Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:33 AM - Wow! A Ton of Comments! (Matt Dralle)
1. 03:13 AM - Balancing Control Surfaces (McGANN, Ron)
2. 05:57 AM - Re: Balancing Control Surfaces (Chris and Susie McGough)
3. 06:24 AM - N289DT preliminary report NYC08LA023 (James Hein)
4. 06:48 AM - Re: Re: paint prices (Condrey, Bob (US SSA))
5. 07:55 AM - Re: Balancing Control Surfaces (Deems Davis)
6. 08:25 AM - Re: Re: paint prices (Mark Ritter)
7. 09:35 AM - Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? (eagerlee)
8. 09:43 AM - Re: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? ()
9. 09:43 AM - Re: Re: paint prices (Robin Marks)
10. 10:53 AM - Re: How to avoid vapor lock: building tips (John W. Cox)
11. 10:55 AM - Re: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? (John W. Cox)
12. 11:08 AM - Fw: Jeppesen Offers Chelton Services (gengrumpy@aol.com)
13. 11:21 AM - Door - Gas Strut Installation (AirMike)
14. 11:22 AM - Re: How to avoid vapor lock: building tips (Ralph E. Capen)
15. 11:42 AM - Re: RV-10 Total Flight Time - Submit yoursRV-10 Total Flight Time - Submit yours (Emond)
16. 12:43 PM - Re: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? (ddddsp1@juno.com)
17. 01:36 PM - Re: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? (gary)
18. 01:36 PM - Re: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
19. 02:43 PM - Re: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? (David McNeill)
20. 02:43 PM - Re: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? (Dj Merrill)
21. 05:52 PM - Re: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? (bob.kaufmann)
22. 08:16 PM - Re: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? (Les Kearney)
23. 09:10 PM - vans service bulletin AN426AD4-5 (Ben Westfall)
24. 09:33 PM - Re: Door - Gas Strut Installation (AirMike)
25. 10:03 PM - Re: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? (John Gonzalez)
26. 10:34 PM - Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems? (Deems Davis)
Message 0
| 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: | Wow! A Ton of Comments! |
Dear Listers,
I've been getting a ton of great comments from Listers along with their List Support
Contributions lately! I've shared a bunch more below. Please read over
some of them and see what your fellow Listers think of the Lists and Forums.
There are just a couple more days left before the official end of this year's Fund
Raiser. Please make a Contribution today to support the continued upgrade
and operation of these services.
There are still lots of awesome gifts available, so browse the extensive selection
and pickup a nice item along with your qualifying Contribution.
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you in advance for your generous support! It is very much appreciated!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
----------- What Listers Are Saying About The Lists -----------
In the big picture, you are most certainly saving lives.
The fact that you do it at a very good level of service,
quality, and simplicity is just icing on the cake. We
all owe you a debt of gratitude.
Bruce M
Can't go a single day without reading my lists. Even
when I am overseas.
Terry W
Best list ever. No comparison.
Johann J
I get the digest for the two lists I subscribe to each
morning -- they go great with my coffee! I can't tell
you how much I've learned from this great service...
Mark S
..great lists, best on the Net!
Robert S
It is very nice to enjoy a SPAM free list.
Ken L
You run a great list. Makes a builder feel like there's
lots of help out there for the asking, and it's
appreciated.
Steve T
The list is a very valuable resource.
Thomas S
You run a good list.
James G
Thanks for a great forum.
Jimmy Y
Thanks for a well-maintained list(s).
Michael M
Great job! Worth every penny!
Stephen T
Helps me learn and think about issues I didn't know I
didn't know.
Martin H
I find the list very useful...
Robert F
What you do provides me with daily contact with a passion
of my life, aviation.
Wendell M
..the list it is very valuable information.
Dwayne H
..a great service to homebuilders.
Andrew H
I have learned quite a lot from reading the Forums. I
have been reading at the forum pages and I like the way
it works.
Ron L
[The List] makes a builder feel like there's lots of
help out there for the asking, and it's appreciated.
Steve T
The list service many purposes, not the least of which is
motivation to join my fellow RVer in completing my project
and getting in the air.
John S
Thanks for running a great site. Its simplicity is its
greatness. Don't know how I would have been successful
without it.
Timothy F
..terrific service to experimental and general aviation.
James F
You have a well run operation. I am happy to support what
you do.
Mark S
A wonderful service to the GA community.
David M
Great list - let's keep it ad-free!
Ben C
They have been of great help, learning and friendship
for all the members Worldwide. Great job of yours, a
little idea that grew really big and wonderful.
Gary G
..a thoroughly enjoyable and informative List.
John W
A GREAT LEARNING TOOL!!
Dwayne Y
This is a very well-run list and it is a valuable resource
for the Pietenpol enthusiast.
Graham H
Thanks for running this great site - helps those of
us on the east of the pond keep in touch.
Malcolm H
Thanks for the major contribution to my continuing
education program.
Oldbob S
I'm just getting started in the building process & find
Matronics to be the most valuable site.
Scott D
Without the information and encouragement from the listers
my project would have been sitting in the corner of my shop
collecting dust long ago. Now it's almost ready for final
assemble and covering.
Edward G
Great List. No Ads, just RV-10 builders. Keep it
going.
Rick E
Wonderful source of info for building & flying...
Graham H
The Yak-list is a superb single source to get answers to
questions on the operation of these aircraft.
Craig W
This list is valuable to everyone and your hard work is
very much appreciated.
Jim S
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: | Balancing Control Surfaces |
G'day all,
I remember reading some posts recently about the need to balance control su
rfaces and rebalance after paint. Can somebody point me to some reading ma
terial on control surface balancing and how it is achieved on the -10? Doe
s it involve adding/removing mass to/from the counterbalance weights on the
elevators and rudder?? Is this problematic if the fairings have been inst
alled??
thanks in advance
Ron
187 finishing
"Warning:
The information contained in this email and any attached files is
confidential to BAE Systems Australia. If you are not the intended
recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this email or any
attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email
in error, please notify us immediately. VIRUS: Every care has been
taken to ensure this email and its attachments are virus free,
however, any loss or damage incurred in using this email is not the
sender's responsibility. It is your responsibility to ensure virus
checks are completed before installing any data sent in this email to
your computer."
