Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:52 AM - Re: Fuel Leak (JSMcGrew@aol.com)
2. 04:36 AM - Re: Fuel Leak (Rob Kermanj)
3. 04:37 AM - Re: Fuel Leak (Rob Kermanj)
4. 05:12 AM - Re: Fuel Leak (linn Walters)
5. 05:54 AM - Re: Fuel Leak (JSMcGrew@aol.com)
6. 06:12 AM - Re: Fuel Leak (Tim Olson)
7. 06:37 AM - Re: Fuel Leak (Rene Felker)
8. 07:08 AM - Re: A Embarrising ELT Story ()
9. 07:19 AM - Re: Wet Compass (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
10. 07:32 AM - Primary instruments ()
11. 08:00 AM - Re: Fuel Leak (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
12. 08:19 AM - Re: RV10 Flyoff time (John Gonzalez)
13. 09:57 AM - Re: Primary instruments (William Curtis)
14. 10:17 AM - Re: Primary instruments (John Kirkland)
15. 10:55 AM - Re: Re: Primary instruments (Kelly McMullen)
16. 12:37 PM - Re: Primary instruments (John W. Cox)
17. 02:04 PM - Re: Fuel Leak (Bob Newman)
18. 02:30 PM - Re: Primary instruments (William Curtis)
19. 02:31 PM - Re: Primary instruments (William Curtis)
20. 04:28 PM - Re: Fuel Leak (gary)
21. 06:04 PM - Re: Primary instruments (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
22. 09:36 PM - Remove QB tanks to test? (Dave Leikam)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Wouldn't it be nice if we had someone smart enough to do that?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look up the vapor pressure of AVGAS
(the ASTM D 910 spec lists a maximum of about 7 psi). That is a lot of pressure
and that is why we have a vent line! I don't believe our tanks ever have to
or could endure that amount of pressure. So, I don't think the amount of
pressure makes too much difference; if there is a hole, air is going to go
through it. That's why I used about 0.5 psi. In my opinion, Tim has got it right
when he suggests using soapy water along with pressure from a ballon as a
primary test.
Jim
40134
Jim "Scooter" McGrew
_http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew_ (http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew)
In a message dated 6/10/2007 11:39:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rvbuilder@sausen.net writes:
What if one of you smart MIT types *cough* figure out about how much PSI a
full tank of avgas exerts while compensating for the difference in viscosity
between air and avgas. Should give you a better number to use to approx the
PSI of air for testing the tanks. Hopefully it will lead to more accurate
leak tests.
Just a thought. :-)
Michael
Do not archive
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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 |
|
Chris, Van offered to repair my tank at no charge and will supply you
with whatever you need to repair them. They do however think that a
replacement tank may not fit your wing.
At the end, I think that it is quicker and less costly to repair
minor leaks at home.
do not archive
On Jun 10, 2007, at 6:23 PM, The McGough Family wrote:
> I dont know why you guys in the states just dont send your tanks
> back at vans expence? Several leaks on a QB tank is BS ....I mean
> Vans sent me a new gear leg free of charge as it was faulty.
>
> Chris
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rob Kermanj
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:30 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Leak
>
> You are lucky that it is only leaking from the rivet. Mine QB
> leaked in several places resulting in much debates, head scratching
> and a big hole on the rear of the tank to do repairs.
>
> The 290 WILL work. My rivet leak has held up for a year now. I
> would put the same amount of neg. pressure on the tank while
> applying the 290 and let them sit overnight.
>
> Do not archive.
>
> On Jun 10, 2007, at 7:12 AM, JSMcGrew@aol.com wrote:
>
>> I know we just had this discussion about a leaky rivet on a fuel
>> tank. I didn't comment because I thought I was the lucky recipient
>> of leak-free quickbuild tanks. You'll notice from the attached
>> photo that I was not. Seeing that did not make me happy.
>>
>> Last August I pressure tested my tanks using a pressure gauge from
>> a blood pressure cuff before installing them. I pumped them up to
>> 35 mmHG (~ 0.67 psi) and left them for 2-3 days. The pressure did
>> not change so I figured they were good. After filling them I
>> checked for leaks and didn't see any. I've had fuel in the tanks
>> for 10 months and flown 85 hours. As I was washing the bugs off my
>> wing yesterday I found this leak. I'm glad I found it before
>> painting.
>>
>> I plan on emptying the fuel from the wing and trying the Locktite
>> 290 approach, unless someone has a better suggestion.
>>
>> -Jim
>> 40134
>>
>> Jim "Scooter" McGrew
>> http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew
>>
>>
>>
>> See what's free at AOL.com.
