Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:02 AM - Re: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation? (John Testement)
2. 05:51 AM - Re: Tinted windows (JSMcGrew@aol.com)
3. 06:58 AM - Re: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? (David McNeill)
4. 08:08 AM - Re: Tinted windows (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
5. 08:11 AM - Re: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation? (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
6. 08:14 AM - Re: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation? (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
7. 08:14 AM - Re: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? (pascal)
8. 08:30 AM - Re: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation? (Rene Felker)
9. 08:56 AM - Alodine (Fred Williams, M.D.)
10. 08:57 AM - Re: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation? (John W. Cox)
11. 09:05 AM - Re: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? (John W. Cox)
12. 09:36 AM - Re: Alodine (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
13. 09:38 AM - Re: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation? (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
14. 09:38 AM - Re: Alodine (John W. Cox)
15. 10:28 AM - Re: Alodine (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
16. 10:33 AM - Silence (gary)
17. 10:38 AM - Re: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? (Tim Olson)
18. 10:41 AM - Re: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? (John Gonzalez)
19. 11:25 AM - Re: Silence (Tim Olson)
20. 01:02 PM - Re: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation? (John Ackerman)
21. 01:06 PM - Re: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? (Scott Schmidt)
22. 01:16 PM - Re: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? (John Jessen)
23. 02:00 PM - Lancair Panel (RobHickman@aol.com)
24. 02:09 PM - Re: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? (Scott Schmidt)
25. 02:27 PM - Re: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? (Mark Ritter)
26. 02:42 PM - Re: Lancair Panel (Scott Schmidt)
27. 04:01 PM - Cool Jugs (Paul Walter)
28. 06:04 PM - Re: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? (David McNeill)
29. 06:35 PM - Re: Alodine (Richard Sipp)
30. 07:05 PM - Re: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation? (John W. Cox)
31. 07:12 PM - Re: Lancair Panel (John W. Cox)
32. 07:38 PM - Re: XC machine (John W. Cox)
33. 07:58 PM - Re: Alodine (John Testement)
34. 08:11 PM - Re: Tinted windows (Kelly McMullen)
35. 08:21 PM - Re: Re: XC machine (Scott Schmidt)
36. 09:02 PM - Re: Tinted windows (Scott Schmidt)
37. 09:29 PM - Re: Tinted windows (Kelly McMullen)
38. 09:30 PM - Re: Tinted windows (Robin Marks)
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: | phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation? |
Its so easy to brush some on for 5 min. Why not? I also used an Alodine pen
(from Stein) to do small areas. Its real convenient.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Sked
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation?
Good point John,
Should you alodine the aluminum after the etch just prior to installing the
windshield?
Rick S.
40185
----- Original Message -----
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2007 7:09:25 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles
Subject: RE: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation?
Phosphoric acid etch is the first of two steps in alodine treatment of
aluminum Alclad. The phosphoric acid is the etching process which allows
primer to adhere after alodine treats the surface.
If primer adheres better, then you might conclude that the adhesive adheres
better to retain the referenced part.
Ask Jesse about whether he followed that specific step and the method used
for replacement of the original windscreen after damage from errant Columbia
propellers.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Johnston
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 2:13 PM
Subject: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation?
hey all -
what's the deal with this phosphoric acid etch stuff? it says to do that
before you install the windscreen fairing on page 45-18 step 9, but i have
no idea what it means. is there a special product you use to do this? what
the heck?
cj
phosphoric phool
do not archive
9:14 AM
9:14 AM
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tinted windows |
I wouldn't expect that anyone would want tinted windows in an airplane. It
is hard enough to see at night without looking through a tinted windscreen! :)
-Jim
40134
In a message dated 9/3/2007 11:27:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
apilot2@gmail.com writes:
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>
Does Vans, or anyone else offer tinted windshield and windows? Seems
like would be desirable for all VFR flight to cut heat gain.
(http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew)
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
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: | The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? |
Let's not increase the insurance rates. While barely legal the flight may
not be prudent. Let's see. Arriving at 2 AM with 30-54 minutes of fuel
remaining. Some deviations around weather, some headwinds. What about
aircraft mechanical problems that increase the rate of fuel flow late in the
flight? What about airport closures due too disabled aircraft or
maintenance? If using flight following, what about ATC requested deviations
due to military or other activity? Low level clouds and ground fog usually
form in the early morning hours and may not be forecast or reported;
especially at non 24 hour tower airports.
Perhaps you considered all these and still had lots of options. Good.
I too love flying at night although my night flying is now not required as I
am retired. Also I fly in the mountains where a successful off airport
landing is enhanced greatly by daylight.
For me, unless the trip is short and over familiar territory nighttime is
IFR time. It keeps me clear of all surface obstacles and a precise route to
my destination (no deviations around clouds). There are precise distances
and altitudes to fly approaching the airport. Additionally my fuel
requirements are a minimum of 1 hour remaining at destination if good VFR or
two hours minimum if destination is IFR.
Just my two cents.
Comm CFII A&P
Flying 33 years
TT 4000+, night 600+, 300+ actual, and significant numbers of hand flown low
IFR departures and arrivals in my TC177RG
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?
Lovers of night flight might want to review 91.151 re min fuel. Of
course if the headwinds were not anticipated fuel requirements go out
the window.
On 9/3/07, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> Nope, you're not the only one that loves flying at night. ;)
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
With 55 gallons burned, that averaged less than 8 gph
> > and left 5/8's hour of reserve. X35
> > at 1:26am Eastern. I hope I'm not the only one that loves to fly at
> > night. That was FANTASTIC!
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
>
>
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 |
|
Don't recall if the windscreen had any tint but the side windows come pre t
inted.
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of JSMcGrew@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tinted windows
I wouldn't expect that anyone would want tinted windows in an airplane. It
is hard enough to see at night without looking through a tinted windscreen!
:)
-Jim
40134
In a message dated 9/3/2007 11:27:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, apilot2@gm
ail.com writes:
Does Vans, or anyone else offer tinted windshield and windows? Seems
like would be desirable for all VFR flight to cut heat gain.
AOL.com.
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: | phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation? |
Alodine as soon as possible after etching or cleaning. The Alodine process essentially
is a controlled corrosion of the aluminum which creates a thin film barrier
and then prevents any other corrosion from taking place. If you wait you
run the risk of filliform or other corrosion taking place first.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Sked
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation?
Good point John,
Should you alodine the aluminum after the etch just prior to installing the windshield?
Rick S.
40185
----- Original Message -----
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2007 7:09:25 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles
Subject: RE: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation?
Phosphoric acid etch is the first of two steps in alodine treatment of
aluminum Alclad. The phosphoric acid is the etching process which
allows primer to adhere after alodine treats the surface.
If primer adheres better, then you might conclude that the adhesive
adheres better to retain the referenced part.
Ask Jesse about whether he followed that specific step and the method
used for replacement of the original windscreen after damage from errant
Columbia propellers.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris
Johnston
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 2:13 PM
Subject: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation?
hey all -
what's the deal with this phosphoric acid etch stuff? it says to do
that before you install the windscreen fairing on page 45-18 step 9, but
i have no idea what it means. is there a special product you use to do
this? what the heck?
cj
phosphoric phool
do not archive
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: | phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation? |
I personally haven't done this but I don't see what the difference would be. The
common Lowes Depot products for "etching" and "cleaning" concrete prior to
painting is nothing more than phosphoric acid. Look for it in the paint section.
Just check the label and make sure it is straight phosphoric acid. I believe
the one Home Depot sells is even labeled as phosphoric acid.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Testement
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:01 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation?
Chris,
Spruce sells it as Alumiprep in gallon jugs. You dilute it about 2-1 with
water. I used it as part of the Alodining and priming that I did to all
interior surfaces. I also am Alumipreping and Alodining all external
aluminum as part of the pain process. I apply the Alumiprep with a red
Scotchbrite and scuff it in real good. When the aluminum is almost a white
color it has worked well. Do not let it dry while applying and rinse it real
good. Some auto paint stores carry an equivalent aluminum cleaner (tried
some that did not work as well).
John Testement
jwt@roadmapscoaching.com
40321
Richmond, VA
Paint prep, interior, and LOTS of little stuff
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Johnston
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 5:13 PM
Subject: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation?
hey all -
what's the deal with this phosphoric acid etch stuff? it says to do that
before you install the windscreen fairing on page 45-18 step 9, but i have
no idea what it means. is there a special product you use to do this? what
the heck?
cj
phosphoric phool
do not archive
4:32 PM
4:32 PM
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: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? |
I enjoyed reading the story and think the point was the capabilities of the
RV-10, not the FAA regulations and "what if's" that governed the 5/8 fuel
left. I'm sure with a 496 showing weather ahead and the current level of
instruments, that tell you to the minute, how much fuel is left, the PIC saw
what was and wasn't possible. They landed and all is well. Jesse told us
what they did to remain safe, and maybe he could have explained the logic
for what they did, but why need to?
Maybe I'm missing the point, but I want others to feel encouraged to tell
stories, if this were me I would question if it was worth sharing a story
only to hear about the "legalities" and how wise I was doing it. I know we
all care about the RV-10's staying in the air and insurance rates but let's
stick to "the most efficient 4-place" story versus responding with rules and
prudence. I'll go to my FAR's for that information if I need it.
So I am clear, taking advice from knowledgeable members, like a CFII is
appreciated, when someone asks for it and is the intent of discussion. I
read the NTSB monthly publication and in each accident review case I ask
myself what went wrong? how would I have handled the situation and what
could I have done to avoid being in this situation. In the end I realize
that I am only getting part of the story to the NTSB's best knowledge, not
necessarily all the facts (aka why the pilot did what they did- which only
that person would know). Jesse told us the fact that the RV-10 is quite
capable of going far and efficiently, all some are doing is surmising why
the pilot made the choices he made to land with less than 1 hour of fuel,
which is not the intent of this story.
I encourage all that have cross country stories, like Tim has done well in
covering on his webpage, to keep doing it for people like me that enjoy
reading about places to go and see with the RV-10, it truly motivates me to
keep working on the plane so I can start enjoying the journeys as well.
Thanks for sharing your story Jesse!
Pascal
----- Original Message -----
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:55 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?
>
> Let's not increase the insurance rates. While barely legal the flight may
> not be prudent. Let's see. Arriving at 2 AM with 30-54 minutes of fuel
> remaining. Some deviations around weather, some headwinds. What about
> aircraft mechanical problems that increase the rate of fuel flow late in
> the
> flight? What about airport closures due too disabled aircraft or
> maintenance? If using flight following, what about ATC requested
> deviations
> due to military or other activity? Low level clouds and ground fog usually
> form in the early morning hours and may not be forecast or reported;
> especially at non 24 hour tower airports.
>
> Perhaps you considered all these and still had lots of options. Good.
> I too love flying at night although my night flying is now not required as
> I
> am retired. Also I fly in the mountains where a successful off airport
> landing is enhanced greatly by daylight.
>
> For me, unless the trip is short and over familiar territory nighttime is
> IFR time. It keeps me clear of all surface obstacles and a precise route
> to
> my destination (no deviations around clouds). There are precise distances
> and altitudes to fly approaching the airport. Additionally my fuel
> requirements are a minimum of 1 hour remaining at destination if good VFR
> or
> two hours minimum if destination is IFR.
>
> Just my two cents.
> Comm CFII A&P
> Flying 33 years
> TT 4000+, night 600+, 300+ actual, and significant numbers of hand flown
> low
> IFR departures and arrivals in my TC177RG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 9:22 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?
>
>
> Lovers of night flight might want to review 91.151 re min fuel. Of
> course if the headwinds were not anticipated fuel requirements go out
> the window.
>
> On 9/3/07, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Nope, you're not the only one that loves flying at night. ;)
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> Jesse Saint wrote:
> With 55 gallons burned, that averaged less than 8 gph
>> > and left 5/8's hour of reserve. X35
>> > at 1:26am Eastern. I hope I'm not the only one that loves to fly at
>> > night. That was FANTASTIC!
>
>> > *
>> >
>> >
>> > *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation? |
Lowes sells the straight acid. I found it in the floor tile department.
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 RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 9:14 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation?
<rvbuilder@sausen.net>
I personally haven't done this but I don't see what the difference would be.
The common Lowes Depot products for "etching" and "cleaning" concrete prior
to painting is nothing more than phosphoric acid. Look for it in the paint
section. Just check the label and make sure it is straight phosphoric acid.
I believe the one Home Depot sells is even labeled as phosphoric acid.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Testement
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:01 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation?
Chris,
Spruce sells it as Alumiprep in gallon jugs. You dilute it about 2-1 with
water. I used it as part of the Alodining and priming that I did to all
interior surfaces. I also am Alumipreping and Alodining all external
aluminum as part of the pain process. I apply the Alumiprep with a red
Scotchbrite and scuff it in real good. When the aluminum is almost a white
color it has worked well. Do not let it dry while applying and rinse it real
good. Some auto paint stores carry an equivalent aluminum cleaner (tried
some that did not work as well).
