 2758 on their 10, but on this list there's a 2850 and a
> 2900. How does one come up with the conclusion or decision to increase
> the gross weight over Vans recommended? My empty weight came in somewhat
> higher than the others at 1749 but I've put a ton of stuff in the panel
> and many extra items including a full leather interior, four place O2,
> overhead console, etc. It is what it is.
>
>
> Obviously it would be nice to have a higher gross weight but I'm not
> sure how one justifies going beyond the recommended gross weight.
>
>
> Anyone have any great insight into this? I did a archive search but
> didn't seem to find much.
>
>
> Wayne Edgerton #40336
>
>
> sent my papers off to the DAR so I'm hopefully getting close
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
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: Establishing gross weight |
You can think of it anyway you like, and you can rationalize it anyway
you like, but Gross weight is determined and set by engineering with
facts and data. If you've made modifications to your plane and you
believe the modifications warrant an adjustment in the Gross Weight,
then calculate the difference based upon the same principles, equations
and irrefutable laws of physics that were used to establish the 2700
lbs. Then add in the safety margin. Anything else is a crap shoot.
Deems Davis # 406
Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
http://deemsrv10.com/
> *
> *
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: | Establishing gross weight |
OK, since I was poked to chime in I'll do so with the understanding that this is
generic info and coverage and the determination to indemnify your loss are very
POLICY specific.
Read the exclusions to determine what is NOT covered!!!!!!!! This is the most important
thing.
Step one for everyone...read your policy, there is a reason the exclusions or the
in better words the reasons the insurance company will use to deny your claim
are listed in the back of the policy. It's because by the time you get to that
part your already just skimming the contents out of shear boredom. Policy
format has been changing over the past years and exclusions may be listed after
each peril definition. Read, read, read your policy...Take it to your lawyer
for interpretation if needed.
When the insurance company accepts you as a risk, there are conditions they are
required to comply with and there are conditions your are required to comply
with. For this contract or agreement to work for both parties, both must stay
within the terms of the agreement. If the terms require you to operate your aircraft
within design limitations set by the designer and you fail to do so, then
the insurance company has the right to question their responsibility to provide
coverage.......Now the tricky part is that unless it is specifically excluded
in writing in the policy, you most likely will be covered. I always like
the statement I heard once in the never ending continuing education classes "We
insure stupidity".
You may argue that since this is an experimental aircraft that you are the designer
and allowed to set your gross at what you think is safe for flight. If you
end up in litigation you better make sure you are more qualified to establish
this than the original designer or manufacturer. The defense (insurance company)
will argue that you are not more qualified and should have adhered to the
recommendations of the designer. FWIW, "Expert Witnesses" will almost always
agree with the party that hired them and rightly so, it's your job or your attorney's
job to prove them wrong and that your right. Unless by virtue of "YOUR"
education and experience you can prove you were correct in exceeding the designers
recommendations you may not have a credible, defendable reason for doing
so.
If you wreck your car under the influence of a controlled substance are you covered?
Same thing applies, it is policy specific, read your policy and exclusions
that's the key, state laws vary as well. remember that if you contest your
insurance company's decision to provide coverage that it's all on you to fight
the decision. I know of several company's in the past, it's much better now that
would almost always decline coverage if there was ANY chance an exclusion
could be interpreted as applicable to your claim and it "might" hold up in court.
When you have a full compliment of defense counsel at your beck and call...why
not?
Most company's will accept your claim and pay damages as long as there is not a
specific exclusion AND you as an insured acted in good faith by holding up your
end of the contract between you and the insurance company. We are lucky that
the few aviation insurance companys that extend coverage to us are very good
at what they do and know when to pay and when to fight.
So, now that I've rambled on this very ambiguous subject, remember a few things:
1) Read your policy and know what is NOT covered.
2) Don't knowingly violate the conditions of your policy.
3) Think about safety first. If you die, especially if it was preventable who suffers
besides you?
4) If your airframe fails in flight, you most likely will DIE, do you want your
family members trying to prove that you had the right stuff to engineer your
own aircraft?
Picture in your mind the defense stating along with visual aids showing Van's gross
weight and then your aircraft gross weight which you willfully & knowingly
exceeded despite the manufactures recommendations, you can see how easily the
judge (a lot of coverage claims are summary judgments)or the jury can rule in
favor of the insurance company.
Rick S.
40185
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: | Establishing gross weight |
Let me clarify my position, Like you have stated the plane has already
had a static test of its 2700 lbs, which means the wing will need to
support 3.8 times that to be in the standard category, which means
theoretically both wings together will withstand 10,260 lbs and not
fail. With this being said, it would not be a long stretch stating that
an additional 200 pounds in the right location will not cause an issue
during normal flight and clear non-turbulent conditions. I did not state
that it was a smart thing to do and go fly in turbulence, what I did
state was set it high, flight test it and adjust as necessary.
Dan N289DT RV10E
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
<james.k.hovis@gmail.com>
I have a very simple answer for those who wish to establish a gross
weight over Van's limits: Do a static load test on your wing like
Van's did at 2,900lbs or other figure you choose. If you're willing to
fly a bird over recommended gross, you should be willing to put the
wing through a static test that could destroy it before you fly. I
guess it depends on your pucker factor, but for me, I like it that
someone has already proven the structure at a certain limit. Isn't
true that other countries require a static load test at limit G and
margin of safety before an experimental certificate is issued? Unless
your an engineer and can do the calculations (I am an aircraft
structural engineer), you have no way of knowing whether the structure
can handle any loading exceeding that already proven. Even then proof
testing is usually warranted. I guess you could do a proof test in the
air, but please wear a parachute....
Kevin Hovis.
On 5/17/07, Lloyd, Daniel R. <LloydDR@wernerco.com> wrote:
> I agree with this, it is more of a insurance, cover your butt issue,
> than a safety of flight issue (within reason of course). Think of it
> this way, anytime a certified plane needs to be ferried across the
pond,
> they put in so much extra fuel and equipage that the plane will barely
> fly, and a special permit is required, just to cover the bases with
the
> insurance company, and a heads up to the pilot that the plane will act
> differently. While I do not agree that putting 3500 LBS in a 2500 lb
> sack is a good idea, I see no reason why for insurance purposes you
> would not raise your gross to 2900 or so, knowing that when you are
> close to that weight the airplane will act differently.
> There has been many times I have started a flight out in my Cherokee
> over gross, but as fuel burn occurs I am back in, so just use your
best
> judgment, set it high, during flight testing make sure you are ok, and
> if necassary adjust the gross weight down. You as the builder can
adjust
> gross weight at anytime with the correct paperwork.
> Dan
> N289DT RV10E
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:27 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
>
>
> Modifying the gross weight is very little different from a lot of the
> other non-Van's-approved mods. The plane was engineered for a 260HP
(or
> less) IO-540 with 60 gallons of fuel, 180Kts max cruise, etc. etc.
etc.
> If you want to put in a Subaru, Mazda, turbo-Lycoming, 120Gal tanks,
tip
> tanks, IFR panel (why would you do this unless you were going to fly
IFR
> in a plane that was designed to be strictly VFR?), etc, you are
> modifying the design. The nice thing about the amateur-built
> experimental category is that you are free to do that, even though you
> might make Van's mad.
>
>
> Really and truly, I think the gross weight should be established
during
> the fly-off period. How is the builder going to establish a gross
> weight when he hasn't even flown the plane? But, since you have to (I
> am sure you, as the repairman, can modify it down the road in the log
> books if you choose to) establish a pre-airworthy gross weight, then
you
> have to guess. Most people will go with the 2,700, many of whom will
> fly it however feels comfortable, whether it is 2,700 or 3,000.