>> <IMG_4540_1.JPG>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhref="http://
> forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List_-
> ============================================================ _-
> forums.matronics.com_-
> ===========================================================
>
Message 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 |
|
Soap.
do not archive.
On Jun 11, 2007, at 1:34 AM, Dave Leikam wrote:
> OK, I am a short way from testing my QB tanks. If I do an air
> pressure test, and the test fails, how will I find any leaks? Soap?
>
> Dave Leikam
> 40496
> QB Wings
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen)
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:36 PM
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuel Leak
>
> What if one of you smart MIT types *cough* figure out about how
> much PSI a full tank of avgas exerts while compensating for the
> difference in viscosity between air and avgas. Should give you a
> better number to use to approx the PSI of air for testing the
> tanks. Hopefully it will lead to more accurate leak tests.
>
>
> Just a thought. :-)
>
>
> Michael
>
> Do not archive
>
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JSMcGrew@aol.com
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:12 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Fuel Leak
>
>
> I know we just had this discussion about a leaky rivet on a fuel
> tank. I didn't comment because I thought I was the lucky recipient
> of leak-free quickbuild tanks. You'll notice from the attached
> photo that I was not. Seeing that did not make me happy.
>
>
> Last August I pressure tested my tanks using a pressure gauge from
> a blood pressure cuff before installing them. I pumped them up to
> 35 mmHG (~ 0.67 psi) and left them for 2-3 days. The pressure did
> not change so I figured they were good. After filling them I
> checked for leaks and didn't see any. I've had fuel in the tanks
> for 10 months and flown 85 hours. As I was washing the bugs off my
> wing yesterday I found this leak. I'm glad I found it before painting.
>
>
> I plan on emptying the fuel from the wing and trying the Locktite
> 290 approach, unless someone has a better suggestion.
>
>
> -Jim
>
> 40134
>
>
> Jim "Scooter" McGrew
> http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew
>
>
> See what's free at AOL.com.
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhref="http://
> forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List_-
> ============================================================ _-
> forums.matronics.com_-
> ===========================================================
>
Message 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 |
|
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Dave,
SNIP
> Then, leave the balloon full and see how it is the next day. If
> it is still full, you're done. If it isn't, then you probably
> need to do the bubble test again, and you'll most likely find any
> problem if there is one.
SNIP
Keep in mind that normal changes in pressure altitude will change the
size of the balloon. Keep an eye on the local altimeter. You really
wouldn't want to spend a lot of time checking for leaks caused by a high
moving in!!! ;-)
Linn
do not archive
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 |
|
Not to mention the temperature of the tank itself. The temp inside my hangar
fluctuated from 55F at night to 120F during the afternoon, that naturally
changed the pressure drastically and makes it very hard determine if there is a
leak. Another reason I should have used the soapy water method over the
entire tank.
-Jim
In a message dated 6/11/2007 8:13:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net writes:
--> RV10-List message posted by: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
Tim Olson wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> Dave,
SNIP
> Then, leave the balloon full and see how it is the next day. If
> it is still full, you're done. If it isn't, then you probably
> need to do the bubble test again, and you'll most likely find any
> problem if there is one.
SNIP
Keep in mind that normal changes in pressure altitude will change the
size of the balloon. Keep an eye on the local altimeter. You really
wouldn't want to spend a lot of time checking for leaks caused by a high
moving in!!! ;-)
Linn
do not archive
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Yeah, I should have mentioned the atmospheric changes, sorry I
missed that. I did my leak test in our basement with a stable
temp. As for weather, you can only hope to see everything
stable. In truth, testing the tanks is kind of a big deal
that you get it right, so I would either let it stay inflated
for at least a couple days, or test them 2 or 3 days in a row.
And if you get a balloon drop, don't panic the first day unless
it drops in an hour or two....you can do the soap bubble
and balloon test many times to verify it isn't lying to you.
Tim
JSMcGrew@aol.com wrote:
> Not to mention the temperature of the tank itself. The temp inside my
> hangar fluctuated from 55F at night to 120F during the afternoon, that
> naturally changed the pressure drastically and makes it very hard
> determine if there is a leak. Another reason I should have used the
> soapy water method over the entire tank.
>
> -Jim
>
> In a message dated 6/11/2007 8:13:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net writes:
>
> <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>
> >
> > Dave,
>
> SNIP
>
> > Then, leave the balloon full and see how it is the next day. If
> > it is still full, you're done. If it isn't, then you probably
> > need to do the bubble test again, and you'll most likely find any
> > problem if there is one.