John Testement
jwt@roadmapscoaching.com
40321
Richmond, VA
Paint prep, interior, and LOTS of little stuff
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Johnston
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 5:13 PM
Subject: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation?
hey all -
what's the deal with this phosphoric acid etch stuff? it says to do that
before you install the windscreen fairing on page 45-18 step 9, but i have
no idea what it means. is there a special product you use to do this? what
the heck?
cj
phosphoric phool
do not archive
4:32 PM
4:32 PM
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 |
|
For my current RV, I alumini preped, alodine and then put SW primer on
all the interior surfaces. I am happy with what I have chosen to do
with this plane. Is there anything wrong with just stopping with the
alodine step? Someday, (ok, maybe after my current wife is no longer
able to remember how much I spent on the 10) I'd like to build an rv 12
to have for fun day VFR . I have seen a couple of RV 10 's with no
interior prep/treatment. Would doing nothing be better than
something? With nothing, one does have the pure aluminum which does
have an oxidized layer. With the alodine, we are adding a chromic
oxidized layer. Thoughts? anybody have any real data?
Fred Williams
40515
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: | phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation? |
Grammatically speaking, Alodine does not "prevent" corrosion. It does
however surely slow the process of benign neglect.
The important points to the process are copious water rinse. Use of
de-ionized water (not chlorinated or fluoridated. No or very little
delay between phosphoric etch and final chromic "Alodine" final
hardening coat. All metals want to return to a more natural state of
oxidation.
Alodine like Anodize do help create a harder and more resistant surface
coating. Make it too hard and brittleness can cause a lack of some
desirable properties.
Good post Michael.
Johnny Horizon - KUAO
Do not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen
installation?
<rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Alodine as soon as possible after etching or cleaning. The Alodine
process essentially is a controlled corrosion of the aluminum which
creates a thin film barrier and then prevents any other corrosion from
taking place. If you wait you run the risk of filliform or other
corrosion taking place first.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Sked
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen
installation?
Good point John,
Should you alodine the aluminum after the etch just prior to installing
the windshield?
Rick S.
40185
----- Original Message -----
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2007 7:09:25 PM (GMT-0800)
America/Los_Angeles
Subject: RE: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen
installation?
Phosphoric acid etch is the first of two steps in alodine treatment of
aluminum Alclad. The phosphoric acid is the etching process which
allows primer to adhere after alodine treats the surface.
If primer adheres better, then you might conclude that the adhesive
adheres better to retain the referenced part.
Ask Jesse about whether he followed that specific step and the method
used for replacement of the original windscreen after damage from errant
Columbia propellers.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris
Johnston
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 2:13 PM
Subject: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation?
hey all -
what's the deal with this phosphoric acid etch stuff? it says to do
that before you install the windscreen fairing on page 45-18 step 9, but
i have no idea what it means. is there a special product you use to do
this? what the heck?
cj
phosphoric phool
do not archive
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: | The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? |
Until you have run a tank of fuel out to the point of fuel starvation
and engine silence (in straight and level), the determination of XXX.XX
gallons remaining and useable are bold actions to be used cautiously by
RV-10 builders/pilots in my same insurance pool. Add a simple turn or
two toward the same fuel side with that fuel remaining lower and the
pickup tube on the high side and you may just learn by someone else's
boldness the phrase "Old Bold Pilots".
34 years flying, and I too love night flights. I love it more with two
turbines and more than adequate fuel still on board at touchdown.
Stay safe, fly often, live long - don't raise my rates.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of pascal
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country
machine?
I enjoyed reading the story and think the point was the capabilities of
the
RV-10, not the FAA regulations and "what if's" that governed the 5/8
fuel
left. I'm sure with a 496 showing weather ahead and the current level
of
instruments, that tell you to the minute, how much fuel is left, the PIC
saw
what was and wasn't possible. They landed and all is well. Jesse told us
what they did to remain safe, and maybe he could have explained the
logic
for what they did, but why need to?
Maybe I'm missing the point, but I want others to feel encouraged to
tell
stories, if this were me I would question if it was worth sharing a
story
only to hear about the "legalities" and how wise I was doing it. I know
we
all care about the RV-10's staying in the air and insurance rates but
let's
stick to "the most efficient 4-place" story versus responding with rules
and
prudence. I'll go to my FAR's for that information if I need it.
So I am clear, taking advice from knowledgeable members, like a CFII is
appreciated, when someone asks for it and is the intent of discussion.
I
read the NTSB monthly publication and in each accident review case I ask
myself what went wrong? how would I have handled the situation and what
could I have done to avoid being in this situation. In the end I realize
that I am only getting part of the story to the NTSB's best knowledge,
not
necessarily all the facts (aka why the pilot did what they did- which
only
that person would know). Jesse told us the fact that the RV-10 is quite
capable of going far and efficiently, all some are doing is surmising
why
the pilot made the choices he made to land with less than 1 hour of
fuel,
which is not the intent of this story.
I encourage all that have cross country stories, like Tim has done well
in
covering on his webpage, to keep doing it for people like me that enjoy
reading about places to go and see with the RV-10, it truly motivates me
to
keep working on the plane so I can start enjoying the journeys as well.
Thanks for sharing your story Jesse!
Pascal
----- Original Message -----
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:55 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country
machine?
>
> Let's not increase the insurance rates. While barely legal the flight
may
> not be prudent. Let's see. Arriving at 2 AM with 30-54 minutes of fuel
> remaining. Some deviations around weather, some headwinds. What about
> aircraft mechanical problems that increase the rate of fuel flow late
in
> the
> flight? What about airport closures due too disabled aircraft or
> maintenance? If using flight following, what about ATC requested
> deviations
> due to military or other activity? Low level clouds and ground fog
usually
> form in the early morning hours and may not be forecast or reported;
> especially at non 24 hour tower airports.
>
> Perhaps you considered all these and still had lots of options. Good.
> I too love flying at night although my night flying is now not
required as
> I
> am retired. Also I fly in the mountains where a successful off airport
> landing is enhanced greatly by daylight.
>
> For me, unless the trip is short and over familiar territory nighttime
is
> IFR time. It keeps me clear of all surface obstacles and a precise
route
> to
> my destination (no deviations around clouds). There are precise
distances
> and altitudes to fly approaching the airport. Additionally my fuel
> requirements are a minimum of 1 hour remaining at destination if good
VFR
> or
> two hours minimum if destination is IFR.
>
> Just my two cents.
> Comm CFII A&P
> Flying 33 years
> TT 4000+, night 600+, 300+ actual, and significant numbers of hand
flown
> low
> IFR departures and arrivals in my TC177RG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 9:22 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country
machine?
>
>
> Lovers of night flight might want to review 91.151 re min fuel. Of
> course if the headwinds were not anticipated fuel requirements go out
> the window.
>
> On 9/3/07, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Nope, you're not the only one that loves flying at night. ;)
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> Jesse Saint wrote:
> With 55 gallons burned, that averaged less than 8 gph
>> > and left 5/8's hour of reserve. X35
>> > at 1:26am Eastern. I hope I'm not the only one that loves to fly
at
>> > night. That was FANTASTIC!
>
>> > *
>> >
>> >
>> > *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
I think where you live has a lot to do with what level you would want to take
surface prep to. If I lived anywhere near a salt water or high humidity climate
I would probably prime all surfaces. Because I don't, I stopped at Alodining
all surfaces and will follow that up with a corrosion inhibiting "fog" every
few years. Too each his own but for me that was enough to make me feel comfortable.
Now if I were to move near an ocean, it might give me a good reason
to sell and build something new. Gotta have the justification for the CFO ya
know. ;-)
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fred Williams, M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 10:56 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Alodine
For my current RV, I alumini preped, alodine and then put SW primer on
all the interior surfaces. I am happy with what I have chosen to do
with this plane. Is there anything wrong with just stopping with the
alodine step? Someday, (ok, maybe after my current wife is no longer
able to remember how much I spent on the 10) I'd like to build an rv 12
to have for fun day VFR . I have seen a couple of RV 10 's with no
interior prep/treatment. Would doing nothing be better than
something? With nothing, one does have the pure aluminum which does
have an oxidized layer. With the alodine, we are adding a chromic
oxidized layer. Thoughts? anybody have any real data?
Fred Williams
40515
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: | phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation? |
I do believe I said that it creates a barrier which helps prevent further corrosion.
:-D
For anyone who has priced deionizing (DI) "kits" they tend to be a bit on the expensive
side for no real good reason. What I did was to go to my local Menards
and pick up a couple of clear "whole house" water filters that were on sale
for less than $20. I then chained them together in series and put garden hose
fittings on the in and out of the combined unit. In the first filter I put
a charcoal 1 micron filter to catch most of the garbage and iron in the water.
In the second I put a refillable DI cartridge that I picked up off of eBay.
The whole setup cost me maybe $60 and you can get bulk DI media off of various
sites or eBay on the cheap. If you are really anal you could add a third filter
for water softening resin and a fourth for a cheaper throw away pre filter.
Just keep in mind that you will burn through a DI filter resin in a couple
hundred gallons.
A well kept secret of car detailers is using DI water for a spot free rinse.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 10:57 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation?
Grammatically speaking, Alodine does not "prevent" corrosion. It does
however surely slow the process of benign neglect.
The important points to the process are copious water rinse. Use of
de-ionized water (not chlorinated or fluoridated. No or very little
delay between phosphoric etch and final chromic "Alodine" final
hardening coat. All metals want to return to a more natural state of
oxidation.
Alodine like Anodize do help create a harder and more resistant surface
coating. Make it too hard and brittleness can cause a lack of some
desirable properties.
Good post Michael.
Johnny Horizon - KUAO
Do not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen
installation?
<rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Alodine as soon as possible after etching or cleaning. The Alodine
process essentially is a controlled corrosion of the aluminum which
creates a thin film barrier and then prevents any other corrosion from
taking place. If you wait you run the risk of filliform or other
corrosion taking place first.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Sked
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen
installation?
Good point John,
Should you alodine the aluminum after the etch just prior to installing
the windshield?
Rick S.
40185
----- Original Message -----
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2007 7:09:25 PM (GMT-0800)
America/Los_Angeles
Subject: RE: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen
installation?
Phosphoric acid etch is the first of two steps in alodine treatment of
aluminum Alclad. The phosphoric acid is the etching process which
allows primer to adhere after alodine treats the surface.
If primer adheres better, then you might conclude that the adhesive
adheres better to retain the referenced part.
Ask Jesse about whether he followed that specific step and the method
used for replacement of the original windscreen after damage from errant
Columbia propellers.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris
Johnston
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 2:13 PM
Subject: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation?
hey all -
what's the deal with this phosphoric acid etch stuff? it says to do
that before you install the windscreen fairing on page 45-18 step 9, but
i have no idea what it means. is there a special product you use to do
this? what the heck?
cj
phosphoric phool
do not archive
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 |
|
Doing something wrong can sometimes be worse than doing nothing. Doing
nothing in a harsh maritime or high humidity climate might justify more
protection. Some aircraft can sit in storage in the dry heat of Arizona
for decades with little corrosion effects.
Primer wars aside, some builders stop at a well prepared "Alodined"
surface which in fact exceeds the techniques used many Certificated
manufacturers (like Cessna and Piper). Others apply primer with no
intent to ever cover it with a final topcoat paint. Primer begs for a
properly formulated topcoat that is applied reasonable soon after the
primer. That step adds weight, some additional protection and an
attraction for the primer (without topcoat) to absorb hydrocarbons,
human oils, dirt and other organics over decades. The choice of
protection is that of every kit builder. Some of my closest friends
throw primer without topcoat at their plane. They are the
manufacturer... they make the choice.
Corrosion as a result of the faying action (wicking) of alkaline soaps
(improperly used and not removed) does far worse. Exfoliation and
filiform are just two corrosions that love such inattention over that
time period. It is always tragic to remediate corrosion on a perfectly
good aircraft. The only consolation for me is that my employer will
throw unlimited sums of money at correcting neglect down life's highway.
A seasoned Boeing 747 can gain as much as 5% of its certificated empty
weight in lost tools, FOD, swarf, old paint, waste hydrocarbons and
human organics when it is finally laid to rest.
Choice wisely. Have pride in your creation.
John Cox
40600
Do not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fred
Williams, M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 8:56 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Alodine
<drfred@suddenlinkmail.com>
For my current RV, I alumini preped, alodine and then put SW primer on
all the interior surfaces. I am happy with what I have chosen to do
with this plane. Is there anything wrong with just stopping with the
alodine step? Someday, (ok, maybe after my current wife is no longer
able to remember how much I spent on the 10) I'd like to build an rv 12
to have for fun day VFR . I have seen a couple of RV 10 's with no
interior prep/treatment. Would doing nothing be better than
something? With nothing, one does have the pure aluminum which does
have an oxidized layer. With the alodine, we are adding a chromic
oxidized layer. Thoughts? anybody have any real data?
Fred Williams
40515
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 |
|
One more thing to toss into the mix. There is a BIG difference between priming
and sealing a surface. For example if you look at a popular epoxy primer/sealer,
PPG's DP (now DPLF for "lead free") line, it is listed as both a primer
and a sealer but, being a catalyzed epoxy paint, it is really meant to seal a
surface. A sealer is specifically formulated to get it to flow out and form
a unified layer that will protect a surface. A straight primer WILL NOT protect
a surface long term as it is usually porous. To me this makes priming, rather
than sealing, even more dangerous than leaving bare metal as you might not
see the corrosion forming. Some primers can also be used as a sealer, usually
by increasing the amount of reducer, but only if it is formulated that way.
In using any sealer or primer, regardless of what the product says, I would scuff
and/or etch the surface before applying for good adhesion. If also alodining
I would scuff while etching, then alodine, then shoot sealer, all within
the shortest amount of time as practical. All of my parts are alodined and anything
that will be painted later will go through a full reprep before I shoot.