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: Balancing Control Surfaces |
Balancing Control SurfacesMatch: #23 Message: #12987 From: "Carl
Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)cox.net> Subject: Elevator Balance Date:
Sep 30, 2007
I sent a note to Van's awhile back on elevator balance. When building
my
RV-8A the instructions told you to trim the counterbalance weights until
the
elevators were balance, as in statically balances so that the elevators
stay
horizontal with no force acting on them. The weights in the RV-8A are
much
larger than the RV-10.
Building the RV-10 it is obvious that to achieve this same balance
requires
much larger counterbalance weights than that supplied with the kit.
Van's
reply to my question about this was "the elevators will hang trailing
edge
down" and that there is not need to add the weight to make them
statically
balanced as in the RV-8A.
Recommend just building as per plan.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (350 hrs)
RV-10 (wings)
Dogwood Airpark (VA42)
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rene
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 11:55 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Elevator Balance
I am confused about the balance of the elevator. The plans say a max of
37.5 in/lbs down. Without having the elevator connected to the controls
and
trim tabs not connected I measured the balance. It is about 15 in/lbs
down. So my questions are:
What is the minimum?
When should it be measured? I am assuming after all rigging is
complete.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Rene'
40322
N423CF
Final assembley
801-721-6080
End Msg: #23
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Return to the Matronics Email List Homepages
----- Original Message -----
From: McGANN, Ron
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:12 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Balancing Control Surfaces
G'day all,
I remember reading some posts recently about the need to balance
control surfaces and rebalance after paint. Can somebody point me to
some reading material on control surface balancing and how it is
achieved on the -10? Does it involve adding/removing mass to/from the
counterbalance weights on the elevators and rudder?? Is this
problematic if the fairings have been installed??
thanks in advance
Ron
187 finishing
"Warning:
The information contained in this email and any attached files is
confidential to BAE Systems Australia. If you are not the intended
recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this email or any
attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email
in error, please notify us immediately. VIRUS: Every care has been
taken to ensure this email and its attachments are virus free,
however, any loss or damage incurred in using this email is not the
sender's responsibility. It is your responsibility to ensure virus
checks are completed before installing any data sent in this email to
your computer."
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: | N289DT preliminary report NYC08LA023 |
NTSB Identification: *NYC08LA023*
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, November 02, 2007 in Greenville, PA
Aircraft: Vans Aircraft RV-10, registration: N289DT
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.
On November 2, 2007, at 0830 eastern daylight time, an amateur built
Vans RV-10, N289DT, was substantially damaged when it impacted terrain
near Greenville, Pennsylvania. The certificated private pilot was
fatally injured. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the
local flight that departed Greenville Municipal Airport (4G1),
Greenville, Pennsylvania. No flight plan was filed for the personal
flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.
According to a family member, the pilot had driven to the airport to
practice "touch and go's" and to make sure everything was functioning
properly, prior to a planned afternoon trip in the airplane with his
family to Boston, Massachusetts.
Witness interviews were conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and the Safety Board, and while no one saw the airplane depart
4G1, the airplane was observed by a witness at approximately 0800
traveling in a northwesterly direction at low altitude, moving "fast,"
and sounding like it was "running strong like a Ford Mustang
(turbocharged) Cobra that the witness once owned." At approximately
0825, the airplane was again observed but, this time by multiple
witnesses. Descriptions varied between witness statements as to the
altitude, direction of flight, and velocity of the airplane; however,
the preponderance of witness statements were that the airplane was
flying north on the east side of Pennsylvania State Route 58, and seemed
to make a circle to the left at approximately 500 feet above ground
level (agl). It was next observed to travel in a westerly direction, fly
across Route 58 and make another turn to the left with the engine
"revving up and down," and losing altitude. When it reached
approximately 50-feet agl and was heading east, the airplane rolled
wings level and impacted a cornfield in a 35 to 60 degree nose down
attitude. A fireball erupted, and the airplane slid approximately
100-feet. It then impacted the shoulder of Route 58, nosed over, and
came to rest inverted on the roadway.
The amateur built airplane, was a four place, low wing monoplane. It was
equipped with a non-certificated Eggenfellner E6T/220, which was a water
cooled, fuel injected, turbo-charged, six cylinder engine. The
airplane's special airworthiness certificate was issued on July 10, 2007.
The pilot held a private pilot certificate, with a rating for airplane
single engine land. His most recent FAA third class medical certificate
was issued on March 14, 2006. According to his pilot logbook, he had
accrued 221.4 total hours of flight experience.
A weather observation taken about 23 minutes after the accident at Port
Meadville Airport (GKJ), Meadville, Pennsylvania, located about 14
nautical miles northeast of the accident site, recorded the winds as 090
degrees at 4 knots, visibility 10 miles, sky clear, temperature 1 degree
Celsius, dew point -2 degrees Celsius, and an altimeter setting of 30.36
inches of mercury.
The wreckage was retained by the Safety Board for further examination.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: paint prices |
Can you give us an idea what he charged?
Thanks
Bob
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ritter
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 7:19 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: paint prices
Dave,
Attached are a couple of pictures of my RV-10 (N410MR) that Alan painted
at Texas Aerocolor. The first photo was taken in Baja at Punta Chivato.
A big plus for me was that Alan did all the fiberglass finishing.
Mark
<html><div></div>
_____
> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:15:46 -0600
> From: prises37340@mypacks.net
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: paint prices
>
>
> Hi Mark, do you have a link to some pictures so I can see how your's
came out?
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: tintopranch <mark_sutherland@yahoo.com>
> >Sent: Nov 26, 2007 8:26 AM
> >To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: RV10-List: Re: paint prices
> >
<mark_sutherland@yahoo.com>
> >
> >I got my RV10 painted at Texas Aerocolor (www.texasaerocolor.com) in
Brady, TX. They did a great job, he has painted 3 RV10s. I paided $8,500
plus $600 for some fiberglass work around the windows.