> Selecting a gross weight different than what Van's recommends will
> really only become an issue if/when there is an accident. If you are
> flying over your established gross weight and crash, the insurance
> company will not want to pay if they can establish that you were
> overweight. If you are flying within a gross weight over what Van's
> recommends and you crash, the insurance company will not be able to
not
> pay because of the weight unless there is a clause in the contract
that
> requires that you build exactly to the plans, which I doubt there is.
> Then you may start causing problems for other people because insurance
> rates may go up. Some people modify their gross weight simply because
> they can. The plane will carry 2,900 lbs and still climb to 15,000+
> feet (I think ;-) ). From there it is completely up to you. Also,
even
> if you put your gross weight at 2,700, what are the implications of
> flying over gross weight?
>
>
> For others (JC's response expected here), what are the implications of
> flying over you established gross weight? Does that just become an
> issue if you crash and don't burn?
>
>
> 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 Wayne
> Edgerton
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:37 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
>
>
> I saw on a weight and balance list at www.rvproject.com/wab/ that
there
> is some differences on selecting a max gross weight. Vans recommends
> 2700, but used 2758 on their 10, but on this list there's a 2850 and a
> 2900. How does one come up with the conclusion or decision to increase
> the gross weight over Vans recommended? My empty weight came in
somewhat
> higher than the others at 1749 but I've put a ton of stuff in the
panel
> and many extra items including a full leather interior, four place O2,
> overhead console, etc. It is what it is.
>
>
> Obviously it would be nice to have a higher gross weight but I'm not
> sure how one justifies going beyond the recommended gross weight.
>
>
> Anyone have any great insight into this? I did a archive search but
> didn't seem to find much.
>
>
> Wayne Edgerton #40336
>
>
> sent my papers off to the DAR so I'm hopefully getting close
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Establishing gross weight |
The design safety margins are established to account for variations in
construction, fatigue, turbulence, variations in piloting, engineering mistakes
etc. etc., all of which are fairly difficult to predict when they will happen
or what the effect will be. Furthermore, an aircraft experiences many
different stresses during the course of a flight (besides just holding the airplane
up in level flight). You need a thorough engineering analysis to understand
the effects a deviation from the design conditions will have on the airframe in
various flight conditions.
I recommend sticking to Van's established limits (weight limits and all
others) unless one is willing and capable of performing such an analysis.
-Jim McGrew
40134
Jim "Scooter" McGrew
_http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew_ (http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew)
In a message dated 5/17/2007 11:35:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
LloydDR@wernerco.com writes:
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Let me clarify my position, Like you have stated the plane has already
had a static test of its 2700 lbs, which means the wing will need to
support 3.8 times that to be in the standard category, which means
theoretically both wings together will withstand 10,260 lbs and not
fail. With this being said, it would not be a long stretch stating that
an additional 200 pounds in the right location will not cause an issue
during normal flight and clear non-turbulent conditions. I did not state
that it was a smart thing to do and go fly in turbulence, what I did
state was set it high, flight test it and adjust as necessary.
Dan N289DT RV10E
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Establishing gross weight |
We are not talking safety margins, we are talking an aircraft rated in
the standard category and as such will sustain 3.8G's without structural
failure. Nuff said. If the location of the additional 200 LBS keeps the
plane in CG than there will not be an issue in standard flight
conditions, what is unknown is how the plane will react when the plane
is stressed past the max load breaking point of 3.8G's x 2700lbs or
10,260LBS total. Then once you get past this point there is the safety
margin that is built in, but unless you go past the 10,260 LBS limit
then there is nothing new being discovered.
Dan
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
JSMcGrew@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
The design safety margins are established to account for variations in
construction, fatigue, turbulence, variations in piloting, engineering
mistakes etc. etc., all of which are fairly difficult to predict when
they will happen or what the effect will be. Furthermore, an aircraft
experiences many different stresses during the course of a flight
(besides just holding the airplane up in level flight). You need a
thorough engineering analysis to understand the effects a deviation from
the design conditions will have on the airframe in various flight
conditions.
I recommend sticking to Van's established limits (weight limits and all
others) unless one is willing and capable of performing such an
analysis.
-Jim McGrew
40134
Jim "Scooter" McGrew
http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew
In a message dated 5/17/2007 11:35:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
LloydDR@wernerco.com writes:
<LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Let me clarify my position, Like you have stated the plane has
already
had a static test of its 2700 lbs, which means the wing will
need to
support 3.8 times that to be in the standard category, which
means
theoretically both wings together will withstand 10,260 lbs and
not
fail. With this being said, it would not be a long stretch
stating that
an additional 200 pounds in the right location will not cause an
issue
during normal flight and clear non-turbulent conditions. I did
not state
that it was a smart thing to do and go fly in turbulence, what I
did
state was set it high, flight test it and adjust as necessary.
Dan N289DT RV10E
_____
See what's free at AOL.com
<http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FW: [OhioValleyRVators] Clinic Pics & the 'RV Flight' |
Formation flight clinic this weekend and all RV models in attendance.
Check out the pics
Dan
_____
From: OhioValleyRVators@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:OhioValleyRVators@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rick Gray
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:22 AM
Subject: [OhioValleyRVators] Clinic Pics & the 'RV Flight'
I had the honor of leading an 'RV Flight' at our Formation Clinic that
consisted of an RV10 (Rick Gray-FFI Flight Lead), RV9A (owner Ted
Chang/Pilot Mike Stewart-FFI Check Pilot), RV8 (Stu McCurdy-FFI Check
Pilot), RV7A (Tad Sargent-FFI Wingman), RV6 (Danny Kight-FFI Flight
Lead), RV4 (Bob Goodman-FFI Flight Lead), & RV3 (Dave Hirschman). As
far as I/we know this is the first time that there has been a flight
of each of Vans models from the RV3 to the RV10??? Should be
a 'keeper' for Vans calendar next year :^).