Personally I would seal and then go with a good quality, high build, primer/surface
like PPG K36 for the cosmetic work, and then top coat. Always try to
use products from a single vendor though as they are formulated to work together.
I am by no means an expert, slept at a Holiday Inn Express, or paint anything
for a living, but I have spent a great deal of time researching painting vehicles
over the years and my comments above represent a aggregation of some of the
basics.
YMMV, my $0.02, use the above advice at your own risk, etc
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 11:37 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Alodine
Doing something wrong can sometimes be worse than doing nothing. Doing
nothing in a harsh maritime or high humidity climate might justify more
protection. Some aircraft can sit in storage in the dry heat of Arizona
for decades with little corrosion effects.
Primer wars aside, some builders stop at a well prepared "Alodined"
surface which in fact exceeds the techniques used many Certificated
manufacturers (like Cessna and Piper). Others apply primer with no
intent to ever cover it with a final topcoat paint. Primer begs for a
properly formulated topcoat that is applied reasonable soon after the
primer. That step adds weight, some additional protection and an
attraction for the primer (without topcoat) to absorb hydrocarbons,
human oils, dirt and other organics over decades. The choice of
protection is that of every kit builder. Some of my closest friends
throw primer without topcoat at their plane. They are the
manufacturer... they make the choice.
Corrosion as a result of the faying action (wicking) of alkaline soaps
(improperly used and not removed) does far worse. Exfoliation and
filiform are just two corrosions that love such inattention over that
time period. It is always tragic to remediate corrosion on a perfectly
good aircraft. The only consolation for me is that my employer will
throw unlimited sums of money at correcting neglect down life's highway.
A seasoned Boeing 747 can gain as much as 5% of its certificated empty
weight in lost tools, FOD, swarf, old paint, waste hydrocarbons and
human organics when it is finally laid to rest.
Choice wisely. Have pride in your creation.
John Cox
40600
Do not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fred
Williams, M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 8:56 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Alodine
<drfred@suddenlinkmail.com>
For my current RV, I alumini preped, alodine and then put SW primer on
all the interior surfaces. I am happy with what I have chosen to do
with this plane. Is there anything wrong with just stopping with the
alodine step? Someday, (ok, maybe after my current wife is no longer
able to remember how much I spent on the 10) I'd like to build an rv 12
to have for fun day VFR . I have seen a couple of RV 10 's with no
interior prep/treatment. Would doing nothing be better than
something? With nothing, one does have the pure aluminum which does
have an oxidized layer. With the alodine, we are adding a chromic
oxidized layer. Thoughts? anybody have any real data?
Fred Williams
40515
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 |
|
This is a test to see if I am still connected to the list. I have had no
responces for days.
Gary
40274
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: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? |
I would say that there's benefit to not only telling the story, because
lots of good info can come from that, but also benefit from the
people nit-picking a bit. We all just have to make sure we're
not so sensitive to the opinions that we won't share, because
pretty much all info that I've read so far on this thread was
worth people contemplating.
Personally, I've never landed with less than 10-12 gallons
available yet, and don't plan to without serious consideration.
I've flown legs at least as long as 4.8 hours, at averages of
9.5-10gph, and with airspeeds even at 160, that means
you end up over 750nm (over 875 statute) in range. Plenty for most
people to cover 1/2 day of a long trip before you stop. For some,
that's a whole DAY's worth of flying. So the -10's range will
satisfy most. One of my other things I have to keep in mind
is that when I'm up high, flying LOP, my flows are low, so
I always operate with the realization that when it's time to
descend to the destination, my fuel flows will go HIGHER
as I revert back to ROP. So fuel planning for me is important
to ensure that I get the most out of my range, without
causing any excess risk (or stress) from trying to make
that last few miles on minimum fuel. I always operate with
the 30 min daytime / 45 night rule in mind, but with personal
minimums that are in excess of those minimums.
I have my fuel tanks set to warn me with a red alarm at
less than 6-7 gal per side, so stretching it down to even 12
gallons means I'm well aware of the situation by the time I get
there, as I'll be getting some noisy voice alerts by then.
Fuel starvation remains one of the most popular reasons
for off-field landings, so I choose to limit myself to about
10-12 gallons remaining on landing. When I did fly the tanks
dry, it was under a couple specific conditions, and one tank
at a time. I had to re-calibrate my tanks, and thought it
would be an "opportunity" to verify minimum fuel. I climbed
to 5500' with one tank full and one nearing empty, and flew
a racetrack over the field. As soon as it stumbled (which
happens VERY suddenly, by the way), I switched the selector
and had immediate full power. I landed, calibrated the floats,
and on a later flight when the opposite tank was nearing
exhaustion I repeated it on that tank. I stayed above
the airport the whole time, in case for some reason the
engine didn't roar to life with a valve turn. It was very
nice to be able to know that the absolute fuel minimum was
right at the bottom of the tank. I think only about 1 to
2 cups of fuel came out at most. The unnerving thing about
the test was the realization that you can indeed use ALL of
the fuel in the wing, and not be left with anything
at all for contingencies.
I'll admit to a mistake I made a while back, on the old plane...
I planned to fly very far down on one tank, and then switch,
so I'd know my halfway point well in range. I hit the top
of the highly questionable yellow arc on the old-fashioned
float needle indicator. The needle moved not-at-all linearly,
and after maybe 20 or 30 minutes max of not glancing it at,
the family was cruising along over Florida and the engine
suddenly died off quickly. A turn of the valve and we
were back under full power. But, the nasty look from my
wife, along with the WHACK! on my shoulder told me I better
not give her an unexpected startle like that again. I
didn't intend to run it OUT of fuel, just down to 4 or 5
gallons (it was an O-360). But, I then saw the high
value of a totalizer, and a good electronic monitoring
system (that I didn't have)....oh, and of just being maybe
a little less complacent.
On the RV-10, some of you may have read my write-up a while
back where I had a leaky sump drain, that caused an in-flight
fuel leak where I lost fuel continuously over a period of
an hour or more. With today's monitoring systems it's very
nice to know exactly how much fuel you're burning, and know
if it jives with what you planned. I don't remember which
tank I used at the time, but having that problem gave me
time to think about it. Considering I'd still be
continuing the flight for whatever reason (in that case
it was the weather, and the positives and negatives involved
in a letdown to fix it vs. having only a short time to
destination), I found that it probably would have been a
good thing to USE the fuel from that tank, and save the
other fuel, for as long as possible. The way it ended up
though, I think I used the fuel from the non-leaky tank,
and still ended up with fuel leaking out of the other side
when I landed....so I never had an empty. Not sure which
was the best, but it was a good thinking exercise. Using
the fuel would have perhaps given me an empty tank, and
HOPEFULLY there would be no issues when swapping tanks
later. Using the other tank guaranteed me a well-functioning
swap-free flight, with the option to turn back to that
leaky tank if I had a water bubble or some other
problem with the good one. Some would say that just
plain landing and fixing it would be the most prudent,
but considering the risks of an unnecessary and unplanned
IFR approach, with storms nearby, that's not always
the path of least risk either.
Anyway, I guess I rambled enough. The point is, regardless
of what someone posts for stories, it's nice to hear not
only the story but at least the good counter-points and
critique too. It can help us all grow as pilots and learn
from the mistakes or successes of others. Just don't
have the attitude that "if he can do it, so can I" because
there are too many variables to actually put 2 peoples
situations at equal.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
pascal wrote:
>
> I enjoyed reading the story and think the point was the capabilities of
> the RV-10, not the FAA regulations and "what if's" that governed the 5/8
> fuel left. I'm sure with a 496 showing weather ahead and the current
> level of instruments, that tell you to the minute, how much fuel is
> left, the PIC saw what was and wasn't possible. They landed and all is
> well. Jesse told us what they did to remain safe, and maybe he could
> have explained the logic for what they did, but why need to?
> Maybe I'm missing the point, but I want others to feel encouraged to
> tell stories, if this were me I would question if it was worth sharing a
> story only to hear about the "legalities" and how wise I was doing it.
> I know we all care about the RV-10's staying in the air and insurance
> rates but let's stick to "the most efficient 4-place" story versus
> responding with rules and prudence. I'll go to my FAR's for that
> information if I need it.
> So I am clear, taking advice from knowledgeable members, like a CFII is
> appreciated, when someone asks for it and is the intent of discussion.
> I read the NTSB monthly publication and in each accident review case I
> ask myself what went wrong? how would I have handled the situation and
> what could I have done to avoid being in this situation. In the end I
> realize that I am only getting part of the story to the NTSB's best
> knowledge, not necessarily all the facts (aka why the pilot did what
> they did- which only that person would know). Jesse told us the fact
> that the RV-10 is quite capable of going far and efficiently, all some
> are doing is surmising why the pilot made the choices he made to land
> with less than 1 hour of fuel, which is not the intent of this story.
> I encourage all that have cross country stories, like Tim has done well
> in covering on his webpage, to keep doing it for people like me that
> enjoy reading about places to go and see with the RV-10, it truly
> motivates me to keep working on the plane so I can start enjoying the
> journeys as well.
> Thanks for sharing your story Jesse!
>
> Pascal
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:55 AM
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?
>
>
>>
>> Let's not increase the insurance rates. While barely legal the flight may
>> not be prudent. Let's see. Arriving at 2 AM with 30-54 minutes of fuel
>> remaining. Some deviations around weather, some headwinds. What about
>> aircraft mechanical problems that increase the rate of fuel flow late
>> in the
>> flight? What about airport closures due too disabled aircraft or
>> maintenance? If using flight following, what about ATC requested
>> deviations
>> due to military or other activity? Low level clouds and ground fog
>> usually
>> form in the early morning hours and may not be forecast or reported;
>> especially at non 24 hour tower airports.
>>
>> Perhaps you considered all these and still had lots of options. Good.
>> I too love flying at night although my night flying is now not
>> required as I
>> am retired. Also I fly in the mountains where a successful off airport
>> landing is enhanced greatly by daylight.
>>
>> For me, unless the trip is short and over familiar territory nighttime is
>> IFR time. It keeps me clear of all surface obstacles and a precise
>> route to
>> my destination (no deviations around clouds). There are precise distances
>> and altitudes to fly approaching the airport. Additionally my fuel
>> requirements are a minimum of 1 hour remaining at destination if good
>> VFR or
>> two hours minimum if destination is IFR.
>>
>> Just my two cents.
>> Comm CFII A&P
>> Flying 33 years
>> TT 4000+, night 600+, 300+ actual, and significant numbers of hand
>> flown low
>> IFR departures and arrivals in my TC177RG
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
>> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 9:22 PM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?
>>
>>
>> Lovers of night flight might want to review 91.151 re min fuel. Of
>> course if the headwinds were not anticipated fuel requirements go out
>> the window.
>>
>> On 9/3/07, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Nope, you're not the only one that loves flying at night. ;)
>>>
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>>> do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>> With 55 gallons burned, that averaged less than 8 gph
>>> > and left 5/8's hour of reserve. X35
>>> > at 1:26am Eastern. I hope I'm not the only one that loves to fly at
>>> > night. That was FANTASTIC!
>>
>>> > *
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? |
My two cents...Go get some cross country intruction in a plane without an
engine, aka glider. Learn the meaning of next alternal landing spot. Never
flown my sailplane at night, but that sure would be a scary thought.
I am although putting lights on the 10, slight contradiction.
May the force be with you ALL!
John G. (returning from hiatus)
>From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?
>Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 09:05:00 -0700
>
>
>Until you have run a tank of fuel out to the point of fuel starvation
>and engine silence (in straight and level), the determination of XXX.XX
>gallons remaining and useable are bold actions to be used cautiously by
>RV-10 builders/pilots in my same insurance pool. Add a simple turn or
>two toward the same fuel side with that fuel remaining lower and the
>pickup tube on the high side and you may just learn by someone else's
>boldness the phrase "Old Bold Pilots".
>
>34 years flying, and I too love night flights. I love it more with two
>turbines and more than adequate fuel still on board at touchdown.
>
>Stay safe, fly often, live long - don't raise my rates.
>
>John
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of pascal
>Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 8:06 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country
>machine?
>
>
>I enjoyed reading the story and think the point was the capabilities of
>the
>RV-10, not the FAA regulations and "what if's" that governed the 5/8
>fuel
>left. I'm sure with a 496 showing weather ahead and the current level
>of
>instruments, that tell you to the minute, how much fuel is left, the PIC
>saw
>what was and wasn't possible. They landed and all is well. Jesse told us
>
>what they did to remain safe, and maybe he could have explained the
>logic
>for what they did, but why need to?
>Maybe I'm missing the point, but I want others to feel encouraged to
>tell
>stories, if this were me I would question if it was worth sharing a
>story
>only to hear about the "legalities" and how wise I was doing it. I know
>we
>all care about the RV-10's staying in the air and insurance rates but
>let's
>stick to "the most efficient 4-place" story versus responding with rules
>and
>prudence. I'll go to my FAR's for that information if I need it.
>So I am clear, taking advice from knowledgeable members, like a CFII is
>appreciated, when someone asks for it and is the intent of discussion.
>I
>read the NTSB monthly publication and in each accident review case I ask
>
>myself what went wrong? how would I have handled the situation and what
>could I have done to avoid being in this situation. In the end I realize
>
>that I am only getting part of the story to the NTSB's best knowledge,
>not
>necessarily all the facts (aka why the pilot did what they did- which
>only
>that person would know). Jesse told us the fact that the RV-10 is quite
>
>capable of going far and efficiently, all some are doing is surmising
>why
>the pilot made the choices he made to land with less than 1 hour of
>fuel,
>which is not the intent of this story.