> >
> >--------
> >MARK SUTHERLAND
> >RV-10 40292
> >Flying since June 07
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Read this topic online here:
> >
> >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=148603#148603
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
=
>
>
>
_____
Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live. Share now!
<http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_sharelife_1
1
2007>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Balancing Control Surfaces |
Seems 'Vans' is talking out of both sides of their mouth, Ref: the
Rvator article on 'flutter'
What's the TRUE story?
Has anybody that has their airplane painted witnessed the painter
balance the elevator/rudder?
Is there anyway to balance Aileron?
Deems
Chris and Susie McGough wrote:
> *
> *Match: * */#23/*
> *Message: * */#12987/*
>
> *From: * */"Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)cox.net>/*
>
> *Subject: * /*Elevator Balance
> <http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=25127016?KEYS=balance?LISTNAME=RV10?HITNUMBER=23?SERIAL=05535527250?SHOWBUTTONS=NO>*/
>
> *Date: * */Sep 30, 2007/*
>
> I sent a note to Van's awhile back on elevator balance. When
> building my RV-8A the instructions told you to trim the
> counterbalance weights until the elevators were balance, as in
> statically balances so that the elevators stay horizontal with no
> force acting on them. The weights in the RV-8A are much larger
> than the RV-10. Building the RV-10 it is obvious that to achieve
> this same balance requires much larger counterbalance weights than
> that supplied with the kit. Van's reply to my question about this
> was "the elevators will hang trailing edge down" and that there is
> not need to add the weight to make them statically balanced as in
> the RV-8A. Recommend just building as per plan. Carl Froehlich
> RV-8A (350 hrs) RV-10 (wings) Dogwood Airpark (VA42) _____ From:
> owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rene
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 11:55 PM Subject: RV10-List:
> Elevator Balance I am confused about the balance of the elevator.
> The plans say a max of 37.5 in/lbs down. Without having the
> elevator connected to the controls and trim tabs not connected I
> measured the balance. It is about 15 in/lbs down. So my questions
> are: What is the minimum? When should it be measured? I am
> assuming after all rigging is complete. Any suggestions would be
> appreciated. Rene' 40322 N423CF Final assembley 801-721-6080
>
> *End Msg: * */#23 /*
>
> <http://www.matronics.com/searching/find_msg.cgi?TYPE=pmatch?SERIAL=05535527250?INDEX=25127016?KEYS=balance?LISTNAME=RV10?HITNUMBER=23>
> <http://www.matronics.com/searching/find_msg.cgi?TYPE=pmsg?SERIAL=05535527250?INDEX=25127016?KEYS=balance?LISTNAME=RV10?HITNUMBER=23>
> <http://www.matronics.com/searching/find_msg.cgi?TYPE=nmsg?SERIAL=05535527250?INDEX=25127016?KEYS=balance?LISTNAME=RV10?HITNUMBER=23>
> <http://www.matronics.com/searching/find_msg.cgi?TYPE=nmatch?SERIAL=05535527250?INDEX=25127016?KEYS=balance?LISTNAME=RV10?HITNUMBER=23>
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> * *
> *-- Please support this service by making your
> Contribution
> <http://www.matronics.com/searching/contribution.html>
> today! -- *
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> * *
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Return to the /Matronics Email List Homepages/
> <http://www.matronics.com/other.html>
> *
>
> *
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* McGANN, Ron <mailto:ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:12 PM
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Balancing Control Surfaces
>
>
> G'day all,
>
> I remember reading some posts recently about the need to balance
> control surfaces and rebalance after paint. Can somebody point me
> to some reading material on control surface balancing and how it
> is achieved on the -10? Does it involve adding/removing mass
> to/from the counterbalance weights on the elevators and rudder??
> Is this problematic if the fairings have been installed??
>
> thanks in advance
> Ron
> 187 finishing
>
> "Warning:
> The information contained in this email and any attached files is
> confidential to BAE Systems Australia. If you are not the intended
> recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this email or any
> attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email
> in error, please notify us immediately. VIRUS: Every care has been
> taken to ensure this email and its attachments are virus free,
> however, any loss or damage incurred in using this email is not the
> sender's responsibility. It is your responsibility to ensure virus
> checks are completed before installing any data sent in this email to
> your computer."
>
>
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> *
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: paint prices |
Can't find the invoice but pretty sure it was in the $8,500 - $9,000 range.
<html><div></div>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: paint pricesDate: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 06:47:14 -08
00From: bob.condrey@baesystems.comTo: rv10-list@matronics.com
Can you give us an idea what he charged?
Thanks
Bob
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark RitterSent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 7:19
PMTo: rv10-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: RV10-List: Re: paint prices
Dave,Attached are a couple of pictures of my RV-10 (N410MR) that Alan paint
ed at Texas Aerocolor. The first photo was taken in Baja at Punta Chivato.
A big plus for me was that Alan did all the fiberglass finishing. Mark <h
tml><div></div>
> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:15:46 -0600> From: prises37340@mypacks.net> To:
rv10-list@matronics.com> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: paint prices> > --> R
V10-List message posted by: prises37340@mypacks.net> > Hi Mark, do you have
a link to some pictures so I can see how your's came out?> Dave> > -----Or
iginal Message-----> >From: tintopranch <mark_sutherland@yahoo.com>> >Sent:
Nov 26, 2007 8:26 AM> >To: rv10-list@matronics.com> >Subject: RV10-List: R
utherland@yahoo.com>> >> >I got my RV10 painted at Texas Aerocolor (www.tex
asaerocolor.com) in Brady, TX. They did a great job, he has painted 3 RV10s
. I paided $8,500 plus $600 for some fiberglass work around the windows.> >
> >--------> >MARK SUTHERLAND> >RV-10 40292> >Flying since June 07> >> >> >
> >> >Read this topic online here:> >> >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtop
ic.php?p=148603#148603> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >==> > >
Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live. Share now!
_________________________________________________________________
You keep typing, we keep giving. Download Messenger and join the i=92m Init
iative now.