Here are a couple pics from Rob Logan's site (thanks BIG TIME to Rob):
http://w1.rob.com/pix/pkb2_all_RVs/All_RVs_OhioValleyRVators_3961
<http://w1.rob.com/pix/pkb2_all_RVs/All_RVs_OhioValleyRVators_3961>
http://w1.rob.com/pix/pkb2_all_RVs/All_RVs_OhioValleyRVators_04053
<http://w1.rob.com/pix/pkb2_all_RVs/All_RVs_OhioValleyRVators_04053>
http://w1.rob.com/pix/pkb2_all_RVs/All_RVs_OhioValleyRVators_3969
<http://w1.rob.com/pix/pkb2_all_RVs/All_RVs_OhioValleyRVators_3969>
Rick at the Buffalo Farm
__._,_.___
Messages in this topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/message/14679;_ylc=X3o
D
MTM3ZmUxYWFvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4
MwRtc2dJZAMxNDY3OQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzExNzkxNTYxMzgEdHBjSWQD
MTQ2Nzk-> (1) Reply (via web post)
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJydmVm
M
jBmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRtc2dJZ
AMxNDY3OQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzExNzkxNTYxMzg-?act=reply&messa
g
eNum=14679> | Start a new topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaXFk
d
mtqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDZ
nRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzExNzkxNTYxMzg->
Messages
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJm
Y
2p0b3RtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZ
WMDZnRyBHNsawNtc2dzBHN0aW1lAzExNzkxNTYxMzg-> | Files
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnMXN
m
N29jBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMD
ZnRyBHNsawNmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMTc5MTU2MTM4> | Photos
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm
E
yYmNmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWM
DZnRyBHNsawNwaG90BHN0aW1lAzExNzkxNTYxMzg-> | Links
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJnMWU
4
b3VxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMD
ZnRyBHNsawNsaW5rcwRzdGltZQMxMTc5MTU2MTM4> | Database
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/database;_ylc=X3oDMTJk
Y
TY2NHFiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZ
WMDZnRyBHNsawNkYgRzdGltZQMxMTc5MTU2MTM4> | Polls
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbzV
2
MHRiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMD
ZnRyBHNsawNwb2xscwRzdGltZQMxMTc5MTU2MTM4> | Members
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmd
W
JuMmVvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZW
MDZnRyBHNsawNtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzExNzkxNTYxMzg-> | Calendar
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/calendar;_ylc=X3oDMTJl
N
WExbmpqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZ
WMDZnRyBHNsawNjYWwEc3RpbWUDMTE3OTE1NjEzOA-->
Yahoo! Groups
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldHFzZ3RhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElk
A
zExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTE3O
TE1NjEzOA-->
Change settings via the Web
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnMWEy
Y
nA4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDZ
nRyBHNsawNzdG5ncwRzdGltZQMxMTc5MTU2MTM4> (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest
<mailto:OhioValleyRVators-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email
Delivery:
Digest> | Switch format to Traditional
<mailto:OhioValleyRVators-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change
Delivery Format: Traditional>
Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcjNkZG9sB
F
9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDZnRyBH
NsawNocGYEc3RpbWUDMTE3OTE1NjEzOA--> | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> | Unsubscribe
<mailto:OhioValleyRVators-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=>
Recent Activity
*
5
New Members
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnd
n
VnNDQyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZW
MDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMTc5MTU2MTM4>
Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators;_ylc=X3oDMTJmODdyOTBqB
F
9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExMjUwODc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTc4NjA4MwRzZWMDdnRsBH
NsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzExNzkxNTYxMzg->
* Experimental aircraft
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdjE5NW1kBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9w
A
zEEZ3JwSWQDMTEyNTA4NzUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Nzg2MDgzBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxM
Tc5MTU2MTM4?t=ms&k=Experimental+aircraft&w1=Experimental+aircraft&w
2=Exp
erimental+aircraft+engine&w3=Aviation&w4=Aviation+art&w5=Aviation+c
olleg
es&c=5&s=116&g=2&.sig=Tb4UVxh7Ad3v9Zkc-2MDiA>
* Experimental aircraft engine
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkYzE1YzM1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9w
A
zIEZ3JwSWQDMTEyNTA4NzUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Nzg2MDgzBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxM
Tc5MTU2MTM4?t=ms&k=Experimental+aircraft+engine&w1=Experimental+air
craft
&w2=Experimental+aircraft+engine&w3=Aviation&w4=Aviation+art&w5=A
viation
+colleges&c=5&s=116&g=2&.sig=vRJGjh7jU0t6gND7o-58Pw>
* Aviation
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdHByYTJ1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9w
A
zMEZ3JwSWQDMTEyNTA4NzUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Nzg2MDgzBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxM
Tc5MTU2MTM4?t=ms&k=Aviation&w1=Experimental+aircraft&w2=Experimen
tal+air
craft+engine&w3=Aviation&w4=Aviation+art&w5=Aviation+colleges&c=5
&s=116&
g=2&.sig=iiZmHXacYOaX_NN6FKUf6Q>
* Aviation art
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNmx1ajV2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9w
A
zQEZ3JwSWQDMTEyNTA4NzUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Nzg2MDgzBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxM
Tc5MTU2MTM4?t=ms&k=Aviation+art&w1=Experimental+aircraft&w2=Exper
imental
+aircraft+engine&w3=Aviation&w4=Aviation+art&w5=Aviation+colleges&c
=5&s
116&g=2&.sig=wPjI_vaynTkr16MntQSicQ>
* Aviation colleges
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcDR2MGhiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9w
A
zUEZ3JwSWQDMTEyNTA4NzUEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Nzg2MDgzBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxM
Tc5MTU2MTM4?t=ms&k=Aviation+colleges&w1=Experimental+aircraft&w2=
Experim
ental+aircraft+engine&w3=Aviation&w4=Aviation+art&w5=Aviation+colle
ges&c
=5&s=116&g=2&.sig=DJXDY5gc-ZEvuOW7mNcn5Q>
Health Zone
Look your best!
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12jh1g243/M=493064.10302120.10954213.997
769
3/D=groups/S=1705786083:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1179163338/A=4430620/R=
0/SIG=11fh
bjsi1/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/healthandfitness/>
Groups to help you
look & feel great.
Yahoo! News
World News
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12ioroa64/M=493064.9803190.10510181.8674
578
/D=groups/S=1705786083:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1179163338/A=3848606/R=
0/SIG=12t5n
1ri6/*http://news.yahoo.com/i/721;_ylt=A9FJqZeOvK5EKmgAbwsLMxIF;_ylu=
X3o
DMTA2NWJlcmlsBHNlYwN0bg-->
Get the latest
world news now
Yahoo! Finance
It's Now Personal
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12jo28vvf/M=493064.10512181.11138666.867
457
8/D=groups/S=1705786083:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1179163338/A=4507179/R=
0/SIG=12de
4rskk/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=50284/*http://finance.yahoo.com/perso
n
al-finance>
Guides, news,
advice & more.
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=11250875/grpspId=170578
6083/
msgId=14679/stime=1179156138/nc1=4430620/nc2=3848606/nc3=450717
9>
__,_._,___
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Establishing gross weight |
Also, remember that although the airframe was designed to withstand 3.8
g's at 2700 lbs gross weight with a 1.5X safety factor, there is no
requirement for it to come through that test unscathed. That is an
ULTIMATE LOAD test, which means it needs to survive it, once.
Another consideration is the landing gear. Typically, landing gear is
designed to withstand no more than 3.5 times the design gross weight.
The LG is not designed to withstand the same loads as the airframe so
that the gear can absorb the energy of a hard landing and break if
necessary before it transfers too much load to the airframe. So if you
raise your gross weight arbitrarily, the landing gear might not be able
to survive a hard landing that a lighter aircraft could easily handle.
Jack Phillips
#40610
Tailcone
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
You can think of it anyway you like, and you can rationalize it anyway
you like, but Gross weight is determined and set by engineering with
facts and data. If you've made modifications to your plane and you
believe the modifications warrant an adjustment in the Gross Weight,
then calculate the difference based upon the same principles, equations
and irrefutable laws of physics that were used to establish the 2700
lbs. Then add in the safety margin. Anything else is a crap shoot.
Deems Davis # 406
Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
http://deemsrv10.com/
> *
> *
_________________________________________________
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: | Rosen Visor Pics |
OK, I now have a sample of the visors that I have installed on the pilot's
side of N256H. Attached are some pictures that can also be found on my
website at the links below (for those that just get the digest). The lense
is a great shape for the cabin top and windshield. It can block every part
of the windshield of pilot side window and can also block a fair bit of the
co-pilot's window from the pilot's side. I now have the list of parts
needed nailed down and Rosen is working on pricing. I will be working up
the installation instructions and they are going to let me know when they
expect to be able to start shipping. On the group buy I may have them ship
the whole lot here and then I will ship them out, but drop shipping is also
an option. For those who may just want one side, then I will need to split
up a pair and ship them from here. For those who have contacted me off the
list, I will be sending you an e-mail directly to verify what you want as
soon as I get pricing (which I will post here as well). If you don't get an
e-mail from me by this time next week, then I probably don't have you on my
list.
http://www.saintaviation.com/DSC_0037.jpg
http://www.saintaviation.com/DSC_0038.jpg
http://www.saintaviation.com/DSC_0039.jpg
http://www.saintaviation.com/DSC_0040.jpg
http://www.saintaviation.com/DSC_0048.jpg
http://www.saintaviation.com/DSC_0052.jpg
Do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Establishing gross weight |
Those replies suggesting that the gross weight figure is a choice of the
builder need to read the responses by Kevin Hovis again. This is not an
issue of "builders prerogative" at all but simply one of structural design.