>
> SNIP
>
> Keep in mind that normal changes in pressure altitude will change the
> size of the balloon. Keep an eye on the local altimeter. You really
> wouldn't want to spend a lot of time checking for leaks caused by a
> high
> moving in!!! ;-)
> Linn
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503>.
>
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
Ok, I will chime in. I have not filled my tanks with gas yet, so....
I used a manometer to do the testing. I did it in my garage with wide
temperature variations and changes in atmospheric conditions. On the first
tank, I set it up, marked the water level, soap tested, and then marked the
water level each morning and night for three days. Did not see any real
drop.
On the second tank, I set up the same way, but was never really able to get
a perfect seal around the filler cap Tried several methods, none worked, so
I just used the Soap. I had no problem telling where I had not sealed
around the filler.
Rene' Felker
N423CF
40322
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Leak
Yeah, I should have mentioned the atmospheric changes, sorry I
missed that. I did my leak test in our basement with a stable
temp. As for weather, you can only hope to see everything
stable. In truth, testing the tanks is kind of a big deal
that you get it right, so I would either let it stay inflated
for at least a couple days, or test them 2 or 3 days in a row.
And if you get a balloon drop, don't panic the first day unless
it drops in an hour or two....you can do the soap bubble
and balloon test many times to verify it isn't lying to you.
Tim
JSMcGrew@aol.com wrote:
> Not to mention the temperature of the tank itself. The temp inside my
> hangar fluctuated from 55F at night to 120F during the afternoon, that
> naturally changed the pressure drastically and makes it very hard
> determine if there is a leak. Another reason I should have used the
> soapy water method over the entire tank.
>
> -Jim
>
> In a message dated 6/11/2007 8:13:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net writes:
>
> <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>
> >
> > Dave,
>
> SNIP
>
> > Then, leave the balloon full and see how it is the next day. If
> > it is still full, you're done. If it isn't, then you probably
> > need to do the bubble test again, and you'll most likely find any
> > problem if there is one.
>
> SNIP
>
> Keep in mind that normal changes in pressure altitude will change the
> size of the balloon. Keep an eye on the local altimeter. You really
> wouldn't want to spend a lot of time checking for leaks caused by a
> high
> moving in!!! ;-)
> Linn
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503>.
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A Embarrising ELT Story |
I participate in CAP here in Lexington, We actually had a guy driving a van with
an ELT sitting on the dash (and ON!). Took the ground team a while to track
him down.
He had removed it, tossed it in the van and went on his way. Needless to say,
it powered and worked just fine.
Jim Combs
N312F - Reserved
40192 Finish Kit
Do Not Archive
===========================================================
From: "Tim C" <tlc2@telus.net>
Subject: RV10-List: A Embarrising ELT Story
Passing this story along.....> Tim Cold Lk.
Have an "Most Embarrassing" story to tell ya all>
This morning Sat Jun 09....I noticed a red/white/ and blue airplane buzzing my
house, about two hours later I had a knock at my front door.....It was the CAP
with hand held receiver pointing at me....They asked if I had an ELT in my possession...and
I said yes I do.
I had pulled it from 299V about three months ago along with the Nav/Com power supply
and UHF Glideslope receiver. seems as the switch had gotten flipped to
the ON position yesterday when I was putting them away with other parts removed.
It was over 20 years old, in my house and antenna not deployed....and dagum
if the battery was still good. It was a Narco Airtex model 00-10-006 with the
magnesium battery...
I would have thought it would have been long gone dead...Replacement date May 88
about the time aircraft had it's last flight...WRONG ! ...Nice bunch of Civil
Air Patrol young folks, I was so embarrassed about the incident, but they thanked
me for the exercise, they had driven here from about 30 miles as well.
So the moral to the story is -------Treat them like a loaded gun....No matter
how old they may be......Like the Thorp....will give the "Bunny" a run for the
money....Too bad they can not make all batteries that good....But I know these
things do not come cheap. Just thought I'd share this with ya.
Tom A
__._,_.___
Aviation training
Aviation art Aviation maintenance schools
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
===========================================================
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 |
|
In a message dated 6/8/2007 12:19:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
robin1@mrmoisture.com writes:
My questions is am I REQUIRED to have a wet compass?
Robin
Robin,
I've seen what a few folks have written and I'm not so sure they are
correct...if you look at the FAR/AIM 91.203/91.205...it talks about "civil" aircraft
not certificate aircraft...so then one needs to figure out what a civil
aircraft is..I'm guessing the the FAA is refering to an aircraft as defined on
Page 1
of Part 1 which defines aircraft as "Aircraft means a device that is used or
intended to be used for flight in the air..."