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: | Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? |
Did somebody say they were interested in hearing who was planning on
using an alternate engine? Or does someone want to chart hours of
operation with an alternate engine? Tim's call for hours of operation
in RV-10's came through loud and clear but other requests might have
been lost. I'm planning on using an Eggenfellner intercooled turbo.
Paul Hahn
#40203 - inventoried our finishing kit yesterday
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: | Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? |
Paul:
I am building a -10, and planning the same engine package. Are you in on
the Dec shipping? Please give me a call @ 630-308-7476 if you would like to
compare notes
Steve Mills N750SM (reserved)
RV-10 40486 Slow-build Eggenfellner E-6T
Naperville, Illinois
Finishing kit
Do Not Archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of eagerlee
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11:34 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?
Did somebody say they were interested in hearing who was planning on using
an alternate engine? Or does someone want to chart hours of operation with
an alternate engine? Tim's call for hours of operation in RV-10's came
through loud and clear but other requests might have been lost. I'm
planning on using an Eggenfellner intercooled turbo.
Paul Hahn
#40203 - inventoried our finishing kit yesterday
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: paint prices |
Mark,
Your plane looks beautiful.
I probably state the obvious here but one cannot tell the actually
quality of a paint job by a photograph. A close up inspection for drips,
runs, orange peel, thin & heavy spots etc... is required. Furthermore a
quality paint job may not be apparent for years when one plane starts to
yellow or peal while another looks showroom.
A friend of mine had his 7A painted by a well respected hot rod painter.
Looked amazing. After he sold the plane the new owner damaged the
aircraft and needed to repaint a wing. The new painter told the new
owner that the original paint came off with the tape used to mask the
area. Not good! There was obviously an adhesion issue with the original
paint job. It seems to me that sticking with a quality aircraft painter
and known paints & processes may be the best solution for a long term
quality paint job. I would sure hat to spend $9K and have to spend
another $9K 4 years later. Or worse yet, fly around with a crappy
looking -10.
Robin
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ritter
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:19 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: paint prices
Dave,
Attached are a couple of pictures of my RV-10 (N410MR) that Alan painted
at Texas Aerocolor. The first photo was taken in Baja at Punta Chivato.
A big plus for me was that Alan did all the fiberglass finishing.
Mark
<html><div></div>
________________________________
> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:15:46 -0600
> From: prises37340@mypacks.net
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: paint prices
>
>
> Hi Mark, do you have a link to some pictures so I can see how your's
came out?
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: tintopranch <mark_sutherland@yahoo.com>
> >Sent: Nov 26, 2007 8:26 AM
> >To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: RV10-List: Re: paint prices
> >
<mark_sutherland@yahoo.com>
> >
> >I got my RV10 painted at Texas Aerocolor (www.texasaerocolor.com) in
Brady, TX. They did a great job, he has painted 3 RV10s. I paided $8,500
plus $600 for some fiberglass work around the windows.
> >
> >--------
> >MARK SUTHERLAND
> >RV-10 40292
> >Flying since June 07
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Read this topic online here:
> >
> >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=148603#148603
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
=
>
>
>
________________________________
Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live. Share now!
<http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_sharelife_1
1
2007>
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: | How to avoid vapor lock: building tips |
The president of the Oregon Pilots Association now former president and former
editor of Kitplanes magazine (Dave Martin)reported that the Oregon legislature
just passed a mandate for 10% ethanol MOGAS which invalidates the Peterson STC.
The EAA sent a formal letter of immediate concern for pilots from other states
who refuel in Orygun.
A post on another matronics site mentioned many such states moving towards E85.
Before anyone plans on MOGAS, there needs to be someone listing the difficulties
of such a decision. The Peterson/EAA STC was for older engines of lower compression
and are not of the same variant as the D4A5.
I thing Rhonda and Monty might chime in on what costs would be incurred to do a
dyno of an RV-10, Lycoming D4A5 running 50% 100LL Avgas and 50% E85 Mogas like
the Rotax do. Anyone game to volunteer their engine? This is no light topic
so bring it on.
John Cox
40600
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Reining
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:42 AM
Subject: RV10-List: How to avoid vapor lock: building tips
My son and RV-10 building partner, Jon, was researching a possible autogas STC for his Citabria 7KCAB at the Petersen website (http://www.autofuelstc.com). Petersen does lots of autogas STCs for various aircraft and engines. Anyway, buried in the site was this guidance, which I thought might be of interest to the RV-10 community:
"Homebuilders can improve the fuel system of an airplane under construction in
a number of ways to reduce the likelihood of vapor lock. NASA vents incorporated
into the vent system help provide positive pressure. Fuel pumps should be installed
in the fuel tanks, or as close to the fuel tank as possible, and should
be of the maximum pressure and flow rating allowable for the carb. Any 90 fittings
should be replaced with 45 fittings, or tubing with very smooth gradual
bends. Fittings should be made as tight as possible to prevent air from entering
the line. Lines should be secured to prevent vibration & harmonics. Fuel
lines in the engine compartment should be insulated to prevent heat from soaking
through to the fuel. Fuel lines should not be located in close proximity to
hot spots in the engine compartment.
Composite materials used for the construction of some homebuilts may react negatively
when they come in contact with fuel. The early Vari-eze homebuilts had
a tendance for the spar to come apart after fuel tank leaks dribbled fuel onto
the spar. Homebuilders should contact the kit manufacturer to see if material
used throughout the airplane is compatible with the type of fuel you will be
using and to receive other recommendations."
--------
Bill (and Jon) Reining
40514
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=148894#148894
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: | Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? |
I will gladly track all forms of alternative powerplants flying. The
incident/accident rate and performance should be of value to everyone.
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of eagerlee
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:34 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?
Did somebody say they were interested in hearing who was planning on
using an alternate engine? Or does someone want to chart hours of
operation with an alternate engine? Tim's call for hours of operation
in RV-10's came through loud and clear but other requests might have
been lost. I'm planning on using an Eggenfellner intercooled turbo.