I am really surprised at those who would take it so lightly.
Kevin
40494
tail/empennage
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: Establishing gross weight |
Aircraft design is a study in compromise. Every action you do has
some effect elsewhere.
Kevin H.
On 5/17/07, KiloPapa <kilopapa@antelecom.net> wrote:
>
> Those replies suggesting that the gross weight figure is a choice of the
> builder need to read the responses by Kevin Hovis again. This is not an
> issue of "builders prerogative" at all but simply one of structural design.
> I am really surprised at those who would take it so lightly.
>
> Kevin
> 40494
> tail/empennage
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rosen Visor Pics |
Jesse,
They look great. I especially like how the swivel and extend out to put
them in just the right position.
Larry
Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> OK, I now have a sample of the visors that I have installed on the
> pilots side of N256H. Attached are some pictures that can also be
> found on my website at the links below (for those that just get the
> digest). The lense is a great shape for the cabin top and windshield.
> It can block every part of the windshield of pilot side window and can
> also block a fair bit of the co-pilots window from the pilots side.
> I now have the list of parts needed nailed down and Rosen is working
> on pricing. I will be working up the installation instructions and
> they are going to let me know when they expect to be able to start
> shipping. On the group buy I may have them ship the whole lot here and
> then I will ship them out, but drop shipping is also an option. For
> those who may just want one side, then I will need to split up a pair
> and ship them from here. For those who have contacted me off the list,
> I will be sending you an e-mail directly to verify what you want as
> soon as I get pricing (which I will post here as well). If you dont
> get an e-mail from me by this time next week, then I probably dont
> have you on my list.
>
> http://www.saintaviation.com/DSC_0037.jpg
>
> http://www.saintaviation.com/DSC_0038.jpg
>
> http://www.saintaviation.com/DSC_0039.jpg
>
> http://www.saintaviation.com/DSC_0040.jpg
>
> http://www.saintaviation.com/DSC_0048.jpg
>
> http://www.saintaviation.com/DSC_0052.jpg
>
> Do not archive
>
> Jesse Saint
>
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>
> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
>
> www.saintaviation.com <http://www.saintaviation.com>
>
> Cell: 352-427-0285
>
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Establishing gross weight |
Dan,
I'm only responding because I think builders should think long and hard
before making the decision to increase Van's recommended limits. I don't want to
see any statistics in our group. The RV-10 was designed to handle 3.8G's with
a ~1.5 safety margin (~5.7G ultimate). Anything you do beyond the design
conditions cuts into said safety margin.
By your argument the C-5 Galaxy with a maximum gross weight of 840,000 lbs x
3.8G's can handle 3,192,000# of load. So when at low fuel weight (374,000#)
it should be able to pull 3,192,000# / 374,000# = 8.5 G's. That would be
something to see, however, that is simply not the case; it just doesn't work that
way.
You can justify all you want. I still don't recommend it.
-Jim
In a message dated 5/17/2007 12:27:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
LloydDR@wernerco.com writes:
We are not talking safety margins, we are talking an aircraft rated in the
standard category and as such will sustain 3.8G's without structural failure.
Nuff said. If the location of the additional 200 LBS keeps the plane in CG
than there will not be an issue in standard flight conditions, what is unknown
is how the plane will react when the plane is stressed past the max load
breaking point of 3.8G's x 2700lbs or 10,260LBS total. Then once you get past
this point there is the safety margin that is built in, but unless you go past
the 10,260 LBS limit then there is nothing new being discovered.
Dan
____________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JSMcGrew@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
The design safety margins are established to account for variations in
construction, fatigue, turbulence, variations in piloting, engineering mistakes
etc. etc., all of which are fairly difficult to predict when they will happen
or what the effect will be. Furthermore, an aircraft experiences many
different stresses during the course of a flight (besides just holding the airplane
up in level flight). You need a thorough engineering analysis to understand
the effects a deviation from the design conditions will have on the airframe in
various flight conditions.
I recommend sticking to Van's established limits (weight limits and all
others) unless one is willing and capable of performing such an analysis.
-Jim McGrew
40134
Jim "Scooter" McGrew
_http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew_ (http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew)
In a message dated 5/17/2007 11:35:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
LloydDR@wernerco.com writes:
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Let me clarify my position, Like you have stated the plane has already
had a static test of its 2700 lbs, which means the wing will need to
support 3.8 times that to be in the standard category, which means
theoretically both wings together will withstand 10,260 lbs and not
fail. With this being said, it would not be a long stretch stating that
an additional 200 pounds in the right location will not cause an issue
during normal flight and clear non-turbulent conditions. I did not state
that it was a smart thing to do and go fly in turbulence, what I did
state was set it high, flight test it and adjust as necessary.
Dan N289DT RV10E
Jim "Scooter" McGrew
_http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew_ (http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew)
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.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: Gear leg geometry |
Gear leg geometryYes mine was the same. Also the gear leg supports on
the right side had to be redrilled as all the bolts were on a angle.
Very very poor workmanship from the Philiphines.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Lloyd, Daniel R.
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 12:11 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
Your airplane will likely never sit level anywhere. The loading of
each side of the airplane is rarely equally distributed, think single
pilot operation, and this could easily make one side of the plane sit
lower than the other, uneven taxi etc. This small of a difference should
not amount to anything, as long as each wheel pant is done correctly.
Dan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:15 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
Although I have not seen this difference before personally, it does
not completely surprise me. In fact, I think I remember somebody else
mentioning it on the list in the past, although I am not sure. It may
be worth taking it off the bench and then measuring, leveling, checking
to see if it is even then. If not, then it may be an issue because the
plane may not sit level. On the other hand, with that long arm, =BC"
with no weight could be just about anything, however minor. If the
plane sits level when parked, then I wouldn't worry about it and just
rig the pants for the least drag when flying (at 200mph nobody will be
looking up and saying, "hey, one of his gear legs is lower than the
other). Again, the biggest issue, IMHO, would be whether or not the
fuse will sit flat once you get the engine, wings, pilot, passengers,
etc loaded up. Even =BC" there probably would be hard to notice over
8', because that would be about =BC degree off level if my math is
correct.
Is it possible that something is "preloading" one of the gear legs
either on your table or inside? Are your weldments completely secured
and torqued (with no unwanted burs/shims anywhere)?
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 McGANN, Ron
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:49 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
G'day all,
I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the fuse
is still resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck in
pitch and roll. When I measured the distance between the floor and
bottom of the wheel I found a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat.
The distance between the floor and spar corners is within 1/8",
suggesting a difference in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8".
Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear
leg weldments to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this?
Is the 3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly
aligning the wheel pants?
Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little
surprised with this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal.
thanks in advance
Ron
187 finishing
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://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 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 |
|
Well it was only a matter of time. I had a little assistance in installing the
mounting screws for the fuel tank while I was off working on my thesis for grad
school. 3 screws are stripped. Grit on the scrwedriver and my Proto screw removers
have all failed to remove the screws. Any other methods out there that
have worked for you? Got to get the wings out of the shop so I have room for the
Fuse next week. Thanks.