That seems to catch all things that go or intend to go aloft...thus you'll be
required to meet the 91.205 (b) (items 1-17 for day VFR) and (c) (items 1-6
for night VFR)...by the way...item (b) (3) is a "Magnetic direction
indicator"--it does not say wet compass or vertical card etc...but just that you
are
required to have a MDI so I'd guess that the WalMart or Boy Scouts of America
brand compass would quality for this requirement. The same as your watch
qualifies for a timing device for IFR flight, you are not required to have a fancy
timing device on the panel, a simple watch that can count seconds will qualify
for this device.
If your DAR indicated that you are not required to have an MDI, I wonder what
regulation he's working from? I'm not sure on this but I think if you have a
plane built before 1920???--when the Civil Aeronautics Broad formed then
there is not a requirement for the basic ol' 6 pack of VFR instruments.
I own a part of a 1940-1 built Piper and only the basic 6 pack of instruments
are required...and we have a wet compass as this was part of the original
equipment list.
I'm not an expert or an FAA lawyer, but I guess that you are required to have
some type of back up magnetic compass beyond an electronic navigation system
whether you are experimental or certified aircraft, VFR or IFR...as the list
get gets longer as one moves from VFR to IFR whether one is certified or
experimental.
If I was installing a MDI (magnetic direction indicator--better know to us as
a compass), I'd install the vertical card compass, having flown on them for
years they are a pretty good item to have almost like having a back up to the
Heading Indicator (DG)...the VCC has very little lead, dip errors or lag in
attitude and direction changes.
These regulations are written for a whole range of flight craft from
commercial down to what ever qualifies as "aircraft".
Patrick
do not archive...
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Primary instruments |
William wrote:
"As another message indicated, for the certified aircraft with glass
panels, the steam gauges are primary and the EFIS are secondary. They
must have good reason for doing this and unless one has data showing
otherwise, I'd follow their model."
This is a fallacy. The EFIS systems in such aircraft as Cirrus ARE the
primary instruments, and thus must meet the FAR requirements for them
being within the pilots field of view, etc. The mechanical backup
instruments are often no longer in the "primary" field of view.
One possible confusion in this case was (historically speaking) that
initially the MFD engine instruments on Cirri were not legally the
primary engine indicators, as the MFD was certified to software
certification level D, whereas critical engine parameters demanded a
software certification level C. (so many Cirri have engine instruments
on the MFD, but also mechanical versions in the panel) With the
addition of these critical engine instruments onto the Avidyne PFD
(Level C), that restriction was lifted, and the mechanical engine
instruments disappeared from the production line.
Most EFIS systems do have a "magnetic direction indicator", but the FAA
would never let them certify an airplane without a compass on board.
Nothing in the FAR says you have to have a backup ADI to your EFIS,
either, but expect a lot of grief from the FAA if you tried to certify
that setup for production IFR.
TDT
40025
--
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 |
|
See, you smart guys jump straight to the technical aspects. I was actual
ly thinking the physical weight of the avgas and the PSI that that amount o
f head pressure that would exert. It's probably safe to assume that all be
ts are off with a plugged vent line.
Probably a wacky idea anyway as I slept at a Hampton Inn. J
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of JSMcGrew@aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Leak
Wouldn't it be nice if we had someone smart enough to do that?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look up the vapor pressure of AVGAS (
the ASTM D 910 spec lists a maximum of about 7 psi). That is a lot of press
ure and that is why we have a vent line! I don't believe our tanks ever hav
e to or could endure that amount of pressure. So, I don't think the amount
of pressure makes too much difference; if there is a hole, air is going to
go through it. That's why I used about 0.5 psi. In my opinion, Tim has got
it right when he suggests using soapy water along with pressure from a bal
lon as a primary test.
Jim
40134
Jim "Scooter" McGrew
http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew
In a message dated 6/10/2007 11:39:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rvbuilder
@sausen.net writes:
What if one of you smart MIT types *cough* figure out about how much PSI a
full tank of avgas exerts while compensating for the difference in viscosi
ty between air and avgas. Should give you a better number to use to approx
the PSI of air for testing the tanks. Hopefully it will lead to more accu
rate leak tests.
Just a thought. :-)
Michael
Do not archive
________________________________
See what's free at AOL.com<http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503>.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV10 Flyoff time |
maybe it was the autopilot which was flying and he had four DVDs to watch.