Paul Hahn
#40203 - inventoried our finishing kit yesterday
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fwd: Jeppesen Offers Chelton Services |
Jepp has finally sent out their offer for Chelton subscription rates!!!!
grumpy
N184JM
-----Original Message-----
From: Captain@jeppesen.com
Sent: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:30 pm
Subject: Jeppesen Offers Chelton Services
Dear Customers and Dealers,
Jeppesen and Chelton Flight Systems are pleased to announce an agreement that will
allow you direct access to the Navigation and Obstruction databases from Jeppesen.
The new data services will be available on Cycle 0801, effective 17 January
2008. Please see the attachment below. Please complete the form and fax
or email your order to Jeppesen for processing.
Email: Captain@Jeppesen.com
Fax: 303-328-4153
We appreciate your business and if you have any questions, please let us know.
We would be happy to assist.
Jeppesen Sales & Service
________________________________________________________________________
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: | Door - Gas Strut Installation |
A fellow RV10'er has some problems installing the gas strut opener.
There were two issues:
1. Due to the pressure, it twisted the door after it was installed making the
careful door fit less perfect than it was prior to strut installation.
2. The Vans suggested dimensions (per the fabricated piece) seem to be too short
and the gas strut once installed and fully compressed in the closed position
was at it's full limits of closure (and maybe beyond those limits by a couple
of 100ths of an inch
I am not too worried about the door opening too high, but I am worried about hypercompressing
the strut and eventually needing to replace it
The Question: What do you think about extending the placement of the door brackets
1/8"to 1/4" lower on the door to counter the potential for the above problem
--------
OSH '08 or Bust
Q/B Kit - Doors/windows/fiberglass stuff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149157#149157
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | How to avoid vapor lock: building tips |
I believe that the systems attached to the engine (injection mostly) are compatible
with alcohol containing fuels.
What about out aluminum fuel tanks?
-----Original Message-----
>From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>Sent: Nov 28, 2007 1:52 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: How to avoid vapor lock: building tips
>
>
>The president of the Oregon Pilots Association now former president and former
editor of Kitplanes magazine (Dave Martin)reported that the Oregon legislature
just passed a mandate for 10% ethanol MOGAS which invalidates the Peterson STC.
The EAA sent a formal letter of immediate concern for pilots from other states
who refuel in Orygun.
>
>A post on another matronics site mentioned many such states moving towards E85.
Before anyone plans on MOGAS, there needs to be someone listing the difficulties
of such a decision. The Peterson/EAA STC was for older engines of lower
compression and are not of the same variant as the D4A5.
>
>I thing Rhonda and Monty might chime in on what costs would be incurred to do
a dyno of an RV-10, Lycoming D4A5 running 50% 100LL Avgas and 50% E85 Mogas like
the Rotax do. Anyone game to volunteer their engine? This is no light topic
so bring it on.
>
>John Cox
>40600
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Reining
>Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:42 AM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: How to avoid vapor lock: building tips
>
>
>My son and RV-10 building partner, Jon, was researching a possible autogas STC for his Citabria 7KCAB at the Petersen website (http://www.autofuelstc.com). Petersen does lots of autogas STCs for various aircraft and engines. Anyway, buried in the site was this guidance, which I thought might be of interest to the RV-10 community:
>
>"Homebuilders can improve the fuel system of an airplane under construction in
a number of ways to reduce the likelihood of vapor lock. NASA vents incorporated
into the vent system help provide positive pressure. Fuel pumps should be
installed in the fuel tanks, or as close to the fuel tank as possible, and should
be of the maximum pressure and flow rating allowable for the carb. Any 90
fittings should be replaced with 45 fittings, or tubing with very smooth gradual
bends. Fittings should be made as tight as possible to prevent air from entering
the line. Lines should be secured to prevent vibration & harmonics. Fuel
lines in the engine compartment should be insulated to prevent heat from soaking
through to the fuel. Fuel lines should not be located in close proximity to
hot spots in the engine compartment.
>
>Composite materials used for the construction of some homebuilts may react negatively
when they come in contact with fuel. The early Vari-eze homebuilts had
a tendance for the spar to come apart after fuel tank leaks dribbled fuel onto
the spar. Homebuilders should contact the kit manufacturer to see if material
used throughout the airplane is compatible with the type of fuel you will be
using and to receive other recommendations."
>
>--------
>Bill (and Jon) Reining
>40514
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=148894#148894
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 Total Flight Time - Submit yoursRV-10 Total Flight |
Time - Submit yours
ZU - RVD total 99hrs
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? |
Can someone update me on the ADVANTAGES of an Eggenfeller engine vs a Ly
coming O-540 for the RV10?
Dean
_____________________________________________________________
Turn up the heat with a beautiful new home sauna. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iifyEhY3GeIwBB0msdh0etp
03KVkYbajnXDIRxRRsRIqxEGhG/
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: | Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? |
In my 30 years involved in the homebuilding experience most folks choose and
alternate engine based on claims made by the engine seller. Many times
there is no scientific way to verify those claims, or the engine seller
convinces the buyer to be his test bed for a reduced cost of the engine. I
have yet to see an installation where the claims were met or exceeded.
Whether that be for cost, fuel economy, ease of overhaul, or an endless list
of other claims that would make an alternate engine superior to a
Lycosaurus.
I too would love to see an economical choice besides the old Lycosaurus, but
an auto engine, even if converted, is a very different beast than an
aircraft engine. There is IMHO not enough volume to pay for the extensive
research required to bring an alternative engine to market with scientific
testing required to verify its suitability for flight. Even Mooney with all
it's $$$ did not have a successful Porsche conversion. Yes it met some
goals but not all and to meet the rest of the goals would cost even more $$,
pushing it out of the market. So that leaves us the homebuilder to be the
test bed for the engine manufacturer. As long as the homebuilder fully
understands all that that entails, great. My beef is that in all the cases
over the years that I have witnessed an alternative engine install, the
builder learned what he didn't know about the process of testing a
conversion, way to far into the process for him to change his mind. He
would have had to take a huge financial hit. Some folks took the hit, some
went on and ended up spending way more than they would have on a Lyc
installation.