>I encourage all that have cross country stories, like Tim has done well
>in
>covering on his webpage, to keep doing it for people like me that enjoy
>reading about places to go and see with the RV-10, it truly motivates me
>to
>keep working on the plane so I can start enjoying the journeys as well.
>Thanks for sharing your story Jesse!
>
>Pascal
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:55 AM
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country
>machine?
>
>
> >
> > Let's not increase the insurance rates. While barely legal the flight
>may
> > not be prudent. Let's see. Arriving at 2 AM with 30-54 minutes of fuel
> > remaining. Some deviations around weather, some headwinds. What about
> > aircraft mechanical problems that increase the rate of fuel flow late
>in
> > the
> > flight? What about airport closures due too disabled aircraft or
> > maintenance? If using flight following, what about ATC requested
> > deviations
> > due to military or other activity? Low level clouds and ground fog
>usually
> > form in the early morning hours and may not be forecast or reported;
> > especially at non 24 hour tower airports.
> >
> > Perhaps you considered all these and still had lots of options. Good.
> > I too love flying at night although my night flying is now not
>required as
> > I
> > am retired. Also I fly in the mountains where a successful off airport
> > landing is enhanced greatly by daylight.
> >
> > For me, unless the trip is short and over familiar territory nighttime
>is
> > IFR time. It keeps me clear of all surface obstacles and a precise
>route
> > to
> > my destination (no deviations around clouds). There are precise
>distances
> > and altitudes to fly approaching the airport. Additionally my fuel
> > requirements are a minimum of 1 hour remaining at destination if good
>VFR
> > or
> > two hours minimum if destination is IFR.
> >
> > Just my two cents.
> > Comm CFII A&P
> > Flying 33 years
> > TT 4000+, night 600+, 300+ actual, and significant numbers of hand
>flown
> > low
> > IFR departures and arrivals in my TC177RG
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
>McMullen
> > Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 9:22 PM
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country
>machine?
> >
> >
> > Lovers of night flight might want to review 91.151 re min fuel. Of
> > course if the headwinds were not anticipated fuel requirements go out
> > the window.
> >
> > On 9/3/07, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Nope, you're not the only one that loves flying at night. ;)
> >>
> >> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> >> do not archive
> >>
> >>
> >> Jesse Saint wrote:
> > With 55 gallons burned, that averaged less than 8 gph
> >> > and left 5/8's hour of reserve. X35
> >> > at 1:26am Eastern. I hope I'm not the only one that loves to fly
>at
> >> > night. That was FANTASTIC!
> >
> >> > *
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > *
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
Don't worry Gary, you're still here. ;) Gets slow over the
big holiday weekends.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
gary wrote:
> This is a test to see if I am still connected to the list. I have had
> no responces for days.
>
>
>
> Gary
>
> 40274
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation? |
Alumiprep is an etchant commonly used on aircraft prior to Alodining
or painting; I suspect most of this thread is really about it or
substitutes for it.
Alumiprep is a fairly dilute water solution that contains not only
phosphoric acid, but also fluoride ion. That means that it contains
HF (hydrofluoric acid). HF is very aggressive toward aluminum,
dissolving the protective aluminum oxide coat from its surface. That
exposes a fresh, uncontaminated aluminum metal surface to the acid
solution. The aluminum then reacts very rapidly with the solution to
make hydrogen. You can see the tiny hydrogen bubbles forming on the
surface. When the entire surface is making hydrogen and looks whitish
from the layer of hyrdrogen bubbles, the Alumiprep has done its job.
The idea is that when you dissolve away the aluminum oxide coating,
you also remove any contaminants (skin grease, paint, oil, whatever)
that were on top of it, and have a fresh, active, reproducible
surface to accept your alodine or whatever coating you may want to
apply.
At this point you rinse thoroughly and dry, then put your chosen
coating on as soon as you can.
A couple safety points:
1. HF is Godawful Nasty Stuff - it can eat away at you and not stop
until it hits bone. Most chemists whom I know are truly respectful of
it. Phosphoric acid is also nasty, but nearly as bad.
2. If you do like I did and put longerons and other long, narrow
things into a plastic pipe with Alumiprep, cap the pipe, then rock
and roll to cover the aluminum with Alumiprep, you WILL build up
hydrogen gas under pressure in the pipe. There is a significant
potential for pressurization of the pipe. There could also be a nasty
explosion if a spark hit the hydrogen-air mixture you've made. The
worst part of that is that the acid solution is something you really
don't want on your skin, let alone in your eyes.
I vented the pipe frequently (several time a minute) to avoid
building up pressure
On Sep 4, 2007, at 8:14 AM, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> I personally haven't done this but I don't see what the difference
> would be. The common Lowes Depot products for "etching" and
> "cleaning" concrete prior to painting is nothing more than
> phosphoric acid. Look for it in the paint section. Just check the
> label and make sure it is straight phosphoric acid. I believe the
> one Home Depot sells is even labeled as phosphoric acid.
>
> Michael
>
>
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: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? |
Do not archive =0A =0ASome of my thoughts about trip write ups. =0A =0AI ha
ve decreased my story writing and general comments over the past while=0Aon
Vansairforce because of someone blasting me for a comment I made. And =0As
ome view write-ups as showing off. I think we all need to remember that th
e =0Apeople who respond in that way are the minority and the majority of us
love the=0Awrite-ups, we enjoy the pictures, and the enthusiasm we all hav
e for aviation. =0AFor some reason, people have the ability to be more cri
tical and negative on =0Aa forum and e-mail system. If you had some of the
discussion that ended up=0Anegative with all involved at Oshkosh over beers
and hot dogs it would be a totally =0Adifferent conversation and outcome.
You just have to shake your head and move on.=0AI think most of the time, i
t is not the e-mail or response that is negative, but =0Athe way that it is
read or interpreted. People assume too much. =0AYou cannot take any of
it personally. This RV-10 list has really been great. =0AI have lost sleep
after being blasted publicly on other sites as well =0A(this was a motorc
ycling forum). It is no fun when someone does that to you. =0ATrust me, th
is has happened here, it is fun to discuss the what-ifs and be reminded =0A
of rules. =0A =0AAs for the insurance topic, I want to share one thought w
ith you because it is a pet =0Apeeve of mine. I feel we don't have the righ
t to criticize a persons flight, or performance =0Aduring a flight because
of the effect it has on insurance rates. Other than publicly =0Ahumiliatin
g a person you have zero control over the way a person conducts the =0Aflig
ht. When people try to control something they have no control of is when
=0Athey get into trouble in relationships, in business, and on RV-10 forums
. =0AIf you want to spend some time worrying about insurance it should be
health insurance. =0AThis year the cost of health insurance increased over
20% . Luckily my=0Awife and I only were hit with a 17% increase. Many were
hit with 30% increases=0Aand this is not going to slow down. I don't want
to discuss the cause of this because=0AI have zero control over what is ca
using this other than who I vote for. =0AMy insurance on my RV-10 will act
ually drop $500 this year! Yeha! =0AIn fact my insurance is only 10.5% of
my variable costs over the last 12 months =0A(this includes no cost of the
aircraft). Find a way to get fuel to drop 5% and that =0Awill pay for 1/3 o
f your insurance for the year.=0AIf we all used more fuel, it would be chea
per once new refinery's opened also. =0A =0AI feel their is a standard bell
curve for pilot skill levels and the aircraft design =0Aover a 5-10 year p
eriod will dictate the accident rate. I also feel that since the RV-10=0Ai
s non-aerobatic and really is a stable aircraft during takeoff, landing, an
d=0Ain weather it will have a safety record that is better than the other R
V's. I bet we =0Acould even calculate the safety record right now based of
f the number of hours already =0Aflown. =0A =0AJesse, I can't beat that di
stance yet but you got me thinking that I sure would like to try. =0AI thi
nk 1500 nm in an RV-10 with 50 gallons (30 mpg) would be something to shoot
for.=0AI'll have to study winds aloft and fuel burn rates and see what it
would take. =0A =0AKeep all the trip write-ups coming! Happy flying and b
uilding! =0A =0AScott Schmidt=0Ascottmschmidt@yahoo.com =0A=0A=0A=0A----- O
riginal Message ----=0AFrom: pascal <rv10builder@verizon.net>=0ATo: rv10-li
st@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 8:06:20 AM=0ASubject: R
e: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?=0A=0A=0A-->
RV10-List message posted by: "pascal" <rv10builder@verizon.net>=0A=0AI enj
oyed reading the story and think the point was the capabilities of the =0AR
V-10, not the FAA regulations and "what if's" that governed the 5/8 fuel
=0Aleft. I'm sure with a 496 showing weather ahead and the current level o
f =0Ainstruments, that tell you to the minute, how much fuel is left, the P
IC saw =0Awhat was and wasn't possible. They landed and all is well. Jesse
told us =0Awhat they did to remain safe, and maybe he could have explained
the logic =0Afor what they did, but why need to?=0AMaybe I'm missing the po
int, but I want others to feel encouraged to tell =0Astories, if this were
me I would question if it was worth sharing a story =0Aonly to hear about t
he "legalities" and how wise I was doing it. I know we =0Aall care about t
he RV-10's staying in the air and insurance rates but let's =0Astick to "th
e most efficient 4-place" story versus responding with rules and =0Aprudenc
e. I'll go to my FAR's for that information if I need it.=0ASo I am clear,
taking advice from knowledgeable members, like a CFII is =0Aappreciated, wh
en someone asks for it and is the intent of discussion. I =0Aread the NTSB
monthly publication and in each accident review case I ask =0Amyself what
went wrong? how would I have handled the situation and what =0Acould I have
done to avoid being in this situation. In the end I realize =0Athat I am o
nly getting part of the story to the NTSB's best knowledge, not =0Anecessar
ily all the facts (aka why the pilot did what they did- which only =0Athat
person would know). Jesse told us the fact that the RV-10 is quite =0Acapa
ble of going far and efficiently, all some are doing is surmising why =0Ath
e pilot made the choices he made to land with less than 1 hour of fuel, =0A
which is not the intent of this story.=0AI encourage all that have cross co
untry stories, like Tim has done well in =0Acovering on his webpage, to kee
p doing it for people like me that enjoy =0Areading about places to go and
see with the RV-10, it truly motivates me to =0Akeep working on the plane s
o I can start enjoying the journeys as well.=0AThanks for sharing your stor
y Jesse!=0A=0APascal=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----- =0AFrom: "David M
cNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>=0ATo: <rv10-list@matronics.com>=0ASent: Tuesday,
September 04, 2007 6:55 AM=0ASubject: RE: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-
vid McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>=0A>=0A> Let's not increase the insurance ra
tes. While barely legal the flight may=0A> not be prudent. Let's see. Arriv
ing at 2 AM with 30-54 minutes of fuel=0A> remaining. Some deviations aroun
d weather, some headwinds. What about=0A> aircraft mechanical problems that
increase the rate of fuel flow late in =0A> the=0A> flight? What about air
port closures due too disabled aircraft or=0A> maintenance? If using flight
following, what about ATC requested =0A> deviations=0A> due to military or
other activity? Low level clouds and ground fog usually=0A> form in the ea
rly morning hours and may not be forecast or reported;=0A> especially at no
n 24 hour tower airports.=0A>=0A> Perhaps you considered all these and stil
l had lots of options. Good.=0A> I too love flying at night although my nig
ht flying is now not required as =0A> I=0A> am retired. Also I fly in the m
ountains where a successful off airport=0A> landing is enhanced greatly by
daylight.=0A>=0A> For me, unless the trip is short and over familiar territ
ory nighttime is=0A> IFR time. It keeps me clear of all surface obstacles a
nd a precise route =0A> to=0A> my destination (no deviations around clouds)
. There are precise distances=0A> and altitudes to fly approaching the airp
ort. Additionally my fuel=0A> requirements are a minimum of 1 hour remainin
g at destination if good VFR =0A> or=0A> two hours minimum if destination i
s IFR.=0A>=0A> Just my two cents.=0A> Comm CFII A&P=0A> Flying 33 years=0A>
TT 4000+, night 600+, 300+ actual, and significant numbers of hand flown
=0A> low=0A> IFR departures and arrivals in my TC177RG=0A>=0A> -----Origina
l Message-----=0A> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com=0A> [mailto:o
wner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen=0A> Sent:
Monday, September 03, 2007 9:22 PM=0A> To: rv10-list@matronics.com=0A> Subj
ect: Re: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?=0A>
=0A>=0A> Lovers of night flight might want to review 91.151 re min fuel. Of
=0A> course if the headwinds were not anticipated fuel requirements go out
=0A> the window.=0A>=0A> On 9/3/07, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:=0A>>
ope, you're not the only one that loves flying at night. ;)=0A>>=0A>> Tim O
lson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying=0A>> do not archive=0A>>=0A>>=0A>> Jesse Saint
wrote:=0A> With 55 gallons burned, that averaged less than 8 gph=0A>> >
and left 5/8's hour of reserve. X35=0A>> > at 1:26am Eastern. I hope I'
m not the only one that loves to fly at=0A>> > night. That was FANTASTIC!
=0A>=0A>> > *=0A>> >=0A>> >=0A>> > *=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>=0A>=0A>
=========================0A
-========================
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: | The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? |
I'm glad Tim made this post. Here's another story.