>From: "The McGough Family" <VHMUM@bigpond.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV10 Flyoff time
>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:21:19 +1000
>
>OK flame me guys but you test flew 9 hours a day??? Lucky your alive!
>
>Cogratulations on completion.
>
>Chris
>
>
> >>
> >> I wanted to pass on a quick note to those interested in how my DAR
> >> check and Flyoff went. I got DAR approval on Tues at 2:30. We put all
> >> the fairings and inspection covers on and I was in the air at 4:30. I
> >> flew 2.7 hours that day and developed a LOW oil pressure issue. I
> >> called the engine builder on Wednesday to discuss it and he said is
> >> needed a new spring and ball in the pressure adjustment cap. He Fedex
> >> it to me on Thursday at noon. Come to find out what I really needed
> >> was an aluminum SEAT washer that the pressure check ball fits into.
> >> That SEAT came loose and fell out.........which is NOT suppose to
> >> happen. The oil was leaking around the seat and registering LOW
> >> pressure. After fully inspecting the motor to confirm it was NOT
> >> making metal we FLEW a Baron to Omaha, NE to get the new SEAT, flew
> >> home and the landing gear would not go down!!!!!
> >> PLUS it burned 50 Gals. of fuel in 60 minutes. After cranking the
> >> gear down and doing a fly by to verify it was down..........I got the
> >> new seat in the plane. Viola.....66 PSI oil.........winds were 36 mph
> >> 45 degrees to the runway...........UP I went. I flew 3.6 hours in very
> >> gusty conditions.........one landing I had full RUDDER and a 48 MPH GS
> >> . I thought my ankle was gonna break with those gusts hitting the
> >> rudder.......then you have to get it taxied with that nose castering in
> >> the wind!
> >> Friday was a good day..............9.0 hours flown..........Saturday
> >> was great also..............flew 9.2 hours for a total of 25 hours in 4
> >> days!!!!!! Oh yea......today we had a HOT mag....the P lead broke off.
> >>
> >> I am now gonna go get some sleep.........until SUNRISE...........then I
> >> have a few friends that want a RIDE!
> >>
> >> I still find it hard to believe we got this bird flying and done
> >> (painted with wheel pants)in less than 2 years. Oh
> >> yea........VFR........no Wet Compass yet. But I still would buy a good
> >> handheld GPS before a $250 compass (JMHO)
> >>
> >> If you are building ,.........keep bucking it is all WORTH IT! This
> >> plane is UNBELEIVABLE in the air! See you all at OSH '07. Thanks
> >> to all on this list who helped with friendly advice and counsel. I also
> >> wanna thank those who MOTIVATED us to build a great plane on a BUDGET.
> >> It can be done and done very respectably. :) Ask me AND Van! I did
> >> spring for seat covers though unlike Vans plastic, over foam, wrapped
> >> in Duct tape.
> >>
> >> Dean 40449
> >> Officially a member of the RV10 Flying family. WOW!
> >>
> >> _____________________________________________________________
> >> Click here to find single Christians that want to meet you today
> >>
>http://track.juno.com/s/lc?u=http://tagline.untd.us/fc/CAaCX09yknFM3unOinVLDWDnOZap0su7/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> >
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: | Primary instruments |
I don't have access to a Cirrus TCDS but I remember reading an article in Flying
which stated the same thing--that the steam gauges were primary and the EFIS
were supplemental. This was NOT referring to the engine instruments but the
EFIS AI/DG. Now I'll have to go check on that.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>
> William wrote:
> "As another message indicated, for the certified aircraft with glass
> panels, the steam gauges are primary and the EFIS are secondary. They
> must have good reason for doing this and unless one has data showing
> otherwise, I'd follow their model."
>
> This is a fallacy. The EFIS systems in such aircraft as Cirrus ARE the
> primary instruments, and thus must meet the FAR requirements for them
> being within the pilots field of view, etc. The mechanical backup
> instruments are often no longer in the "primary" field of view.
>
> One possible confusion in this case was (historically speaking) that
> initially the MFD engine instruments on Cirri were not legally the
> primary engine indicators, as the MFD was certified to software
> certification level D, whereas critical engine parameters demanded a
> software certification level C. (so many Cirri have engine instruments
> on the MFD, but also mechanical versions in the panel) With the
> addition of these critical engine instruments onto the Avidyne PFD
> (Level C), that restriction was lifted, and the mechanical engine
> instruments disappeared from the production line.
>
> Most EFIS systems do have a "magnetic direction indicator", but the FAA
> would never let them certify an airplane without a compass on board.
> Nothing in the FAR says you have to have a backup ADI to your EFIS,
> either, but expect a lot of grief from the FAA if you tried to certify
> that setup for production IFR.