An old time EAA member told me that if you are thinking of buying anything
for your aircraft, including an engine, go to Oshkosh and see if there are
at least 10 of that item there and at least 8 of the folks are happy with
it, if so go buy it. If you buy before that time just to get the newest and
latest, you are the test subject. Fully understand that concept of you
doing the testing for the manufacturer. It will delay your first flight, it
will cost an unknown quantity of $ because the manufacturer does not yet
know what breaks and how soon. Just because it runs does not make it
durable. Know what you are getting yourself into when you agree to be a
pioneer. Thank goodness for pioneers. We need pioneers. I am sure the
first folks to cross this great land had no idea how much the trip would
cost. Just fully understand what you are signing up for. It is one of
those dark little secrets that so many of our fellow builders have been
burned trying to push the envelope.
I think it is great if you want to be the pioneer, just make the choice to
be one, a fully informed choice.
Gary
Tech Councilor, Flight Advisor, presently building my 4th aircraft. Yes, I
am an old fart.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ddddsp1@juno.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:41 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?
Can someone update me on the ADVANTAGES of an Eggenfeller engine vs a
Lycoming O-540 for the RV10?
Dean
_____________________________________________________________
Turn
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2112/fc/Ioyw6iifyEhY3GeIwBB0msdh0etp03K
VkYbajnXDIRxRRsRIqxEGhG/> up the heat with a beautiful new home sauna.
Click now!
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: | Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? |
I did some serious looking at the Egg engine back in the end of 2005 whe
n he first offered it for the -10. The short version of much research is i
t offered long term fuel compatibility and lower fuel expenses at the cost
of performance and integration issues along with increased complexity. Als
o there is potential savings for upfront costs however the Lycoming will ho
ld its value considerably more. You can also expect Jan to be at least a y
ear late with his delivery from whatever he initially promises.
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of ddddsp1@juno.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:41 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?
Can someone update me on the ADVANTAGES of an Eggenfeller engine vs a Lycom
ing O-540 for the RV10?
Dean
_____________________________________________________________
Turn up the heat with a beautiful new home sauna. Click now!<http://thirdpa
rtyoffers.juno.com/TGL2112/fc/Ioyw6iifyEhY3GeIwBB0msdh0etp03KVkYbajnXDIRxRR
sRIqxEGhG/>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? |
Amen.
All alternative engine installations require the same amount of engineering
analysis and design as certified ones. The builder needs to have the
engineering expertise (in which case he pays with his time) or purchase the
expertise ( cash) or wing it (risk). If a builder cannot afford a Lycosauus
then he can't afford to do an alternate engine properly. I recall when I was
purchasing the tail kit that Mistral was offering me a $5000 discount on the
engine to bring an flying 10 to OSH the next year. We just laughed, knowing
the real costs. During my building partner's visit to Switzerland he visited
the factory; the engineers there indicated that they could not fly for more
than 30 minutes due to heat problems; yet the peddlers at OSH were trying to
sell me an engine for me to 'engineer" into the 10. Incidentally they are
still trying to certify this engine in a long term project with Embry
Riddle. With alternative engines as it is with all of aviation, "If you can
not afford to do it right , you can not afford to do it".
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gary
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:24 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?
In my 30 years involved in the homebuilding experience most folks choose and
alternate engine based on claims made by the engine seller. Many times
there is no scientific way to verify those claims, or the engine seller
convinces the buyer to be his test bed for a reduced cost of the engine. I
have yet to see an installation where the claims were met or exceeded.
Whether that be for cost, fuel economy, ease of overhaul, or an endless list
of other claims that would make an alternate engine superior to a
Lycosaurus.
I too would love to see an economical choice besides the old Lycosaurus, but
an auto engine, even if converted, is a very different beast than an
aircraft engine. There is IMHO not enough volume to pay for the extensive
research required to bring an alternative engine to market with scientific
testing required to verify its suitability for flight. Even Mooney with all
it's $$$ did not have a successful Porsche conversion. Yes it met some
goals but not all and to meet the rest of the goals would cost even more $$,
pushing it out of the market. So that leaves us the homebuilder to be the
test bed for the engine manufacturer. As long as the homebuilder fully
understands all that that entails, great. My beef is that in all the cases
over the years that I have witnessed an alternative engine install, the
builder learned what he didn't know about the process of testing a
conversion, way to far into the process for him to change his mind. He
would have had to take a huge financial hit. Some folks took the hit, some
went on and ended up spending way more than they would have on a Lyc
installation.
An old time EAA member told me that if you are thinking of buying anything
for your aircraft, including an engine, go to Oshkosh and see if there are
at least 10 of that item there and at least 8 of the folks are happy with
it, if so go buy it. If you buy before that time just to get the newest and
latest, you are the test subject. Fully understand that concept of you
doing the testing for the manufacturer. It will delay your first flight, it
will cost an unknown quantity of $ because the manufacturer does not yet
know what breaks and how soon. Just because it runs does not make it
durable. Know what you are getting yourself into when you agree to be a
pioneer. Thank goodness for pioneers. We need pioneers. I am sure the
first folks to cross this great land had no idea how much the trip would
cost. Just fully understand what you are signing up for. It is one of
those dark little secrets that so many of our fellow builders have been
burned trying to push the envelope.
I think it is great if you want to be the pioneer, just make the choice to
be one, a fully informed choice.
Gary
Tech Councilor, Flight Advisor, presently building my 4th aircraft. Yes, I
am an old fart.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ddddsp1@juno.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:41 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?
Can someone update me on the ADVANTAGES of an Eggenfeller engine vs a
Lycoming O-540 for the RV10?
Dean
_____________________________________________________________
Turn
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2112/fc/Ioyw6iifyEhY3GeIwBB0msdh0etp03K
VkYbajnXDIRxRRsRIqxEGhG/> up the heat with a beautiful new home sauna. Click
now!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
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: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? |
ddddsp1@juno.com wrote:
>
> Can someone update me on the ADVANTAGES of an Eggenfeller engine vs a
> Lycoming O-540 for the RV10?