Eric Kallio
40518 Finishing SB wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113451#113451
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: | AHRS/magnetometer location |
Group: After lots of head scratching I am going with dual GRT screens
but now I need to know where to put the AHRS units and the
magnetometers. It seems that Grand Rapids is not all that fussy about
their locations (wing tips, subpanel, fuselage) but I would like to know
what others have recommended and done. Are there indeed preferred
locations in terms of functionality and ease of construction? Thanks,
Jay Rowe #40301
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | AHRS/magnetometer location |
Jay,
I have my magnetometer on a small shelf in the top of the tailcone (aft
part of the same bay as batteries). This gets better than 24"
separation from anything else is reasonably accessible. The AHRS is on
the right side of the right panel rib forward of the subpanel. I made a
shelf that is attached to both the rib and the F-1001B. Lots of choices
for location but these worked out well for me (I'm not yet flying
however) based on physical location and the limited electrical testing
that I've done.
Bob #40105
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Rowe
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:49 PM
Subject: RV10-List: AHRS/magnetometer location
Group: After lots of head scratching I am going with dual GRT screens
but now I need to know where to put the AHRS units and the
magnetometers. It seems that Grand Rapids is not all that fussy about
their locations (wing tips, subpanel, fuselage) but I would like to know
what others have recommended and done. Are there indeed preferred
locations in terms of functionality and ease of construction? Thanks,
Jay Rowe #40301
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Screw removal |
Try Sears Screw Remover. They have one with a tapered square bit.
You drill a hole, as indicated on the removal bit and it almost makes
a square opening on the head of the screw. You then use a pipe
thread handle to with the removal bit to remove the screw.
Sorry that I cannot give part numbers but I know that Sears has them.
Do Not archive.
On May 17, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Eric_Kallio wrote:
>
> Well it was only a matter of time. I had a little assistance in
> installing the mounting screws for the fuel tank while I was off
> working on my thesis for grad school. 3 screws are stripped. Grit
> on the scrwedriver and my Proto screw removers have all failed to
> remove the screws. Any other methods out there that have worked for
> you? Got to get the wings out of the shop so I have room for the
> Fuse next week. Thanks.
>
> Eric Kallio
> 40518 Finishing SB wings
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113451#113451
>
>
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: AHRS/magnetometer location |
I put BMA magnetometer just aft of the baggage compartment on a level plate
attached to the side of the fuse. I don't recommend this. The EMF from the
master relay, the autopilot motor and the swinging of the rear seat belt cables
raises hell with my heading. I will be relocating it. I would recommend
putting it outboard in the wing that doesn't have an autopilot servo, aileron
trim servo or pitot heat.
-Jim
40134
Jim "Scooter" McGrew
_http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew_ (http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew)
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: AHRS/magnetometer location |
My AHARS is attached to one of the firewall angles and the sub-panel
ribs, kinda above my left knee. the bottom of the AHARS is flush
with the bottom of the sub-panel. I made brackets with nut-plates so
that I can remove it laying upside down using one hand/tool. This
location allowed for very short wire runs.
The manometer is located in the left wing-tip attached to couple of
angles that are attached to the last outboard rib.
Things seem to wok pretty accurately but I have nothing else to
compare with.
Do not archive.
On May 17, 2007, at 5:49 PM, Jay Rowe wrote:
> Group: After lots of head scratching I am going with dual GRT
> screens but now I need to know where to put the AHRS units and the
> magnetometers. It seems that Grand Rapids is not all that fussy
> about their locations (wing tips, subpanel, fuselage) but I would
> like to know what others have recommended and done. Are there
> indeed preferred locations in terms of functionality and ease of
> construction? Thanks, Jay Rowe #40301
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List_-
> ============================================================ _-
> forums.matronics.com_-
> ===========================================================
>
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: | Gear leg geometry |
Guys,
Thanks for the replies both on and off list. Jesse - no preloading,
weldments were a bitch to install, but fit fine with no shims or hole
misalignment. Vans suggest I am indeed being a bit too anal and that I
am '. . . a victim of manufacturing tolerance stackup.' They commend
the idea of installing the pants while the fuse is on the bench (as
previously endorsed by the list).
After sleeping on it and doing the math, best I can calculate is that if
there is a 3/8" height difference between the gear legs, there will be
about 1.5" difference in height between the wingtips. As Dan points
out, indiscernable after the acft is loaded.
The key factor is to ensure that the fairings are properly aligned
during flight, so the strategy appears to be to press on, make sure the
acft is absolutely level and treat each pant separately. Pity she will
have a bit of a lean (if you look reeeeal closely) when parked.
cheers,
Ron
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:42 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
Your airplane will likely never sit level anywhere. The loading of each
side of the airplane is rarely equally distributed, think single pilot
operation, and this could easily make one side of the plane sit lower
than the other, uneven taxi etc. This small of a difference should not
amount to anything, as long as each wheel pant is done correctly.
Dan
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:15 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
Although I have not seen this difference before personally, it does not
completely surprise me. In fact, I think I remember somebody else
mentioning it on the list in the past, although I am not sure. It may
be worth taking it off the bench and then measuring, leveling, checking
to see if it is even then. If not, then it may be an issue because the
plane may not sit level. On the other hand, with that long arm, =BC"
with no weight could be just about anything, however minor. If the
plane sits level when parked, then I wouldn't worry about it and just
rig the pants for the least drag when flying (at 200mph nobody will be
looking up and saying, "hey, one of his gear legs is lower than the
other). Again, the biggest issue, IMHO, would be whether or not the
fuse will sit flat once you get the engine, wings, pilot, passengers,
etc loaded up. Even =BC" there probably would be hard to notice over
8', because that would be about =BC degree off level if my math is
correct.
Is it possible that something is "preloading" one of the gear legs
either on your table or inside? Are your weldments completely secured
and torqued (with no unwanted burs/shims anywhere)?
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 McGANN, Ron
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:49 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
G'day all,
I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the fuse
is still resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck in
pitch and roll. When I measured the distance between the floor and
bottom of the wheel I found a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat.
The distance between the floor and spar corners is within 1/8",
suggesting a difference in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8".
Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear
leg weldments to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this?
Is the 3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly
aligning the wheel pants?
Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little surprised
with this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal.
thanks in advance
Ron
187 finishing
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
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 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: Gear leg geometry |
Gear leg geometryWell Ron park next to mine and no one will know!
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: McGANN, Ron
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 9:16 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
Guys,
Thanks for the replies both on and off list. Jesse - no preloading,
weldments were a bitch to install, but fit fine with no shims or hole
misalignment. Vans suggest I am indeed being a bit too anal and that I
am '. . . a victim of manufacturing tolerance stackup.' They commend
the idea of installing the pants while the fuse is on the bench (as
previously endorsed by the list).
After sleeping on it and doing the math, best I can calculate is that
if there is a 3/8" height difference between the gear legs, there will
be about 1.5" difference in height between the wingtips. As Dan points
out, indiscernable after the acft is loaded.
The key factor is to ensure that the fairings are properly aligned
during flight, so the strategy appears to be to press on, make sure the
acft is absolutely level and treat each pant separately. Pity she will
have a bit of a lean (if you look reeeeal closely) when parked.
cheers,
Ron
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:42 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
Your airplane will likely never sit level anywhere. The loading of
each side of the airplane is rarely equally distributed, think single
pilot operation, and this could easily make one side of the plane sit
lower than the other, uneven taxi etc. This small of a difference should
not amount to anything, as long as each wheel pant is done correctly.