>
> TDT
>
> 40025
>
> --
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: | Re: Primary instruments |
I don't read Flying magazine (except in while waiting for my AME), I didn't stay
in a Holiday Inn Express, but I do fly a Cessna T182T with G1000. The EFIS is
primary, the three steam gauges, airpspeed, altimeter, and vacuum driven attitude,
are secondary. There are no backups on any of the engine gauges.
--------
RV-10 #40333
N540XP (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=117823#117823
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: | Re: Primary instruments |
I'd say the real question is whether the FAA would approve of the
G1000 without the steam gauges. If not, I'd say they are required
equipment and the primary/secondary argument is meaningless. If they
will approve flight with the steam gauges removed or inop, then you
could call them secondary/backup.
On 6/11/07, John Kirkland <jskirkland@webpipe.net> wrote:
>
> I don't read Flying magazine (except in while waiting for my AME), I didn't stay
in a Holiday Inn Express, but I do fly a Cessna T182T with G1000. The EFIS
is primary, the three steam gauges, airpspeed, altimeter, and vacuum driven attitude,
are secondary. There are no backups on any of the engine gauges.
>
> --------
> RV-10 #40333
> N540XP (reserved)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=117823#117823
>
>
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: | Primary instruments |
Page 10 of the attached PDF, which is Cirrus POH page 2-12, is careful
to not call their ever popular EFIS a PFD but rather a MFD. The table
shows primary gauges to be the foundation both for VFR and IFR ops.
Pages 13 and 14 of the PDF which are Cirrus POH Pages 2-15 and 2-16 are
graphically more specific to the question posed.
There is no doubt their panel is great, but it is not Primary which is
the root of the question. FAR 91.205 becomes important for Experimental
aircraft operating in other than VFR Day ops. So for IFR, the magnetic
indication takes on more importance on a well designed panel.
Ironically, in VFR Day ops onboard an Experimental Civil Aircraft, there
is little requirement for most gauges which well trained pilots have
come to rely on. IMHO.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Curtis
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: re: RV10-List: Primary instruments
I don't have access to a Cirrus TCDS but I remember reading an article
in Flying which stated the same thing--that the steam gauges were
primary and the EFIS were supplemental. This was NOT referring to the
engine instruments but the EFIS AI/DG. Now I'll have to go check on
that.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>
> William wrote:
> "As another message indicated, for the certified aircraft with glass
> panels, the steam gauges are primary and the EFIS are secondary. They
> must have good reason for doing this and unless one has data showing
> otherwise, I'd follow their model."
>
> This is a fallacy. The EFIS systems in such aircraft as Cirrus ARE
the
> primary instruments, and thus must meet the FAR requirements for them
> being within the pilots field of view, etc. The mechanical backup
> instruments are often no longer in the "primary" field of view.
>
> One possible confusion in this case was (historically speaking) that
> initially the MFD engine instruments on Cirri were not legally the
> primary engine indicators, as the MFD was certified to software
> certification level D, whereas critical engine parameters demanded a
> software certification level C. (so many Cirri have engine
instruments
> on the MFD, but also mechanical versions in the panel) With the
> addition of these critical engine instruments onto the Avidyne PFD
> (Level C), that restriction was lifted, and the mechanical engine
> instruments disappeared from the production line.
>
> Most EFIS systems do have a "magnetic direction indicator", but the
FAA
> would never let them certify an airplane without a compass on board.
> Nothing in the FAR says you have to have a backup ADI to your EFIS,
> either, but expect a lot of grief from the FAA if you tried to certify
> that setup for production IFR.
>
> TDT
>
> 40025
>
> --
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 |
|
So here's my take on this test. We are building a slow build version
of the RV-10 so we took this as an opportunity to test the fuel tanks as
a two part process. This gave us a chance to resolve issues in a more
forgiving maner.
Step 1: As per instructions build a tank up to the point where you
install the back baffle that closes out the tank, but don't put the
back baffle in yet.
Set the tank aside and let the pro-seal dry for a week.
(build the other tank during the down time).
After the pro-seal is curred, place the tank in a set of
jigs with the leading edge pointing down and the rear baffle area facing
up. Support tank at the rib locations (we used three plywood forms
cut to the shape of the tank profile)
Fill the tank with water just below the rivet line for
the rear baffle.
Let it set and check all the rivets in the ribs. If you
have a leak a little bead of water will form around a rivet head. Now
you can easily fix any leaks as you have full access to all the rivets
in the rib sections. (NOTE, DO NOT TRY TO DUMP OUT THE WATER, you can
bend the tank. siphon it out)
Step 2: Once satisfied that the front portion of the tank is leak
free install the rear baffle as per instructions.