>
> Dean
>
Hi Dean,
A lot of what may be considered advantages are subjective to the
opinion of the builder, and some can be duplicated on the Lyc.
In my opinion only, here are some items that I perceive to be advantages
(others may believe some of these are disadvantages or may not agree
with me at all) for installing an Eggenfeller Subaru in my Sportsman:
- Electronic ignition, computer controlled timing and "knock" sensing
- Fuel injection
- Water cooled (no shock cooling)
- Significantly reduced vibration (smoother feeling engine)
- Single lever engine control (versus separate mixture and throttle)
* Note there is still a separate control for prop pitch for both engines
* No primer required for the Subaru
* No carb heat required for the Subaru
- Reduced chance of fuel vapor lock due to the full flow return fuel system
- Little to no oil consumption (also, no "dirty belly" after flight)
- Quieter
- Ability to burn autofuel (and potentially autofuel containing ethanol
if the airframe fuel system is designed and implemented properly)
- Reduced chance of CO in cockpit (heater works from the water cooling,
not associated with the exhaust system, which also makes it safer and
more effective in my opinion)
- In theory, significantly cheaper overhaul (as far as I know none have
had to be overhauled yet that I have read about anyways, and I am unsure
of the cost or frequency of overhauling the prop gear reduction unit)
- From talking to my insurance company, no difference in the cost of the
policy whether I install a Lyc or Eggenfellner Subaru (however, there is
an increased cost if I "roll my own" engine package)
- From the few Glastars with Egg Subaru engines I have seen sold over
the past few years, there does not seem to be any difference in resale
cost as compared to those with a Lyc installed (However, I do not know
if there would be less people interested in buying it, which might imply
that it may take longer to sell. I haven't seen very many for sale, so
few data points to go by. This also doesn't say anything about the RV10
market).
* Disclaimer - I have been monitoring the Eggenfellner mailing list for
about 5 years, and about a month ago placed my order for an H-6 package
for my Sportsman. In the past there have been some cooling issues and
delayed deliveries, but recently these concerns have been addressed to
my comfort level. The cooling seems to be fixed with the proper cowl
and vent design, and the deliveries seem to be closer to being on-time.
I'll let you know in about 6 months when mine is scheduled to arrive... :-)
There are disadvantages as well, but there has been so much chatter
about it on this list already that I will just refer you to the
archives... :-)
Bottom line, for me it is just a personal preference. There are
valid opinions on both sides of this topic.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
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: | Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? |
I have to agree that it is both expensive and time consuming to do an
alternative engine. There is a lot in the engineering and so far I have a
huge group of mistakes, but it is fun. If I was going to sell my airplane
some day I'd put a Lyco in it but since I'm building it for me I'll eat the
time and energy to do an alternative. I am going with a 20B and have the
mount, headers, muffler system, and intake designed. I am missing only the
shoebox part of the intake manifold but will fiberglass that up this
weekend. I have build new pulleys for the alternator, water pump and
engine, and a new alternator bracket, moving it to the right side of the
aircraft. I am also wiring and the bundles are getting more organized with
the wiring.
Bob k
Looking to be about 91 % done. :>))
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:40 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?
Amen.
All alternative engine installations require the same amount of engineering
analysis and design as certified ones. The builder needs to have the
engineering expertise (in which case he pays with his time) or purchase the
expertise ( cash) or wing it (risk). If a builder cannot afford a Lycosauus
then he can't afford to do an alternate engine properly. I recall when I was
purchasing the tail kit that Mistral was offering me a $5000 discount on the
engine to bring an flying 10 to OSH the next year. We just laughed, knowing
the real costs. During my building partner's visit to Switzerland he visited
the factory; the engineers there indicated that they could not fly for more
than 30 minutes due to heat problems; yet the peddlers at OSH were trying to
sell me an engine for me to 'engineer" into the 10. Incidentally they are
still trying to certify this engine in a long term project with Embry
Riddle. With alternative engines as it is with all of aviation, "If you can
not afford to do it right , you can not afford to do it".
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gary
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:24 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?
In my 30 years involved in the homebuilding experience most folks choose and
alternate engine based on claims made by the engine seller. Many times
there is no scientific way to verify those claims, or the engine seller
convinces the buyer to be his test bed for a reduced cost of the engine. I
have yet to see an installation where the claims were met or exceeded.
Whether that be for cost, fuel economy, ease of overhaul, or an endless list
of other claims that would make an alternate engine superior to a
Lycosaurus.
I too would love to see an economical choice besides the old Lycosaurus, but
an auto engine, even if converted, is a very different beast than an
aircraft engine. There is IMHO not enough volume to pay for the extensive
research required to bring an alternative engine to market with scientific
testing required to verify its suitability for flight. Even Mooney with all
it's $$$ did not have a successful Porsche conversion. Yes it met some
goals but not all and to meet the rest of the goals would cost even more $$,
pushing it out of the market. So that leaves us the homebuilder to be the
test bed for the engine manufacturer. As long as the homebuilder fully
understands all that that entails, great. My beef is that in all the cases
over the years that I have witnessed an alternative engine install, the
builder learned what he didn't know about the process of testing a
conversion, way to far into the process for him to change his mind. He
would have had to take a huge financial hit. Some folks took the hit, some
went on and ended up spending way more than they would have on a Lyc
installation.
An old time EAA member told me that if you are thinking of buying anything
for your aircraft, including an engine, go to Oshkosh and see if there are
at least 10 of that item there and at least 8 of the folks are happy with
it, if so go buy it. If you buy before that time just to get the newest and
latest, you are the test subject. Fully understand that concept of you
doing the testing for the manufacturer. It will delay your first flight, it
will cost an unknown quantity of $ because the manufacturer does not yet
know what breaks and how soon. Just because it runs does not make it
durable. Know what you are getting yourself into when you agree to be a
pioneer. Thank goodness for pioneers. We need pioneers. I am sure the
first folks to cross this great land had no idea how much the trip would
cost. Just fully understand what you are signing up for. It is one of
those dark little secrets that so many of our fellow builders have been
burned trying to push the envelope.