On a recent trip from NC to OR, it was getting close to twilight and I had a
bad case of "get there itus." I'd been flying for three hot bumpy days,
plus one day laying over to wait out thunderstorms, so I wanted home.
However, after some simple arithmetic, I decided to set down 100 miles
short. The airport was deserted. Tied myself down. Got a taxi, motel and
bad meal at McDonald's. However, I was on the ground. I had less than 30
mins of fuel left. You can do all the flight planning in the world, but
wind direction and velocity can change, and if all you are is day/night VFR
equipped, with nothing but a watch and bouncing fuel gauges, you might be
guess-timating most of the time. You've got to set and abide by personal
limits, and on that section of the trip I exceeded mine. (Might have had
something to do with not knowing I'd run out of oxygen while at 12,500,
another stupid pet trick.) I finally made the call, but much too late for
my self imposed limits.
A fuel totalizer is my next purchase. Tim's story about a leaking valve has
definitely caught the attention of whatever brain cells I might have left.
John J.
40328
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?
I would say that there's benefit to not only telling the story, because lots
of good info can come from that, but also benefit from the people
nit-picking a bit. We all just have to make sure we're not so sensitive to
the opinions that we won't share, because pretty much all info that I've
read so far on this thread was worth people contemplating.
Personally, I've never landed with less than 10-12 gallons available yet,
and don't plan to without serious consideration.
I've flown legs at least as long as 4.8 hours, at averages of 9.5-10gph, and
with airspeeds even at 160, that means you end up over 750nm (over 875
statute) in range. Plenty for most people to cover 1/2 day of a long trip
before you stop. For some, that's a whole DAY's worth of flying. So the
-10's range will satisfy most. One of my other things I have to keep in
mind is that when I'm up high, flying LOP, my flows are low, so I always
operate with the realization that when it's time to descend to the
destination, my fuel flows will go HIGHER as I revert back to ROP. So fuel
planning for me is important to ensure that I get the most out of my range,
without causing any excess risk (or stress) from trying to make that last
few miles on minimum fuel. I always operate with the 30 min daytime / 45
night rule in mind, but with personal minimums that are in excess of those
minimums.
I have my fuel tanks set to warn me with a red alarm at less than 6-7 gal
per side, so stretching it down to even 12 gallons means I'm well aware of
the situation by the time I get there, as I'll be getting some noisy voice
alerts by then.
Fuel starvation remains one of the most popular reasons for off-field
landings, so I choose to limit myself to about
10-12 gallons remaining on landing. When I did fly the tanks dry, it was
under a couple specific conditions, and one tank at a time. I had to
re-calibrate my tanks, and thought it would be an "opportunity" to verify
minimum fuel. I climbed to 5500' with one tank full and one nearing empty,
and flew a racetrack over the field. As soon as it stumbled (which happens
VERY suddenly, by the way), I switched the selector and had immediate full
power. I landed, calibrated the floats, and on a later flight when the
opposite tank was nearing exhaustion I repeated it on that tank. I stayed
above the airport the whole time, in case for some reason the engine didn't
roar to life with a valve turn. It was very nice to be able to know that
the absolute fuel minimum was right at the bottom of the tank. I think only
about 1 to
2 cups of fuel came out at most. The unnerving thing about the test was the
realization that you can indeed use ALL of the fuel in the wing, and not be
left with anything at all for contingencies.
I'll admit to a mistake I made a while back, on the old plane...
I planned to fly very far down on one tank, and then switch, so I'd know my
halfway point well in range. I hit the top of the highly questionable
yellow arc on the old-fashioned float needle indicator. The needle moved
not-at-all linearly, and after maybe 20 or 30 minutes max of not glancing it
at, the family was cruising along over Florida and the engine suddenly died
off quickly. A turn of the valve and we were back under full power. But,
the nasty look from my wife, along with the WHACK! on my shoulder told me I
better not give her an unexpected startle like that again. I didn't intend
to run it OUT of fuel, just down to 4 or 5 gallons (it was an O-360). But,
I then saw the high value of a totalizer, and a good electronic monitoring
system (that I didn't have)....oh, and of just being maybe a little less
complacent.
On the RV-10, some of you may have read my write-up a while back where I had
a leaky sump drain, that caused an in-flight fuel leak where I lost fuel
continuously over a period of an hour or more. With today's monitoring
systems it's very nice to know exactly how much fuel you're burning, and
know if it jives with what you planned. I don't remember which tank I used
at the time, but having that problem gave me time to think about it.
Considering I'd still be continuing the flight for whatever reason (in that
case it was the weather, and the positives and negatives involved in a
letdown to fix it vs. having only a short time to destination), I found that
it probably would have been a good thing to USE the fuel from that tank, and
save the other fuel, for as long as possible. The way it ended up though, I
think I used the fuel from the non-leaky tank, and still ended up with fuel
leaking out of the other side when I landed....so I never had an empty. Not
sure which was the best, but it was a good thinking exercise. Using the
fuel would have perhaps given me an empty tank, and HOPEFULLY there would be
no issues when swapping tanks later. Using the other tank guaranteed me a
well-functioning swap-free flight, with the option to turn back to that
leaky tank if I had a water bubble or some other problem with the good one.
Some would say that just plain landing and fixing it would be the most
prudent, but considering the risks of an unnecessary and unplanned IFR
approach, with storms nearby, that's not always the path of least risk
either.
Anyway, I guess I rambled enough. The point is, regardless of what someone
posts for stories, it's nice to hear not only the story but at least the
good counter-points and critique too. It can help us all grow as pilots and
learn from the mistakes or successes of others. Just don't have the
attitude that "if he can do it, so can I" because there are too many
variables to actually put 2 peoples situations at equal.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
pascal wrote:
>
> I enjoyed reading the story and think the point was the capabilities
> of the RV-10, not the FAA regulations and "what if's" that governed
> the 5/8 fuel left. I'm sure with a 496 showing weather ahead and the
> current level of instruments, that tell you to the minute, how much
> fuel is left, the PIC saw what was and wasn't possible. They landed
> and all is well. Jesse told us what they did to remain safe, and maybe
> he could have explained the logic for what they did, but why need to?
> Maybe I'm missing the point, but I want others to feel encouraged to
> tell stories, if this were me I would question if it was worth sharing
> a story only to hear about the "legalities" and how wise I was doing it.
> I know we all care about the RV-10's staying in the air and insurance
> rates but let's stick to "the most efficient 4-place" story versus
> responding with rules and prudence. I'll go to my FAR's for that
> information if I need it.
> So I am clear, taking advice from knowledgeable members, like a CFII
> is appreciated, when someone asks for it and is the intent of discussion.
> I read the NTSB monthly publication and in each accident review case I
> ask myself what went wrong? how would I have handled the situation and
> what could I have done to avoid being in this situation. In the end I
> realize that I am only getting part of the story to the NTSB's best
> knowledge, not necessarily all the facts (aka why the pilot did what
> they did- which only that person would know). Jesse told us the fact
> that the RV-10 is quite capable of going far and efficiently, all some
> are doing is surmising why the pilot made the choices he made to land
> with less than 1 hour of fuel, which is not the intent of this story.
> I encourage all that have cross country stories, like Tim has done
> well in covering on his webpage, to keep doing it for people like me
> that enjoy reading about places to go and see with the RV-10, it truly
> motivates me to keep working on the plane so I can start enjoying the
> journeys as well.
> Thanks for sharing your story Jesse!
>
> Pascal
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:55 AM
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?
>
>
>>
>> Let's not increase the insurance rates. While barely legal the flight
>> may not be prudent. Let's see. Arriving at 2 AM with 30-54 minutes of
>> fuel remaining. Some deviations around weather, some headwinds. What
>> about aircraft mechanical problems that increase the rate of fuel
>> flow late in the flight? What about airport closures due too disabled
>> aircraft or maintenance? If using flight following, what about ATC
>> requested deviations due to military or other activity? Low level
>> clouds and ground fog usually form in the early morning hours and may
>> not be forecast or reported; especially at non 24 hour tower
>> airports.
>>
>> Perhaps you considered all these and still had lots of options. Good.
>> I too love flying at night although my night flying is now not
>> required as I am retired. Also I fly in the mountains where a
>> successful off airport landing is enhanced greatly by daylight.
>>
>> For me, unless the trip is short and over familiar territory
>> nighttime is IFR time. It keeps me clear of all surface obstacles and
>> a precise route to my destination (no deviations around clouds).
>> There are precise distances and altitudes to fly approaching the
>> airport. Additionally my fuel requirements are a minimum of 1 hour
>> remaining at destination if good VFR or two hours minimum if
>> destination is IFR.
>>
>> Just my two cents.
>> Comm CFII A&P
>> Flying 33 years
>> TT 4000+, night 600+, 300+ actual, and significant numbers of hand
>> flown low IFR departures and arrivals in my TC177RG
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
>> McMullen
>> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 9:22 PM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?
>>
>>
>> Lovers of night flight might want to review 91.151 re min fuel. Of
>> course if the headwinds were not anticipated fuel requirements go out
>> the window.
>>
>> On 9/3/07, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Nope, you're not the only one that loves flying at night. ;)
>>>
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>>> do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>> With 55 gallons burned, that averaged less than 8 gph
>>> > and left 5/8's hour of reserve. X35
>>> > at 1:26am Eastern. I hope I'm not the only one that loves to fly
>>> > at night. That was FANTASTIC!
>>
>>> > *
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Has anyone installed one of the Lancair panels with the Throttle quadrant?
I am looking for pictures of one.
Thanks,
Rob Hickman
N402RH RV-10 Finish Kit.
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
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: | Re: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? |
Woops, I just noticed an error in my last e-mail. =0AI meant to say, =0A"T
rust me, this has not happened here, it is fun to discuss the what-ifs and
be reminded =0Aof rules."=0A=0AKinda reminds me of a Mark Twain quote. "The
difference between the almost right word =0A& the right word is really a l
arge matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightnin
g."=0A=0ASorry about that. Everyone on this list is pretty good at raising
questions without personally=0Aattacking someone. I know what a personal
attack looks like and it is not fun. =0A =0ADo not archive=0A=0AScott Schm
idt=0Ascottmschmidt@yahoo.com=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom
: Scott Schmidt <scottmschmidt@yahoo.com>=0ATo: rv10-list@matronics.com=0AS
ent: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 1:04:33 PM=0ASubject: Re: RV10-List: The mo
st efficient 4-place cross-country machine?=0A=0A=0ADo not archive =0A =0AS
ome of my thoughts about trip write ups. =0A =0AI have decreased my story w
riting and general comments over the past while=0Aon Vansairforce because o
f someone blasting me for a comment I made. And =0Asome view write-ups as s
howing off. I think we all need to remember that the =0Apeople who respond
in that way are the minority and the majority of us love the=0Awrite-ups,
we enjoy the pictures, and the enthusiasm we all have for aviation. =0AFor
some reason, people have the ability to be more critical and negative on
=0Aa forum and e-mail system. If you had some of the discussion that ended
up=0Anegative with all involved at Oshkosh over beers and hot dogs it would
be a totally =0Adifferent conversation and outcome. You just have to shake
your head and move on.=0AI think most of the time, it is not the e-mail or
response that is negative, but =0Athe way that it is read or interpreted.