Let set a week and then perform the following test:
add a few gallons of water to the tank and then set it on a set of saw
horses with the baffle side down (leading edge up). The water will
cover the entire joint assembled during the close out.
Once satisfied your done.
We did this process to both of our tanks. Then as a belts and
suspenders test. we jiged up the tanks on three saw horse and filled
them full of water up to the filler neck and let them sit for over a
week. Periodic checks of all rivets showed two leak free tanks as the
above two step process predicted.
-Bob Newman
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: | Primary instruments |
OK, so for Cirrus, the TCDS defers to the POH and the POH states that the steam
gauges are primary and the MFDs (note it does not call them a PFD) is supplemental.
Anyone have a POH or TCDS for the G1000 equipped Cessna to see what it
says, as opposed to the truthiness?
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>
> Page 10 of the attached PDF, which is Cirrus POH page 2-12, is careful
> to not call their ever popular EFIS a PFD but rather a MFD. The table
> shows primary gauges to be the foundation both for VFR and IFR ops.
> Pages 13 and 14 of the PDF which are Cirrus POH Pages 2-15 and 2-16 are
> graphically more specific to the question posed.
>
> There is no doubt their panel is great, but it is not Primary which is
> the root of the question. FAR 91.205 becomes important for Experimental
> aircraft operating in other than VFR Day ops. So for IFR, the magnetic
> indication takes on more importance on a well designed panel.
> Ironically, in VFR Day ops onboard an Experimental Civil Aircraft, there
> is little requirement for most gauges which well trained pilots have
> come to rely on. IMHO.
>
> John
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
> Curtis
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: re: RV10-List: Primary instruments
>
>
> I don't have access to a Cirrus TCDS but I remember reading an article
> in Flying which stated the same thing--that the steam gauges were
> primary and the EFIS were supplemental. This was NOT referring to the
> engine instruments but the EFIS AI/DG. Now I'll have to go check on
> that.
>
> William
> http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> > X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
> >
> > William wrote:
> > "As another message indicated, for the certified aircraft with glass
> > panels, the steam gauges are primary and the EFIS are secondary. They
> > must have good reason for doing this and unless one has data showing
> > otherwise, I'd follow their model."
> >
> > This is a fallacy. The EFIS systems in such aircraft as Cirrus ARE
> the
> > primary instruments, and thus must meet the FAR requirements for them
> > being within the pilots field of view, etc. The mechanical backup
> > instruments are often no longer in the "primary" field of view.
> >
> > One possible confusion in this case was (historically speaking) that
> > initially the MFD engine instruments on Cirri were not legally the
> > primary engine indicators, as the MFD was certified to software
> > certification level D, whereas critical engine parameters demanded a
> > software certification level C. (so many Cirri have engine
> instruments
> > on the MFD, but also mechanical versions in the panel) With the
> > addition of these critical engine instruments onto the Avidyne PFD
> > (Level C), that restriction was lifted, and the mechanical engine
> > instruments disappeared from the production line.
> >
> > Most EFIS systems do have a "magnetic direction indicator", but the
> FAA
> > would never let them certify an airplane without a compass on board.
> > Nothing in the FAR says you have to have a backup ADI to your EFIS,
> > either, but expect a lot of grief from the FAA if you tried to certify
> > that setup for production IFR.
> >
> > TDT
> >
> > 40025
> >
> > --
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: | Primary instruments |
OK, so for Cirrus, the TCDS defers to the POH and the POH states that the steam
gauges are primary and the MFDs (note it does not call them a PFD) is supplemental.
Anyone have a POH or TCDS for the G1000 equipped Cessna to see what it
says, as opposed to the truthiness?
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>
> Page 10 of the attached PDF, which is Cirrus POH page 2-12, is careful
> to not call their ever popular EFIS a PFD but rather a MFD. The table
> shows primary gauges to be the foundation both for VFR and IFR ops.
> Pages 13 and 14 of the PDF which are Cirrus POH Pages 2-15 and 2-16 are
> graphically more specific to the question posed.
>
> There is no doubt their panel is great, but it is not Primary which is
> the root of the question. FAR 91.205 becomes important for Experimental
> aircraft operating in other than VFR Day ops. So for IFR, the magnetic
> indication takes on more importance on a well designed panel.
> Ironically, in VFR Day ops onboard an Experimental Civil Aircraft, there
> is little requirement for most gauges which well trained pilots have
> come to rely on. IMHO.