Dan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:15 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
Although I have not seen this difference before personally, it does
not completely surprise me. In fact, I think I remember somebody else
mentioning it on the list in the past, although I am not sure. It may
be worth taking it off the bench and then measuring, leveling, checking
to see if it is even then. If not, then it may be an issue because the
plane may not sit level. On the other hand, with that long arm, =BC"
with no weight could be just about anything, however minor. If the
plane sits level when parked, then I wouldn't worry about it and just
rig the pants for the least drag when flying (at 200mph nobody will be
looking up and saying, "hey, one of his gear legs is lower than the
other). Again, the biggest issue, IMHO, would be whether or not the
fuse will sit flat once you get the engine, wings, pilot, passengers,
etc loaded up. Even =BC" there probably would be hard to notice over
8', because that would be about =BC degree off level if my math is
correct.
Is it possible that something is "preloading" one of the gear legs
either on your table or inside? Are your weldments completely secured
and torqued (with no unwanted burs/shims anywhere)?
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 McGANN, Ron
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:49 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
G'day all,
I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the
fuse is still resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck
in pitch and roll. When I measured the distance between the floor and
bottom of the wheel I found a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat.
The distance between the floor and spar corners is within 1/8",
suggesting a difference in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8".
Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the
gear leg weldments to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed
this? Is the 3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in
properly aligning the wheel pants?
Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little
surprised with this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal.
thanks in advance
Ron
187 finishing
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://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 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Comm antenna placement |
Vern,
I use the whip primarily as it is tied to my Garmin 480 and the foil is
connected to the SL-30. I have never not been able to contact anyone on the
SL-30 and therefore switch to the 480 and have used it intentionally
numerous times to see how it works. During initial testing I did a number
of radio checks with the tower and it sounded like they couldn't tell the
difference (I wasn't that far away though). My primary mode is to use the
bent whip setup as primary and get ATIS/talk to Unicom on the foil with
great success.
I figured worst case I'd have to add another whip antenna and I'd only be
out $7 plus the coax to try it.
Marcus
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:26 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Comm antenna placement
Marcus,
Have you had a chance to compare the performance of the foil roof mount to
your bent whip?
Vern (#324)
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:52 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Comm antenna placement
Vern,
I took a little different route. I put a bent whip antenna just aft
of the baggage compartment, and a $7 copper foil antenna on the roof. I
figured I wasn't out a thing to try it and it works great. It also
alleviated my concern of shadowing the antenna to tower while on the ground,
although I haven't had any issues with my belly mounted antenna which I use
with the primary radio.
Marcus
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: | AHRS/magnetometer location |
I built a small shelf just aft of the baggage compartment abeam the
longerons and mounted both to it. It has worked great for 130 hours with no
issues except one. On a few frequencies, when I key the mic the attitude
pitches up slightly. Doesn't matter which antenna (one on the bottom aft of
the baggage compartment, another foil antenna on the forward cabin top). I
suspect it is not the AHRS location as much as either a grounding issue or
shielding issue on the wires going to the AHARS (ie there isn't any which I
thought was odd but pressed). No heading issues for me regarding trim motor
or other activity in the area.
Marcus
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Rowe
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:49 PM
Subject: RV10-List: AHRS/magnetometer location
Group: After lots of head scratching I am going with dual GRT screens but
now I need to know where to put the AHRS units and the magnetometers. It
seems that Grand Rapids is not all that fussy about their locations (wing
tips, subpanel, fuselage) but I would like to know what others have
recommended and done. Are there indeed preferred locations in terms of
functionality and ease of construction? Thanks, Jay Rowe #40301
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Gear leg geometry |
Just come to Colorado Springs around August and fly around 4:00pm. We will surely
have a nice crosswind and high density altitude for you to help clunk it down
just enough to adjust one side.
Sean Blair
#40225
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "The McGough Family" <VHMUM@bigpond.com>
Well Ron park next to mine and no one will know!
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: McGANN, Ron
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 9:16 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
Guys,
Thanks for the replies both on and off list. Jesse - no preloading, weldments
were a bitch to install, but fit fine with no shims or hole misalignment. Vans
suggest I am indeed being a bit too anal and that I am '. . . a victim of manufacturing
tolerance stackup.' They commend the idea of installing the pants
while the fuse is on the bench (as previously endorsed by the list).
After sleeping on it and doing the math, best I can calculate is that if there
is a 3/8" height difference between the gear legs, there will be about 1.5" difference
in height between the wingtips. As Dan points out, indiscernable after
the acft is loaded.
The key factor is to ensure that the fairings are properly aligned during flight,
so the strategy appears to be to press on, make sure the acft is absolutely
level and treat each pant separately. Pity she will have a bit of a lean (if
you look reeeeal closely) when parked.
cheers,
Ron
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:42 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
Your airplane will likely never sit level anywhere. The loading of each side of
the airplane is rarely equally distributed, think single pilot operation, and
this could easily make one side of the plane sit lower than the other, uneven
taxi etc. This small of a difference should not amount to anything, as long as
each wheel pant is done correctly.
Dan
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:15 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
Although I have not seen this difference before personally, it does not completely
surprise me. In fact, I think I remember somebody else mentioning it on the
list in the past, although I am not sure. It may be worth taking it off the
bench and then measuring, leveling, checking to see if it is even then. If
not, then it may be an issue because the plane may not sit level. On the other
hand, with that long arm, with no weight could be just about anything, however
minor. If the plane sits level when parked, then I wouldnt worry about it
and just rig the pants for the least drag when flying (at 200mph nobody will
be looking up and saying, hey, one of his gear legs is lower than the other).
Again, the biggest issue, IMHO, would be whether or not the fuse will sit flat
once you get the engine, wings, pilot, passengers, etc loaded up. Even there
probably would be hard to notice over 8, because that would be about degree
off level if my math is correct.
Is it possible that something is preloading one of the gear legs either on your
table or inside? Are your weldments completely secured and torqued (with no
unwanted burs/shims anywhere)?
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 McGANN, Ron
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:49 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
G'day all,
I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the fuse is still
resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck in pitch and roll.
When I measured the distance between the floor and bottom of the wheel I found
a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat. The distance between the floor
and spar corners is within 1/8", suggesting a difference in gear leg angles of
1/4-3/8".
Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear leg weldments
to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this? Is the 3/8" difference
a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly aligning the wheel pants?
Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little surprised with this.
Maybe I'm just getting too anal.
thanks in advance
Ron
187 finishing
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
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
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
<html><body>
<DIV>Just come to Colorado Springs around August and fly around 4:00pm. We
will surely have a nice crosswind and high density altitude for you to help
clunk it down just enough to adjust one side.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Sean Blair</DIV>
<DIV>#40225</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "The McGough
Family" <VHMUM@bigpond.com> <BR>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16441" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE>v\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
o\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
w\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
.shape {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
</STYLE>
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
P {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New
Roman"; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto
}
PRE {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"
}
SPAN.EmailStyle19 {
COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Well Ron park next to mine and no one will know!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Chris</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT:
5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=ron.mcgann@baesystems.com href="mailto:ron.mcgann@baesystems.com">McGANN, Ron</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=rv10-list@matronics.com href="mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com">rv10-list@matronics.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 18, 2007 9:16 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=100115222-17052007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Guys, </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=100115222-17052007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=100115222-17052007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Thanks for the replies both on and off list. Jesse - no
preloading, weldments were a bitch to install, but fit fine with no shims
or hole misalignment. Vans suggest I am indeed being a bit too anal
and that I am '. . . <FONT size=2>a victim of manufacturing tolerance stackup.'