People assume too much. =0AYou cannot take any of it personally. This RV
-10 list has really been great. =0AI have lost sleep after being blasted p
ublicly on other sites as well =0A(this was a motorcycling forum). It is n
o fun when someone does that to you. =0ATrust me, this has happened here,
it is fun to discuss the what-ifs and be reminded =0Aof rules. =0A =0AAs f
or the insurance topic, I want to share one thought with you because it is
a pet =0Apeeve of mine. I feel we don't have the right to criticize a perso
ns flight, or performance =0Aduring a flight because of the effect it has o
n insurance rates. Other than publicly =0Ahumiliating a person you have ze
ro control over the way a person conducts the =0Aflight. When people try t
o control something they have no control of is when =0Athey get into troubl
e in relationships, in business, and on RV-10 forums. =0AIf you want to sp
end some time worrying about insurance it should be health insurance. =0ATh
is year the cost of health insurance increased over 20% . Luckily my=0Awife
and I only were hit with a 17% increase. Many were hit with 30% increases
=0Aand this is not going to slow down. I don't want to discuss the cause o
f this because=0AI have zero control over what is causing this other than w
ho I vote for. =0AMy insurance on my RV-10 will actually drop $500 this ye
ar! Yeha! =0AIn fact my insurance is only 10.5% of my variable costs over
the last 12 months =0A(this includes no cost of the aircraft). Find a way t
o get fuel to drop 5% and that =0Awill pay for 1/3 of your insurance for th
e year.=0AIf we all used more fuel, it would be cheaper once new refinery's
opened also. =0A =0AI feel their is a standard bell curve for pilot skill
levels and the aircraft design =0Aover a 5-10 year period will dictate the
accident rate. I also feel that since the RV-10=0Ais non-aerobatic and rea
lly is a stable aircraft during takeoff, landing, and=0Ain weather it will
have a safety record that is better than the other RV's. I bet we =0Acould
even calculate the safety record right now based off the number of hours a
lready =0Aflown. =0A =0AJesse, I can't beat that distance yet but you got
me thinking that I sure would like to try. =0AI think 1500 nm in an RV-10
with 50 gallons (30 mpg) would be something to shoot for.=0AI'll have to st
udy winds aloft and fuel burn rates and see what it would take. =0A =0AKe
ep all the trip write-ups coming! Happy flying and building! =0A =0AScott S
chmidt=0Ascottmschmidt@yahoo.com =0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0A
From: pascal <rv10builder@verizon.net>=0ATo: rv10-list@matronics.com=0ASent
: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 8:06:20 AM=0ASubject: Re: RV10-List: The most
efficient 4-place cross-country machine?=0A=0A=0A--> RV10-List message post
ed by: "pascal" <rv10builder@verizon.net>=0A=0AI enjoyed reading the story
and think the point was the capabilities of the =0ARV-10, not the FAA regul
ations and "what if's" that governed the 5/8 fuel =0Aleft. I'm sure with a
496 showing weather ahead and the current level of =0Ainstruments, that te
ll you to the minute, how much fuel is left, the PIC saw =0Awhat was and wa
sn't possible. They landed and all is well. Jesse told us =0Awhat they did
to remain safe, and maybe he could have explained the logic =0Afor what the
y did, but why need to?=0AMaybe I'm missing the point, but I want others to
feel encouraged to tell =0Astories, if this were me I would question if it
was worth sharing a story =0Aonly to hear about the "legalities" and how
wise I was doing it. I know we =0Aall care about the RV-10's staying in the
air and insurance rates but let's =0Astick to "the most efficient 4-place"
story versus responding with rules and =0Aprudence. I'll go to my FAR's fo
r that information if I need it.=0ASo I am clear, taking advice from knowle
dgeable members, like a CFII is =0Aappreciated, when someone asks for it an
d is the intent of discussion. I =0Aread the NTSB monthly publication and
in each accident review case I ask =0Amyself what went wrong? how would I h
ave handled the situation and what =0Acould I have done to avoid being in t
his situation. In the end I realize =0Athat I am only getting part of the s
tory to the NTSB's best knowledge, not =0Anecessarily all the facts (aka wh
y the pilot did what they did- which only =0Athat person would know). Jess
e told us the fact that the RV-10 is quite =0Acapable of going far and effi
ciently, all some are doing is surmising why =0Athe pilot made the choices
he made to land with less than 1 hour of fuel, =0Awhich is not the intent o
f this story.=0AI encourage all that have cross country stories, like Tim h
as done well in =0Acovering on his webpage, to keep doing it for people lik
e me that enjoy =0Areading about places to go and see with the RV-10, it tr
uly motivates me to =0Akeep working on the plane so I can start enjoying th
e journeys as well.=0AThanks for sharing your story Jesse!=0A=0APascal=0A
=0A=0A----- Original Message ----- =0AFrom: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.n
et>=0ATo: <rv10-list@matronics.com>=0ASent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:5
5 AM=0ASubject: RE: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country mac
cox.net>=0A>=0A> Let's not increase the insurance rates. While barely legal
the flight may=0A> not be prudent. Let's see. Arriving at 2 AM with 30-54
minutes of fuel=0A> remaining. Some deviations around weather, some headwin
ds. What about=0A> aircraft mechanical problems that increase the rate of f
uel flow late in =0A> the=0A> flight? What about airport closures due too d
isabled aircraft or=0A> maintenance? If using flight following, what about
ATC requested =0A> deviations=0A> due to military or other activity? Low le
vel clouds and ground fog usually=0A> form in the early morning hours and m
ay not be forecast or reported;=0A> especially at non 24 hour tower airport
s.=0A>=0A> Perhaps you considered all these and still had lots of options.
Good.=0A> I too love flying at night although my night flying is now not re
quired as =0A> I=0A> am retired. Also I fly in the mountains where a succes
sful off airport=0A> landing is enhanced greatly by daylight.=0A>=0A> For m
e, unless the trip is short and over familiar territory nighttime is=0A> IF
R time. It keeps me clear of all surface obstacles and a precise route =0A>
to=0A> my destination (no deviations around clouds). There are precise dis
tances=0A> and altitudes to fly approaching the airport. Additionally my fu
el=0A> requirements are a minimum of 1 hour remaining at destination if goo
d VFR =0A> or=0A> two hours minimum if destination is IFR.=0A>=0A> Just my
two cents.=0A> Comm CFII A&P=0A> Flying 33 years=0A> TT 4000+, night 600+,
300+ actual, and significant numbers of hand flown =0A> low=0A> IFR departu
res and arrivals in my TC177RG=0A>=0A> -----Original Message-----=0A> From:
owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com=0A> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ma
tronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen=0A> Sent: Monday, September 03, 20
07 9:22 PM=0A> To: rv10-list@matronics.com=0A> Subject: Re: RV10-List: The
most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?=0A>=0A> --> RV10-List message
posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>=0A>=0A> Lovers of night fl
ight might want to review 91.151 re min fuel. Of=0A> course if the headwind
s were not anticipated fuel requirements go out=0A> the window.=0A>=0A> On
9/3/07, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:=0A>> --> RV10-List message posted
by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>=0A>=0A>>=0A>> Nope, you're not the only one
that loves flying at night. ;)=0A>>=0A>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
=0A>> do not archive=0A>>=0A>>=0A>> Jesse Saint wrote:=0A> With 55 gallon
s burned, that averaged less than 8 gph=0A>> > and left 5/8's hour of reser
ve. X35=0A>> > at 1:26am Eastern. I hope I'm not the only one that love
s to fly at=0A>> > night. That was FANTASTIC!=0A>=0A>> > *=0A>> >=0A>> >
=0A>> > *=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>
=0Ahttp://forums.matron=================0A
=
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: | Re: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? |
As soon as I saw Jesse's trip report I wanted to tell him to duck into a
foxhole because you just knew the flame throwers were going to blast away.
Without a doubt one of us will be the first to bend an RV-10 and it will
probably be due to pilot error. No amount of whining by me about how you
fly will prevent it from happening. I'm just hoping I'm not the first to do
something stupid (I suppose the flame thowers have never done anything
stupid) and become the first RV-10 accident report.
Mark
RV-10/N410MR
>From: Scott Schmidt <scottmschmidt@yahoo.com>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?
>Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Do not archive
>
>Some of my thoughts about trip write ups.
>
>I have decreased my story writing and general comments over the past while
>on Vansairforce because of someone blasting me for a comment I made. And
>some view write-ups as showing off. I think we all need to remember that
>the
>people who respond in that way are the minority and the majority of us love
>the
>write-ups, we enjoy the pictures, and the enthusiasm we all have for
>aviation.
>For some reason, people have the ability to be more critical and negative
>on
>a forum and e-mail system. If you had some of the discussion that ended up
>negative with all involved at Oshkosh over beers and hot dogs it would be a
>totally
>different conversation and outcome. You just have to shake your head and
>move on.
>I think most of the time, it is not the e-mail or response that is
>negative, but
>the way that it is read or interpreted. People assume too much.
>You cannot take any of it personally. This RV-10 list has really been
>great.
>I have lost sleep after being blasted publicly on other sites as well
>(this was a motorcycling forum). It is no fun when someone does that to
>you.
>Trust me, this has happened here, it is fun to discuss the what-ifs and be
>reminded
>of rules.
>
>As for the insurance topic, I want to share one thought with you because it
>is a pet
>peeve of mine. I feel we don't have the right to criticize a persons
>flight, or performance
>during a flight because of the effect it has on insurance rates. Other
>than publicly
>humiliating a person you have zero control over the way a person conducts
>the
>flight. When people try to control something they have no control of is
>when
>they get into trouble in relationships, in business, and on RV-10 forums.
>If you want to spend some time worrying about insurance it should be health
>insurance.
>This year the cost of health insurance increased over 20% . Luckily my
>wife and I only were hit with a 17% increase. Many were hit with 30%
>increases
>and this is not going to slow down. I don't want to discuss the cause of
>this because
>I have zero control over what is causing this other than who I vote for.
>My insurance on my RV-10 will actually drop $500 this year! Yeha!
>In fact my insurance is only 10.5% of my variable costs over the last 12
>months
>(this includes no cost of the aircraft). Find a way to get fuel to drop 5%
>and that
>will pay for 1/3 of your insurance for the year.
>If we all used more fuel, it would be cheaper once new refinery's opened
>also.
>
>I feel their is a standard bell curve for pilot skill levels and the
>aircraft design
>over a 5-10 year period will dictate the accident rate. I also feel that
>since the RV-10
>is non-aerobatic and really is a stable aircraft during takeoff, landing,
>and
>in weather it will have a safety record that is better than the other RV's.
> I bet we
>could even calculate the safety record right now based off the number of
>hours already
>flown.
>
>Jesse, I can't beat that distance yet but you got me thinking that I sure
>would like to try.
>I think 1500 nm in an RV-10 with 50 gallons (30 mpg) would be something to
>shoot for.
>I'll have to study winds aloft and fuel burn rates and see what it would
>take.
>
>Keep all the trip write-ups coming! Happy flying and building!
>
>Scott Schmidt
>scottmschmidt@yahoo.com
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: pascal <rv10builder@verizon.net>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 8:06:20 AM
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?
>
>
>
>I enjoyed reading the story and think the point was the capabilities of the
>RV-10, not the FAA regulations and "what if's" that governed the 5/8 fuel
>left. I'm sure with a 496 showing weather ahead and the current level of
>instruments, that tell you to the minute, how much fuel is left, the PIC
>saw
>what was and wasn't possible. They landed and all is well. Jesse told us
>what they did to remain safe, and maybe he could have explained the logic
>for what they did, but why need to?
>Maybe I'm missing the point, but I want others to feel encouraged to tell
>stories, if this were me I would question if it was worth sharing a story
>only to hear about the "legalities" and how wise I was doing it. I know we
>all care about the RV-10's staying in the air and insurance rates but let's
>stick to "the most efficient 4-place" story versus responding with rules
>and
>prudence. I'll go to my FAR's for that information if I need it.
>So I am clear, taking advice from knowledgeable members, like a CFII is
>appreciated, when someone asks for it and is the intent of discussion. I
>read the NTSB monthly publication and in each accident review case I ask
>myself what went wrong? how would I have handled the situation and what
>could I have done to avoid being in this situation. In the end I realize
>that I am only getting part of the story to the NTSB's best knowledge, not
>necessarily all the facts (aka why the pilot did what they did- which only
>that person would know). Jesse told us the fact that the RV-10 is quite
>capable of going far and efficiently, all some are doing is surmising why
>the pilot made the choices he made to land with less than 1 hour of fuel,
>which is not the intent of this story.
>I encourage all that have cross country stories, like Tim has done well in
>covering on his webpage, to keep doing it for people like me that enjoy
>reading about places to go and see with the RV-10, it truly motivates me to
>keep working on the plane so I can start enjoying the journeys as well.
>Thanks for sharing your story Jesse!
>
>Pascal
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:55 AM
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?
>
>
> >
> > Let's not increase the insurance rates. While barely legal the flight
>may
> > not be prudent. Let's see. Arriving at 2 AM with 30-54 minutes of fuel
> > remaining. Some deviations around weather, some headwinds. What about
> > aircraft mechanical problems that increase the rate of fuel flow late in
> > the
> > flight? What about airport closures due too disabled aircraft or
> > maintenance? If using flight following, what about ATC requested
> > deviations
> > due to military or other activity? Low level clouds and ground fog
>usually
> > form in the early morning hours and may not be forecast or reported;
> > especially at non 24 hour tower airports.
> >
> > Perhaps you considered all these and still had lots of options. Good.
> > I too love flying at night although my night flying is now not required
>as
> > I
> > am retired. Also I fly in the mountains where a successful off airport
> > landing is enhanced greatly by daylight.
> >
> > For me, unless the trip is short and over familiar territory nighttime
>is
> > IFR time. It keeps me clear of all surface obstacles and a precise route
> > to
> > my destination (no deviations around clouds). There are precise
>distances
> > and altitudes to fly approaching the airport. Additionally my fuel
> > requirements are a minimum of 1 hour remaining at destination if good
>VFR
> > or
> > two hours minimum if destination is IFR.
> >
> > Just my two cents.
> > Comm CFII A&P
> > Flying 33 years
> > TT 4000+, night 600+, 300+ actual, and significant numbers of hand flown
> > low
> > IFR departures and arrivals in my TC177RG
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
>McMullen
> > Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 9:22 PM
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country
>machine?
> >
> >
> > Lovers of night flight might want to review 91.151 re min fuel. Of
> > course if the headwinds were not anticipated fuel requirements go out
> > the window.
> >
> > On 9/3/07, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Nope, you're not the only one that loves flying at night. ;)
> >>
> >> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> >> do not archive
> >>
> >>
> >> Jesse Saint wrote:
> > With 55 gallons burned, that averaged less than 8 gph
> >> > and left 5/8's hour of reserve. X35
> >> > at 1:26am Eastern. I hope I'm not the only one that loves to fly at
> >> > night. That was FANTASTIC!
> >
> >> > *
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > *
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >=======================
>-=======================
_________________________________________________________________
Discover sweet stuff waiting for you at the Messenger Cafe. Claim your
treat today!
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_SeptHMtagline2
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: Lancair Panel |
Here are a few. Let me know if you want more offline. I moved the console
back about 1" from what =0Athe stock setting is to give my hand more room
between the throttle and dimmer knobs. This =0Aalso meant all new custom ca
bles for the throttle. =0A =0AScott Schmidt=0Ascottmschmidt@yahoo.com =0A
=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: "RobHickman@aol.com" <RobHickm
an@aol.com>=0ATo: rv10-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, September 4, 200
7 1:56:54 PM=0ASubject: RV10-List: Lancair Panel=0A=0A=0AHas anyone install
ed one of the Lancair panels with the Throttle quadrant?=0A =0A =0AI am loo
king for pictures of one.=0A =0AThanks,=0A =0ARob Hickman=0AN402RH RV-10 Fi
========
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 |
|
I just read an article on the water cooling jackets for Lycoming
engines. Any one in the extended RV community installed these or have
any feed back or data, are they as efficient as claimed ?.