>
> John
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
> Curtis
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: re: RV10-List: Primary instruments
>
>
> I don't have access to a Cirrus TCDS but I remember reading an article
> in Flying which stated the same thing--that the steam gauges were
> primary and the EFIS were supplemental. This was NOT referring to the
> engine instruments but the EFIS AI/DG. Now I'll have to go check on
> that.
>
> William
> http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> > X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
> >
> > William wrote:
> > "As another message indicated, for the certified aircraft with glass
> > panels, the steam gauges are primary and the EFIS are secondary. They
> > must have good reason for doing this and unless one has data showing
> > otherwise, I'd follow their model."
> >
> > This is a fallacy. The EFIS systems in such aircraft as Cirrus ARE
> the
> > primary instruments, and thus must meet the FAR requirements for them
> > being within the pilots field of view, etc. The mechanical backup
> > instruments are often no longer in the "primary" field of view.
> >
> > One possible confusion in this case was (historically speaking) that
> > initially the MFD engine instruments on Cirri were not legally the
> > primary engine indicators, as the MFD was certified to software
> > certification level D, whereas critical engine parameters demanded a
> > software certification level C. (so many Cirri have engine
> instruments
> > on the MFD, but also mechanical versions in the panel) With the
> > addition of these critical engine instruments onto the Avidyne PFD
> > (Level C), that restriction was lifted, and the mechanical engine
> > instruments disappeared from the production line.
> >
> > Most EFIS systems do have a "magnetic direction indicator", but the
> FAA
> > would never let them certify an airplane without a compass on board.
> > Nothing in the FAR says you have to have a backup ADI to your EFIS,
> > either, but expect a lot of grief from the FAA if you tried to certify
> > that setup for production IFR.
> >
> > TDT
> >
> > 40025
> >
> > --
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 |
|
Two things to add.
Water is a bigger molecule than avgas and while it may not leak avgas can.
Don't ask me how I know.
2nd. Drying out the tank can be difficult. Hooking a Vacuum cleaner to
the filler and taping it off, then let it run for a few days should get most
of it.
Gary
40274
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Newman
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel Leak
So here's my take on this test. We are building a slow build version
of the RV-10 so we took this as an opportunity to test the fuel tanks as
a two part process. This gave us a chance to resolve issues in a more
forgiving maner.
Step 1: As per instructions build a tank up to the point where you
install the back baffle that closes out the tank, but don't put the
back baffle in yet.
Set the tank aside and let the pro-seal dry for a week.
(build the other tank during the down time).
After the pro-seal is curred, place the tank in a set of
jigs with the leading edge pointing down and the rear baffle area facing
up. Support tank at the rib locations (we used three plywood forms
cut to the shape of the tank profile)
Fill the tank with water just below the rivet line for
the rear baffle.
Let it set and check all the rivets in the ribs. If you
have a leak a little bead of water will form around a rivet head. Now
you can easily fix any leaks as you have full access to all the rivets
in the rib sections. (NOTE, DO NOT TRY TO DUMP OUT THE WATER, you can
bend the tank. siphon it out)
Step 2: Once satisfied that the front portion of the tank is leak
free install the rear baffle as per instructions.
Let set a week and then perform the following test:
add a few gallons of water to the tank and then set it on a set of saw
horses with the baffle side down (leading edge up). The water will
cover the entire joint assembled during the close out.
Once satisfied your done.
We did this process to both of our tanks. Then as a belts and
suspenders test. we jiged up the tanks on three saw horse and filled
them full of water up to the filler neck and let them sit for over a
week. Periodic checks of all rivets showed two leak free tanks as the
above two step process predicted.
-Bob Newman
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: Primary instruments |
In a message dated 6/11/2007 5:32:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
wcurtis@nerv10.com writes:
Anyone have a POH or TCDS for the G1000 equipped Cessna to see what it says,
as opposed to the truthiness?
On page 7-10 in the 182T Nav III Skylane it say's...Pilot Panel Layout
...the DGU 1040 Primary Flight Display (PDF), centered on the insturment panel
in
front of the pilot, shows the primary flight instruments during normal
operation."
the it goes on to take about start ups and reversionary mode...
So I'd take it that Cessna believes the PDF contains the primary flight
instruments...
P
************************************** 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: | Remove QB tanks to test? |
Thanks for the soap responses everyone. Is it possible to do a good
test without removing the tanks from the wings? Mine are soooo nice and
snug right now. ???????
Thanks for letting me continually pick your brains.
Dave Leikam
40496
QB wing stuff
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! --
|