They commend the idea of installing the pants while the fuse is
on the bench (as previously endorsed by the list).</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=100115222-17052007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=100115222-17052007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>After sleeping on it and doing the math, best I can calculate is
that if there is a 3/8" height difference between the gear legs, there will be
about 1.5" difference in height between the wingtips. As Dan points
out, indiscernable after the acft is loaded.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=100115222-17052007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=100115222-17052007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>The key factor is to ensure that the fairings are properly aligned
during flight, so the strategy appears to be to press on, make sure the
acft is absolutely level and treat each pant separately. Pity she will
have a bit of a lean (if you look reeeeal closely) when parked.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=100115222-17052007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=100115222-17052007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>cheers,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=100115222-17052007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Ron</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Lloyd, Daniel R.<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:42 PM<BR><B>To:</B> rv10-list@matronics.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=555210814-17052007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Your airplane will likely never sit level anywhere. The loading
of each side of the airplane is rarely equally distributed, think single pilot
operation, and this could easily make one side of the plane sit lower than the
other, uneven taxi etc. This small of a difference should not amount to anything,
as long as each wheel pant is done correctly.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=555210814-17052007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Dan</FONT> </SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Jesse Saint<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:15 AM<BR><B>To:</B> rv10-list@matronics.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Although I have not seen this difference
before personally, it does not completely surprise me. In fact, I think
I remember somebody else mentioning it on the list in the past, although I am
not sure. It may be worth taking it off the bench and then measuring, leveling,
checking to see if it is even then. If not, then it may be an issue
because the plane may not sit level. On the other hand, with that long
arm, with no weight could be just about anything, however minor. If
the plane sits level when parked, then I wouldnt worry about it and just rig
the pants for the least drag when flying (at 200mph nobody will be looking up
and saying, hey, one of his gear legs is lower than the other). Again, the
biggest issue, IMHO, would be whether or not the fuse will sit flat once you
get the engine, wings, pilot, passengers, etc l
oaded
up. Even there probably would be hard to notice over 8, because that would
be about degree off level if my math is correct.<?xml:namespace prefix = o
ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Is it possible that something is preloading
one of the gear legs either on your table or inside? Are your weldments
completely secured and torqued (with no unwanted burs/shims anywhere)?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Jesse Saint</SPAN></FONT><FONT color=navy><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Saint Aviation, Inc.</SPAN></FONT><FONT
color=navy><SPAN style="COLOR: navy"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><A href="mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com">jesse@saintaviation.com</A></SPAN></FONT><FONT color=navy><SPAN style="COLOR: navy"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><A href="http://www.saintaviation.com/">www.saintaviation.com</A></SPAN></FONT><FONT color=navy><SPAN style="COLOR: navy"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Cell: 352-427-0285</SPAN></FONT><FONT color=navy><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Fax: 815-377-3694</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR tabIndex=-1 align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><B><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">From:</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma"> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] <B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">On Behalf Of </SPAN></B>McGANN, Ron<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:49 AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> rv10-list@matronics.com<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> RV10-List: Gear leg geometry</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE:
10pt">G'day all,<BR><BR>I was working the wheel pants this evening.
Gear is on, but the fuse is still resting on the workbench. I leveled
at the mid cabin deck in pitch and roll. When I measured the distance
between the floor and bottom of the wheel I found a 3/8" difference.
The shed floor is flat. The distance between the floor and spar corners
is within 1/8", suggesting a difference in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8".<BR><BR>Best
I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear leg weldments
to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this? Is the
3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly aligning
the wheel pants?<BR><BR>Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I
am a little surprised with this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal.<BR><BR>thanks
in advance<BR>Ron<BR>187 finishing</SPAN></F
ONT><o
:p></o:p></P><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><B><FONT face="Courier New" color=black
size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></PRE><PRE
style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><B><FONT
face="Courier New" color=black size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE:
10pt; COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></PRE><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT:
0.5in"><B><FONT face="Courier New" color=black size=2><SPAN ="====<o:p"></SPAN></FONT></B></PRE><PRE
style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><B><FONT face="Courier
New" color=black size=2><SPAN - The RV10-List Email Forum -<o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></PRE><PRE
style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><B><FONT face="Courier New"
color=black size=2><SPAN Matronics List Features Navigator to browse<o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></PRE><PRE
style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><B><FONT face="Courier New"
color=black size=2><SPAN List utilities such as the Subscriptions page,<o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></PRE><PRE
style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in
"><B><
FONT face="Courier New" color=black size=2><SPAN Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,<o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></PRE><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><B><FONT face="Courier New" color=black size=2><SPAN Photoshare, and much more:<o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></PRE><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><B><FONT face="Courier New" color=black size=2><SPAN --> <a href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List</A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></PRE><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><B><FONT face="Courier New" color=black size=2><SPAN ="====<o:p"></SPAN></FONT></B></PRE><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><B><FONT face="Courier New" color=black size=2><SPAN - -<o:p NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS></SPAN></FONT></B></PRE><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><B><FONT face="Courier New" color=black size=2><SPAN the content now also available via Web Forums!<o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></PRE><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><B><FONT face="Courier New" color=black
size=2
><SPAN --> <a href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com</A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></PRE><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><B><FONT face="Courier New" color=black size=2><SPAN ="====<o:p"></SPAN></FONT></B></PRE><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><B><FONT face="Courier New" color=black size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></PRE></DIV><PRE><B><FONT face="courier new,courier" color=#000000 size=2>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List</A>
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com</A>
</B></FONT></PRE><PRE><B><FONT face="courier new,courier" color=#000000 size=2>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List</A>
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com</A>
</B></FONT></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE><B><FONT face="courier new,courier" color=#000000
size=2>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List</A>
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com</A>
</B></FONT></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE><B><FONT face="courier new,courier" size=2 color000000?>
</B></FONT></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Establishing gross weight |
Weighing IN. VANS has done it with testing!
My favorite quip goes like this "The tree of life Is Self Pruning".
* Lancair builders (and other manipulators) have all too often
"Pen Whipped" their gross weight number to achieve an artificial Useable
Weight calculation.
* DARs can often be bought for money. You can even sneak things
by them - they are human.
* Ignorance can be corrected with solid Life Experiences and a
sound Education... Stupidity is a hereditary thing.
* Pilot's often "Pen Whip an Aeronautical Logbook" or their
"Engine Logbook". It is why the FAA wants it in pen not pencil.
You have only your god and the pain and suffering of the surviving
family members to answer too when you fool with irrefutable engineering
evidence. Newton got it right years ago. Often the heaviest and
juiciest apple falls first from the tree. Get some education, study the
issue, live long enough to amass wisdom and sound personal experience.
Screw with the Insurance Underwriters and Attorneys and I assure you
that your life will be less enjoyable. I stand ready to serve as an
"expert witness" who will fly anywhere, at any time, for any individual
or group of individuals who desire to keep aviation safer and with lower
insurance costs. Another perspective, do something unquestionably
stupid and injurious to the rest of us builders and be prepared to spend
a lot of money. Corner cutting set you up for the spring tree pruning
ritual.
Anybody want to talk about an RV-10 Operator's Seminar at OSH like
Lancair does? So we can hammer out these issues.
John Cox
Do not Archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:27 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
Modifying the gross weight is very little different from a lot of the
other non-Van's-approved mods. The plane was engineered for a 260HP (or
less) IO-540 with 60 gallons of fuel, 180Kts max cruise, etc. etc. etc.
If you want to put in a Subaru, Mazda, turbo-Lycoming, 120Gal tanks, tip
tanks, IFR panel (why would you do this unless you were going to fly IFR
in a plane that was designed to be strictly VFR?), etc, you are
modifying the design. The nice thing about the amateur-built
experimental category is that you are free to do that, even though you
might make Van's mad.