Paul Walter
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: | The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine? |
The intent of my posting was not to impugn the pilot. I simply wanted to
suggest that there are a lot of considerations that need to be made before
pushing into the last 10% of the fuel. My personal rules for using into the
last 10% require me to visually watch the fueling of the level aircraft. The
destination must be golden. That is Day, CAVU. On one occasion while about
50 miles from destination I "declared minimum fuel". ATC immediately tried
to induce me to land at several airports in my path to TUL. I responded by
again declaring minimum fuel. Finally they knew that I knew what it meant
and I proceed to airport without any undue vectoring. At the time I had
about 2000 hours in that aircraft but no fuel flow transducers or digital
readouts that will be in my 10.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?
Woops, I just noticed an error in my last e-mail.
I meant to say,
"Trust me, this has not happened here, it is fun to discuss the what-ifs and
be reminded
of rules."
Kinda reminds me of a Mark Twain quote. "The difference between the almost
right word
& the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the
lightning bug and the lightning."
Sorry about that. Everyone on this list is pretty good at raising questions
without personally
attacking someone. I know what a personal attack looks like and it is not
fun.
Do not archive
Scott Schmidt
scottmschmidt@yahoo.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Scott Schmidt <scottmschmidt@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 1:04:33 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?
Do not archive
Some of my thoughts about trip write ups.
I have decreased my story writing and general comments over the past while
on Vansairforce because of someone blasting me for a comment I made. And
some view write-ups as showing off. I think we all need to remember that
the
people who respond in that way are the minority and the majority of us love
the
write-ups, we enjoy the pictures, and the enthusiasm we all have for
aviation.
For some reason, people have the ability to be more critical and negative on
a forum and e-mail system. If you had some of the discussion that ended up
negative with all involved at Oshkosh over beers and hot dogs it would be a
totally
different conversation and outcome. You just have to shake your head and
move on.
I think most of the time, it is not the e-mail or response that is negative,
but
the way that it is read or interpreted. People assume too much.
You cannot take any of it personally. This RV-10 list has really been great.
I have lost sleep after being blasted publicly on other sites as well
(this was a motorcycling forum). It is no fun when someone does that to you.
Trust me, this has happened here, it is fun to discuss the what-ifs and be
reminded
of rules.
As for the insurance topic, I want to share one thought with you because it
is a pet
peeve of mine. I feel we don't have the right to criticize a persons flight,
or performance
during a flight because of the effect it has on insurance rates. Other than
publicly
humiliating a person you have zero control over the way a person conducts
the
flight. When people try to control something they have no control of is
when
they get into trouble in relationships, in business, and on RV-10 forums.
If you want to spend some time worrying about insurance it should be health
insurance.
This year the cost of health insurance increased over 20% . Luckily my
wife and I only were hit with a 17% increase. Many were hit with 30%
increases
and this is not going to slow down. I don't want to discuss the cause of
this because
I have zero control over what is causing this other than who I vote for.
My insurance on my RV-10 will actually drop $500 this year! Yeha!
In fact my insurance is only 10.5% of my variable costs over the last 12
months
(this includes no cost of the aircraft). Find a way to get fuel to drop 5%
and that
will pay for 1/3 of your insurance for the year.
If we all used more fuel, it would be cheaper once new refinery's opened
also.
I feel their is a standard bell curve for pilot skill levels and the
aircraft design
over a 5-10 year period will dictate the accident rate. I also feel that
since the RV-10
is non-aerobatic and really is a stable aircraft during takeoff, landing,
and
in weather it will have a safety record that is better than the other RV's.
I bet we
could even calculate the safety record right now based off the number of
hours already
flown.
Jesse, I can't beat that distance yet but you got me thinking that I sure
would like to try.
I think 1500 nm in an RV-10 with 50 gallons (30 mpg) would be something to
shoot for.
I'll have to study winds aloft and fuel burn rates and see what it would
take.
Keep all the trip write-ups coming! Happy flying and building!
Scott Schmidt
scottmschmidt@yahoo.com
----- Original Message ----
From: pascal <rv10builder@verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 8:06:20 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?
I enjoyed reading the story and think the point was the capabilities of the
RV-10, not the FAA regulations and "what if's" that governed the 5/8 fuel
left. I'm sure with a 496 showing weather ahead and the current level of
instruments, that tell you to the minute, how much fuel is left, the PIC saw
what was and wasn't possible. They landed and all is well. Jesse told us
what they did to remain safe, and maybe he could have explained the logic
for what they did, but why need to?
Maybe I'm missing the point, but I want others to feel encouraged to tell
stories, if this were me I would question if it was worth sharing a story
only to hear about the "legalities" and how wise I was doing it. I know we
all care about the RV-10's staying in the air and insurance rates but let's
stick to "the most efficient 4-place" story versus responding with rules and
prudence. I'll go to my FAR's for that information if I need it.
So I am clear, taking advice from knowledgeable members, like a CFII is
appreciated, when someone asks for it and is the intent of discussion. I
read the NTSB monthly publication and in each accident review case I ask
myself what went wrong? how would I have handled the situation and what
could I have done to avoid being in this situation. In the end I realize
that I am only getting part of the story to the NTSB's best knowledge, not
necessarily all the facts (aka why the pilot did what they did- which only
that person would know). Jesse told us the fact that the RV-10 is quite
capable of going far and efficiently, all some are doing is surmising why
the pilot made the choices he made to land with less than 1 hour of fuel,
which is not the intent of this story.
I encourage all that have cross country stories, like Tim has done well in
covering on his webpage, to keep doing it for people like me that enjoy
reading about places to go and see with the RV-10, it truly motivates me to
keep working on the plane so I can start enjoying the journeys as well.
Thanks for sharing your story Jesse!
Pascal
----- Original Message -----
From: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:55 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?
>
> Let's not increase the insurance rates. While barely legal the flight may
> not be prudent. Let's see. Arriving at 2 AM with 30-54 minutes of fuel
> remaining. Some deviations around weather, some headwinds. What about
> aircraft mechanical problems that increase the rate of fuel flow late in
> the
> flight? What about airport closures due too disabled aircraft or
> maintenance? If using flight following, what about ATC requested
> deviations
> due to military or other activity? Low level clouds and ground fog usually
> form in the early morning hours and may not be forecast or reported;
> especially at non 24 hour tower airports.
>
> Perhaps you considered all these and still had lots of options. Good.
> I too love flying at night although my night flying is now not required as
> I
> am retired. Also I fly in the mountains where a successful off airport
> landing is enhanced greatly by daylight.
>
> For me, unless the trip is short and over familiar territory nighttime is
> IFR time. It keeps me clear of all surface obstacles and a precise route
> to
> my destination (no deviations around clouds). There are precise distances
> and altitudes to fly approaching the airport. Additionally my fuel
> requirements are a minimum of 1 hour remaining at destination if good VFR
> or
> two hours minimum if destination is IFR.
>
> Just my two cents.
> Comm CFII A&P
> Flying 33 years
> TT 4000+, night 600+, 300+ actual, and significant numbers of hand flown
> low
> IFR departures and arrivals in my TC177RG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 9:22 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?
>
>
> Lovers of night flight might want to review 91.151 re min fuel. Of
> course if the headwinds were not anticipated fuel requirements go out
> the window.
>
> On 9/3/07, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Nope, you're not the only one that loves flying at night. ;)
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> Jesse Saint wrote:
> With 55 gallons burned, that averaged less than 8 gph
>> > and left 5/8's hour of reserve. X35
>> > at 1:26am Eastern. I hope I'm not the only one that loves to fly at
>> > night. That was FANTASTIC!
>
>> > *
>> >
>> >
>> > *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
http://forums.matron===============
http://www.matronimatronics.com/" target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com<============
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 |
|
There is at least one primer designed to be a final interior protective
coating with no top coat required. PPG Super Koropon. Used on Gulfstreams
and Boeings at least up until a few years ago for interior structures.
Areas in and around gallies and lavs got a whole nother process.
Dick Sipp
N110DV moving to airport
----- Original Message -----
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 12:37 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Alodine
>
> Doing something wrong can sometimes be worse than doing nothing. Doing
> nothing in a harsh maritime or high humidity climate might justify more
> protection. Some aircraft can sit in storage in the dry heat of Arizona
> for decades with little corrosion effects.
>
> Primer wars aside, some builders stop at a well prepared "Alodined"
> surface which in fact exceeds the techniques used many Certificated
> manufacturers (like Cessna and Piper). Others apply primer with no
> intent to ever cover it with a final topcoat paint. Primer begs for a
> properly formulated topcoat that is applied reasonable soon after the
> primer. That step adds weight, some additional protection and an
> attraction for the primer (without topcoat) to absorb hydrocarbons,
> human oils, dirt and other organics over decades. The choice of
> protection is that of every kit builder. Some of my closest friends
> throw primer without topcoat at their plane. They are the
> manufacturer... they make the choice.
>
> Corrosion as a result of the faying action (wicking) of alkaline soaps
> (improperly used and not removed) does far worse. Exfoliation and
> filiform are just two corrosions that love such inattention over that
> time period. It is always tragic to remediate corrosion on a perfectly
> good aircraft. The only consolation for me is that my employer will
> throw unlimited sums of money at correcting neglect down life's highway.
>
> A seasoned Boeing 747 can gain as much as 5% of its certificated empty
> weight in lost tools, FOD, swarf, old paint, waste hydrocarbons and
> human organics when it is finally laid to rest.
>
> Choice wisely. Have pride in your creation.
>
> John Cox
> 40600
> Do not Archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fred
> Williams, M.D.
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 8:56 AM
> To: RV 10
> Subject: RV10-List: Alodine
>
> <drfred@suddenlinkmail.com>
>
> For my current RV, I alumini preped, alodine and then put SW primer on
> all the interior surfaces. I am happy with what I have chosen to do
> with this plane. Is there anything wrong with just stopping with the
> alodine step? Someday, (ok, maybe after my current wife is no longer
> able to remember how much I spent on the 10) I'd like to build an rv 12
> to have for fun day VFR . I have seen a couple of RV 10 's with no
> interior prep/treatment. Would doing nothing be better than
> something? With nothing, one does have the pure aluminum which does
> have an oxidized layer. With the alodine, we are adding a chromic
> oxidized layer. Thoughts? anybody have any real data?
>
> Fred Williams
> 40515
>
>
>
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: | phosphoric acid etch for windscreen installation? |
Outstanding safety advice. All of it is accurate and timely.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Ackerman
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: phosphoric acid etch for windscreen
installation?
Alumiprep is an etchant commonly used on aircraft prior to Alodining
or painting; I suspect most of this thread is really about it or
substitutes for it.
Alumiprep is a fairly dilute water solution that contains not only
phosphoric acid, but also fluoride ion. That means that it contains
HF (hydrofluoric acid). HF is very aggressive toward aluminum,
dissolving the protective aluminum oxide coat from its surface. That
exposes a fresh, uncontaminated aluminum metal surface to the acid
solution. The aluminum then reacts very rapidly with the solution to
make hydrogen. You can see the tiny hydrogen bubbles forming on the
surface. When the entire surface is making hydrogen and looks whitish
from the layer of hyrdrogen bubbles, the Alumiprep has done its job.
The idea is that when you dissolve away the aluminum oxide coating,
you also remove any contaminants (skin grease, paint, oil, whatever)
that were on top of it, and have a fresh, active, reproducible
surface to accept your alodine or whatever coating you may want to
apply.
At this point you rinse thoroughly and dry, then put your chosen
coating on as soon as you can.
A couple safety points:
1. HF is Godawful Nasty Stuff - it can eat away at you and not stop
until it hits bone. Most chemists whom I know are truly respectful of
it. Phosphoric acid is also nasty, but nearly as bad.
2. If you do like I did and put longerons and other long, narrow
things into a plastic pipe with Alumiprep, cap the pipe, then rock
and roll to cover the aluminum with Alumiprep, you WILL build up
hydrogen gas under pressure in the pipe. There is a significant
potential for pressurization of the pipe. There could also be a nasty
explosion if a spark hit the hydrogen-air mixture you've made. The
worst part of that is that the acid solution is something you really
don't want on your skin, let alone in your eyes.
I vented the pipe frequently (several time a minute) to avoid
building up pressure
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 |
|
Scott Schmidt has and it's a beauty. I will forward a shot direct to
your email address. Scott can give more details.
John
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
RobHickman@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 1:57 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Lancair Panel
Has anyone installed one of the Lancair panels with the Throttle
quadrant?
I am looking for pictures of one.
Thanks,
Rob Hickman
N402RH RV-10 Finish Kit.
________________________________
AOL.com.
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 |
|
Dave McNeill, I could be resembling the same remark and as you all know,
I am not about to shy away from Safety discussions on an aviation forum.
I love Scott's posts and look forward to many more. Hope RV-10 builders
are more passionate about open discussion than motorcycle dudes.
Just call me cynical that after more than 20 years as a pilot examiner
the FAA still clings to a concept (Not acknowledged here) that Peer
Pressure and Opinion has the most direct effect on changing pilot
behavior to the benefit of future generations. As one who created a
series of Safety Seminars to improve the gene pool, it became clear that
the safe pilots often attend and the unsafe pilot's tend to avoid
participation and any effort to reach out to them. Offering opinions
should always be encouraged.