Really and truly, I think the gross weight should be established during
the fly-off period. How is the builder going to establish a gross
weight when he hasn't even flown the plane? But, since you have to (I
am sure you, as the repairman, can modify it down the road in the log
books if you choose to) establish a pre-airworthy gross weight, then you
have to guess. Most people will go with the 2,700, many of whom will
fly it however feels comfortable, whether it is 2,700 or 3,000.
Selecting a gross weight different than what Van's recommends will
really only become an issue if/when there is an accident. If you are
flying over your established gross weight and crash, the insurance
company will not want to pay if they can establish that you were
overweight. If you are flying within a gross weight over what Van's
recommends and you crash, the insurance company will not be able to not
pay because of the weight unless there is a clause in the contract that
requires that you build exactly to the plans, which I doubt there is.
Then you may start causing problems for other people because insurance
rates may go up. Some people modify their gross weight simply because
they can. The plane will carry 2,900 lbs and still climb to 15,000+
feet (I think ;-) ). From there it is completely up to you. Also, even
if you put your gross weight at 2,700, what are the implications of
flying over gross weight?
For others (JC's response expected here), what are the implications of
flying over you established gross weight? Does that just become an
issue if you crash and don't burn?
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 Wayne
Edgerton
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
I saw on a weight and balance list at www.rvproject.com/wab/ that there
is some differences on selecting a max gross weight. Vans recommends
2700, but used 2758 on their 10, but on this list there's a 2850 and a
2900. How does one come up with the conclusion or decision to increase
the gross weight over Vans recommended? My empty weight came in somewhat
higher than the others at 1749 but I've put a ton of stuff in the panel
and many extra items including a full leather interior, four place O2,
overhead console, etc. It is what it is.
Obviously it would be nice to have a higher gross weight but I'm not
sure how one justifies going beyond the recommended gross weight.
Anyone have any great insight into this? I did a archive search but
didn't seem to find much.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
sent my papers off to the DAR so I'm hopefully getting close
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
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: | Re: AHRS/magnetometer location |
Mine are centered on a shelf which is mounted on the longerons in the tailc
one back against the next bulkhead after the baggage bulkhead. No issues.
I don't have antennas back there. I do have the pitch servo on one side o
f the battery, and the strobe power pack on the other side.
Anh
N591VU - Flying - 60 hrs
----- Original Message -----
From: Jay Rowe
To: matronics
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:49 PM
Subject: RV10-List: AHRS/magnetometer location
Group: After lots of head scratching I am going with dual GRT screens bu
t now I need to know where to put the AHRS units and the magnetometers. It
seems that Grand Rapids is not all that fussy about their locations (wing
tips, subpanel, fuselage) but I would like to know what others have recomme
nded and done. Are there indeed preferred locations in terms of functional
ity and ease of construction? Thanks, Jay Rowe #40301
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Establishing gross weight |
I am just building the plane light. Lower the empty weight and increase
useful load. How can you arbitrarily raise the designed gross weight and
feel comfortable, much less flight test the thing like that? What if the
plane stalls and you can't recover? When I was a brand new pilot I took my
father-in-law (we each go better than 200 lbs.) for a ride in the C-150 I
trained in at Rainbow airport in Franklin, WI (Y78 now gone.) Filled it
with gas and took off on a nice hot afternoon. Field elevation was only
about 750 MSL. The plane barely climbed out of ground effect, but did end
up getting us over the trees just past the end of the runway, barely. I
think the sweat I burned off hoping to climb helped. How much over gross
do you think we were? OAT play any roll in this? The first and last time I
flew without paying attention to weight, balance and performance issues.
Never told my father-in-law there was a problem. If Van's says gross is
2700, it's 2700 max or no go in my book. Stay safe please, builders.
Dave Leikam
40496
----- Original Message -----
From: "KiloPapa" <kilopapa@antelecom.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
>
> Those replies suggesting that the gross weight figure is a choice of the
> builder need to read the responses by Kevin Hovis again. This is not an
> issue of "builders prerogative" at all but simply one of structural
> design. I am really surprised at those who would take it so lightly.
>
> Kevin
> 40494
> tail/empennage
>
>
>
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Gear leg geometry |
You need the gear leg that is counter to the engine torque direction, to
be
longer than the other in order to nullify the effect of the torque
trying to
load down that side. When you apply power=85the engine torque will drive
that
leg lower, the wings will even out and look level to the guy sitting at
the
end of the runway feeling envious of your perfectly aligned building
achievement.
Or try a lift in one shoe.
John 40315
Do not archive (for obvious reasons)
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of The McGough
Family
Sent: Friday, 18 May 2007 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
Well Ron park next to mine and no one will know!
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: McGANN, <mailto:ron.mcgann@baesystems.com> Ron
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 9:16 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
Guys,
Thanks for the replies both on and off list. Jesse - no preloading,
weldments were a bitch to install, but fit fine with no shims or hole
misalignment. Vans suggest I am indeed being a bit too anal and that I
am
'. . . a victim of manufacturing tolerance stackup.' They commend the
idea
of installing the pants while the fuse is on the bench (as previously
endorsed by the list).
After sleeping on it and doing the math, best I can calculate is that if
there is a 3/8" height difference between the gear legs, there will be
about
1.5" difference in height between the wingtips. As Dan points out,
indiscernable after the acft is loaded.
The key factor is to ensure that the fairings are properly aligned
during
flight, so the strategy appears to be to press on, make sure the acft is
absolutely level and treat each pant separately. Pity she will have a
bit
of a lean (if you look reeeeal closely) when parked.
cheers,
Ron
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:42 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
Your airplane will likely never sit level anywhere. The loading of each
side
of the airplane is rarely equally distributed, think single pilot
operation,
and this could easily make one side of the plane sit lower than the
other,
uneven taxi etc. This small of a difference should not amount to
anything,
as long as each wheel pant is done correctly.
Dan
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:15 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
Although I have not seen this difference before personally, it does not
completely surprise me. In fact, I think I remember somebody else
mentioning it on the list in the past, although I am not sure. It may
be
worth taking it off the bench and then measuring, leveling, checking to
see
if it is even then. If not, then it may be an issue because the plane
may
not sit level. On the other hand, with that long arm, =BC=94 with no
weight
could be just about anything, however minor. If the plane sits level
when
parked, then I wouldn=92t worry about it and just rig the pants for the
least
drag when flying (at 200mph nobody will be looking up and saying,
=93hey, one
of his gear legs is lower than the other). Again, the biggest issue,
IMHO,
would be whether or not the fuse will sit flat once you get the engine,
wings, pilot, passengers, etc loaded up. Even =BC=94 there probably
would be
hard to notice over 8=92, because that would be about =BC degree off
level if my
math is correct.
Is it possible that something is =93preloading=94 one of the gear legs
either on
your table or inside? Are your weldments completely secured and torqued
(with no unwanted burs/shims anywhere)?
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 McGANN, Ron
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:49 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Gear leg geometry
G'day all,
I was working the wheel pants this evening. Gear is on, but the fuse is
still resting on the workbench. I leveled at the mid cabin deck in
pitch
and roll. When I measured the distance between the floor and bottom of
the
wheel I found a 3/8" difference. The shed floor is flat. The distance
between the floor and spar corners is within 1/8", suggesting a
difference
in gear leg angles of 1/4-3/8".
Best I can tell is that there must be a slight difference in the gear
leg
weldments to result in the offset. Has anyone else noticed this? Is
the
3/8" difference a problem? Will this cause a problem in properly
aligning
the wheel pants?
Given the accuracy of the kit up to this point, I am a little surprised
with
this. Maybe I'm just getting too anal.
thanks in advance
Ron
187 finishing
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
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
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
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! --
|