After several years with accident investigations, I clung to (and will
continue to cling to) the perverted but accurate phrase "The tree of
life is self pruning". "Hope springs eternal". I watched on the
sideline as literally scores of Lancair IV builders abandoned years of
passion, effort and thousands of dollars as a few but measurable
renegades crashed planes, maimed and killed themselves and others. They
still suffer with the insurance industries efforts to maintain
profitability without risk adjustments. Only the surviving gene pool
pays future insurance rates set by those who go before them. RV-10
builders deserve to benefit from the lessons of others.
Wellness is underrated and someday rates will transfer the rightful
burden to the correct insured's who don't follow sound principles. We
are soon to have 100 flying and hopefully insured when the fly.
Now are there only a few of you who believe low fuel levels on landing
make sense in the quest for a record? It appears I have lost another
close aviation friend, Steve Fossett, today in his pursuit of yet
another world record - the land speed record in Scott's backyard.
Can you tell my frustration. Flame away. Not
looking for support. Just more pilots with some common sense on an
RV-10 reflector with over 1,000 readers.
John Cox
________________________________
From: David McNeill [mailto:dlm46007@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:11 PM
Subject: XC machine
Sounds like I am being called a flame thrower. Would you launch VFR (as
a VFR pilot, my guess) into the last 10% of fuel and plan an arrival at
2AM? Just because he arrived safely does not mean it was a safe
operation in my opinion. Every thing had to be right for it to work?
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 |
|
Akzo is also a great epoxy primer/sealer that does not require a topcoat.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Sipp
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Alodine
There is at least one primer designed to be a final interior protective
coating with no top coat required. PPG Super Koropon. Used on Gulfstreams
and Boeings at least up until a few years ago for interior structures.
Areas in and around gallies and lavs got a whole nother process.
Dick Sipp
N110DV moving to airport
----- Original Message -----
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 12:37 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Alodine
>
> Doing something wrong can sometimes be worse than doing nothing. Doing
> nothing in a harsh maritime or high humidity climate might justify more
> protection. Some aircraft can sit in storage in the dry heat of Arizona
> for decades with little corrosion effects.
>
> Primer wars aside, some builders stop at a well prepared "Alodined"
> surface which in fact exceeds the techniques used many Certificated
> manufacturers (like Cessna and Piper). Others apply primer with no
> intent to ever cover it with a final topcoat paint. Primer begs for a
> properly formulated topcoat that is applied reasonable soon after the
> primer. That step adds weight, some additional protection and an
> attraction for the primer (without topcoat) to absorb hydrocarbons,
> human oils, dirt and other organics over decades. The choice of
> protection is that of every kit builder. Some of my closest friends
> throw primer without topcoat at their plane. They are the
> manufacturer... they make the choice.
>
> Corrosion as a result of the faying action (wicking) of alkaline soaps
> (improperly used and not removed) does far worse. Exfoliation and
> filiform are just two corrosions that love such inattention over that
> time period. It is always tragic to remediate corrosion on a perfectly
> good aircraft. The only consolation for me is that my employer will
> throw unlimited sums of money at correcting neglect down life's highway.
>
> A seasoned Boeing 747 can gain as much as 5% of its certificated empty
> weight in lost tools, FOD, swarf, old paint, waste hydrocarbons and
> human organics when it is finally laid to rest.
>
> Choice wisely. Have pride in your creation.
>
> John Cox
> 40600
> Do not Archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fred
> Williams, M.D.
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 8:56 AM
> To: RV 10
> Subject: RV10-List: Alodine
>
> <drfred@suddenlinkmail.com>
>
> For my current RV, I alumini preped, alodine and then put SW primer on
> all the interior surfaces. I am happy with what I have chosen to do
> with this plane. Is there anything wrong with just stopping with the
> alodine step? Someday, (ok, maybe after my current wife is no longer
> able to remember how much I spent on the 10) I'd like to build an rv 12
> to have for fun day VFR . I have seen a couple of RV 10 's with no
> interior prep/treatment. Would doing nothing be better than
> something? With nothing, one does have the pure aluminum which does
> have an oxidized layer. With the alodine, we are adding a chromic
> oxidized layer. Thoughts? anybody have any real data?
>
> Fred Williams
> 40515
>
>
>
9:14 AM
9:14 AM
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: Tinted windows |
Doesn't make much difference after dark. Makes a big difference when
the afternoon sun is beating down on you in 110 here in Phoenix. Heck,
I could feel the heat gain in 410RV in Aurora on a cloudy day.
On 9/4/07, JSMcGrew@aol.com <JSMcGrew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> I wouldn't expect that anyone would want tinted windows in an airplane. It
> is hard enough to see at night without looking through a tinted windscreen!
> :)
>
> -Jim
> 40134
>
> In a message dated 9/3/2007 11:27:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> apilot2@gmail.com writes:
>
> Does Vans, or anyone else offer tinted windshield and windows? Seems
> like would be desirable for all VFR flight to cut heat gain.
>
>
> AOL.com.
>
>
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: RE: XC machine |
John, Steve Fossett isn't lost yet is he? I have only read that he is miss
ing. Apparently flying a Decathlon at the time. I sure hope they find him
alive as well. =0A =0AJohn, I have an question about insurance though and
I'm hoping you can help me with them. What were main reasons for the incre
ase in insurance rates over the past 5-7 years? =0AI understand that press
urized aircraft saw some of the highest increases. I also understand that
many private pilots flying pressurized planes are required to attend Flight
Safety training every year. =0AAnother gentlemen just sold his Meridian a
t my airport. He said his insurance was $12,000 per year plus the cost of
Flight Safety training for about a week. (Don't know what that costs)=0AWa
s this caused by an increase in accidents or due to poor piloting? I ask b
ecause I have a very hard time believing that pilots over the past 5-7 year
s are worse than pilots in the 10 years preceding it. =0AAlso, I recentl
y talked to an RV-6 owner here in Utah who was going to buy a completed RV-
10 but didn't because he was required to have 250 hours total time and 20 h
ours of transition training, yet=0Ahe had no problems getting insurance for
an RV-6A with under 100 hours total time. (This makes zero sense) When I
started building in 2003 my initial quotes at the beginning of 2005 were 15
0 hours total and 1 hour of transition=0Atraining. By the time I had finis
hed they wanted 200 hours and 10 hours, now it is 250 hours and 20 hours.
There have been no accidents yet they continue to increase requirements and
cost. It is data like this that makes me think that =0Aour rates are not
tied to other RV-10 owners but to the 4 place high performance market. Do
you think that is right? =0AI hope my rates continue to go down as our fle
et is shown to be the safest 4 place. :)=0A =0AScott Schmidt=0Ascottmschmid
t@yahoo.com =0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: John W. Cox <jo
hnwcox@pacificnw.com>=0ATo: rv10-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, Septem
ber 4, 2007 8:38:15 PM=0ASubject: RV10-List: RE: XC machine=0A=0A=0ADave Mc
Neill, I could be resembling the same remark and as you all know, I am not
about to shy away from Safety discussions on an aviation forum.=0A =0AI lov
e Scott=92s posts and look forward to many more. Hope RV-10 builders are m
ore passionate about open discussion than motorcycle dudes.=0A =0AJust call
me cynical that after more than 20 years as a pilot examiner the FAA still
clings to a concept (Not acknowledged here) that Peer Pressure and Opinion
has the most direct effect on changing pilot behavior to the benefit of fu
ture generations. As one who created a series of Safety Seminars to improv
e the gene pool, it became clear that the safe pilots often attend and the
unsafe pilot=92s tend to avoid participation and any effort to reach out to
them. Offering opinions should always be encouraged.=0A =0AAfter several
years with accident investigations, I clung to (and will continue to cling
to) the perverted but accurate phrase =93The tree of life is self pruning
=94. =93Hope springs eternal=94. I watched on the sideline as literally s
cores of Lancair IV builders abandoned years of passion, effort and thousan
ds of dollars as a few but measurable renegades crashed planes, maimed and
killed themselves and others. They still suffer with the insurance industri
es efforts to maintain profitability without risk adjustments. Only the su
rviving gene pool pays future insurance rates set by those who go before th
em. RV-10 builders deserve to benefit from the lessons of others.=0A =0AWe
llness is underrated and someday rates will transfer the rightful burden to
the correct insured=92s who don=92t follow sound principles. We are soon
to have 100 flying and hopefully insured when the fly.=0A =0ANow are there
only a few of you who believe low fuel levels on landing make sense in the
quest for a record? It appears I have lost another close aviation friend,
Steve Fossett, today in his pursuit of yet another world record ' the la
nd speed record in Scott=92s backyard.=0A =0ACan you tell my frustration.
Flame away. Not looking for support. Just more pilot
s with some common sense on an RV-10 reflector with over 1,000 readers.=0A
=0AJohn Cox=0A =0A=0A=0A=0AFrom: David McNeill [mailto:dlm46007@cox.net]
=0ASent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:11 PM=0ATo: John W. Cox=0ASubject: X
C machine=0A =0ASounds like I am being called a flame thrower. Would you la
unch VFR (as a VFR pilot, my guess) into the last 10% of fuel and plan an a
rrival at 2AM? Just because he arrived safely does not mean it was a safe o
peration in my opinion. Every thing had to be right for it to work? =0A
==================
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: Tinted windows |
The greenhouse effect of the RV-10 is amazing. I have used those stick on
=0Ashades where ever the sun is coming in and they work pretty good. =0Ahtt
p://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&did=19&product_id=7937=0A=0AI wou
ld rather have the visibility than not. It really makes for fun flying.
=0A =0AScott Schmidt=0Ascottmschmidt@yahoo.com=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Me
ssage ----=0AFrom: Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com>=0ATo: rv10-list@matro
nics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 9:11:07 PM=0ASubject: Re: RV10-
en" <apilot2@gmail.com>=0A=0ADoesn't make much difference after dark. Makes
a big difference when=0Athe afternoon sun is beating down on you in 110 he
re in Phoenix. Heck,=0AI could feel the heat gain in 410RV in Aurora on a c
loudy day.=0A=0AOn 9/4/07, JSMcGrew@aol.com <JSMcGrew@aol.com> wrote:=0A>
=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> I wouldn't expect that anyone would want tinted windows in
an airplane. It=0A> is hard enough to see at night without looking through
a tinted windscreen!=0A> :)=0A>=0A> -Jim=0A> 40134=0A>=0A> In a message da
ted 9/3/2007 11:27:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,=0A> apilot2@gmail.com wri
om>=0A>=0A> Does Vans, or anyone else offer tinted windshield and windows?
Seems=0A> like would be desirable for all VFR flight to cut heat gain.=0A>
===========
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: | Re: Tinted windows |
Point is, night flying is a small percentage of use, the only things you
will see are lit anyway, so tint has virtually zero impact on visibility.
Stick on shades work okay for blocking some of the light, but little for
heat gain. I guess will have to focus on ventiliation.
Scott Schmidt wrote:
> The greenhouse effect of the RV-10 is amazing. I have used those stick on
> shades where ever the sun is coming in and they work pretty good.
> http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&did=19&product_id=7937
> <http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&did=19&product_id=7937>
>
> I would rather have the visibility than not. It really makes for fun
> flying.
>
> Scott Schmidt
> scottmschmidt@yahoo.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com>
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 9:11:07 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tinted windows
>
>
> Doesn't make much difference after dark. Makes a big difference when
> the afternoon sun is beating down on you in 110 here in Phoenix. Heck,
> I could feel the heat gain in 410RV in Aurora on a cloudy day.
>
> On 9/4/07, JSMcGrew@aol.com <JSMcGrew@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I wouldn't expect that anyone would want tinted windows in an
> airplane. It
> > is hard enough to see at night without looking through a tinted
> windscreen!
> > :)
> >
> > -Jim
> > 40134
> >
> > In a message dated 9/3/2007 11:27:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > apilot2@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > Does Vans, or anyone else offer tinted windshield and windows? Seems
> > like would be desirable for all VFR flight to cut heat gain.
> >
> >
> >
> > AOL.com.
> >
> >
> >
> ?RV10-List" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
Some people are talking about tinting only the rear windows? Kinda
sporty. Thoughts?
Also some tint before installing. I figure if they can tint my car after
production I would do the same in the -10 (if at all).
Robin
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tinted windows
The greenhouse effect of the RV-10 is amazing. I have used those stick
on
shades where ever the sun is coming in and they work pretty good.
http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&did=19&product_id=7937
I would rather have the visibility than not. It really makes for fun
flying.
Scott Schmidt
scottmschmidt@yahoo.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 9:11:07 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tinted windows
Doesn't make much difference after dark. Makes a big difference when
the afternoon sun is beating down on you in 110 here in Phoenix. Heck,
I could feel the heat gain in 410RV in Aurora on a cloudy day.
On 9/4/07, JSMcGrew@aol.com <JSMcGrew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> I wouldn't expect that anyone would want tinted windows in an
airplane. It
> is hard enough to see at night without looking through a tinted
windscreen!
> :)
>
> -Jim
> 40134
>
> In a message dated 9/3/2007 11:27:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> apilot2@gmail.com writes:
>
> Does Vans, or anyone else offer tinted windshield and windows? Seems
> like would be desirable for all VFR flight to cut heat gain.
>
>
> AOL.com.
>
>
?RV10-List"
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List</Asp;
- NEW MATRONICS WE==
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! --
|