I think it is great if you want to be the pioneer, just make the choice to
be one, a fully informed choice.
Gary
Tech Councilor, Flight Advisor, presently building my 4th aircraft. Yes, I
am an old fart.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ddddsp1@juno.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:41 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?
Can someone update me on the ADVANTAGES of an Eggenfeller engine vs a
Lycoming O-540 for the RV10?
Dean
_____________________________________________________________
Turn
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2112/fc/Ioyw6iifyEhY3GeIwBB0msdh0etp03K
VkYbajnXDIRxRRsRIqxEGhG/> up the heat with a beautiful new home sauna.
Click now!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navi
gator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? |
Hi Dean
In my opinion, there is no compelling set of *facts* that will convince all
engine buyers to go one way or another. To me the issue is one of risk
management and a) what risks am I willing to take on and b) how can I
mitigate these risks. Aviation is a risky pastime, so we need to do what we
can to mitigate the risks.
I have about 1,100 hours on a PA28/180C that has an O-360 engine that was
overhauled in 1979. Since I have owned the a/c, I have replaced all the jugs
(one twice). The last jug I replaced had 400 hours on it when it developed
an exhaust port crack. I have had scored cylinders and broken rings. I fly
the engine not too hard and usually with a fairly consistent hand on the
throttle. In the past, I have spent a lot of time over very inhospitable
country (bush) in northern Alberta. My visceral fear is that I will have a
catastrophic failure.
Over the years I have known two pilots who have had major failures on an
O-360. Today I was speaking with a friend (who has many more hours than I)
about this. He mentioned that he has had 3 engine failures over the years.
The reason I mention these is just to put my views in context. I do not
consider Lyc or Cont engines to be God's gift to aviation - they just happen
to be the big players. My view is that the apparent reliability of these
engines is because of the repetitive inspections that cause failing parts to
be replaced before a failure occurs. For example, the A&P at the local
flying club says they have a history or replacing jugs on IO540s.
So in my view, traditional aircraft engines are risky with the risk being
mitigated (notice I did not say eliminated) through a repetitive inspection
process. Private owners do annuals and don't fly that much. Commercial ops
have more frequent inspections because they fly more. The result is likely
the same or similar.
So why did I decide on an *alternative* engine? I admit some of the decision
is based on faith and a willingness to accept a different type of risk. The
key reasons for me are:
* a desire to have what I believe is a better engineered engine. A
Subaru engine that represents year 2000 engineering principles is a better
engine that a state of the art 1940s engine. Better tolerances etc. This
link to Ross Farnham's website is fairly eloquent on this matter.
http://www.sdsefi.com/air7.html . My opinion is that the engine will not be
a risky as a Lyc or Cont engine.
* Since Oshkosh 1999 when I saw the Continental diesel mock-up that
was to be a replacement for engines similar to my O-360, I have wanted to
have an a/c engine that represent the latest technology in terms of
electronics, ignition, etc. Again, the Subaru fits this requirement. Even
mainstream a/c are now going this route. The Diamond Twinstar has electronic
igntition.
* There are products in the market that help mitigate the unique risks
of a modern engine. Specifically, I plan to use the Vertical Power VP200
system to manage my electrical system. The electrical design for VP200 has
been vetted by Jan. Now I have a way to mitigate the electrical risks, a way
designed by people far smarter than I
* The Subaru will provide very similar performance to the IO540.
Perhaps the non turbo version was not as fast as the IO540, but then again
that may be because it was flying on a fairly dirty airframe. With a turbo,
it will certainly perform better at altitude.
* I live in a cold environment (it is -25c today). I like the idea of
a water cooled engine and easier starts, no pre-heating and water based
heating system.
* I like the idea of a well balanced engine that is not vibrating the
hell out of avionics and passengers.
* I especially like the idea of no more shock cooling, no more burning
oil like a tramp steamer and a quieter engine.
In my opinion, the engine portion of the firewall forward package is much
safer than a traditional a/c engine.
Where are the big risks? In my opinion the biggest risk is the PSRU that
gears down the crank RPM to a something appropriate for the prop. I know
many people have mentioned that they have had problems with earlier
versions. I couple of people have kindly shared their experiences on a
private basis - which I truly appreciate. So based on what I have learned to
date, this seems to be the big risk I need to manage. Worst case, I need to
monitor the health of the PSRU and if problems occur, swap it out. For the
difference in cost of the engine, I could afford to have a spare PSRU or 3
sitting on shelf in case it was needed.
The next biggest risk is electrical failure. As I mentioned above, I plan to
use a solid state system to control / monitor my a/c electrical system and I
plan to have a redundant battery system.
Either way, things can hit the fan and then it will be time to do a dead
stick landing. The only way to mange this risk is to know your a/c and stay
current. Having a high speed Rosary might help as well.
Anyway, I am not trying to convince anyone that my choice is the right one
for anyone but me. As John Cox and the oracle it the Indiana Jones ride at
Disney says: "Choose Wisely". Unfortunately, no one knows what the wise
choice is until after the fact.
I reserve the right to be 100% wrong in my choice and intolerably smug if I
am right.
Cheers
Les Kearney
#40643 - Still singing the section 29 blues
C-GCWZ Reserved
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ddddsp1@juno.com
Sent: November-28-07 1:41 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?
Can someone update me on the ADVANTAGES of an Eggenfeller engine vs a
Lycoming O-540 for the RV10?
Dean
_____________________________________________________________
Turn
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2112/fc/Ioyw6iifyEhY3GeIwBB0msdh0etp03K
VkYbajnXDIRxRRsRIqxEGhG/> up the heat with a beautiful new home sauna.
Click now!
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | vans service bulletin AN426AD4-5 |
http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/service_letter_soft_rivets.pdf
Possible rivet mix up from Sep 1 to Nov 30 (tomorrow?) 2007.
-Ben Westfall
#40579 (inspecting rivets - :-))
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: Door - Gas Strut Installation |
Since I did not hear from anyone (and I am type A personality) I gave it a shot
and installed the gas strut. I dropped the door brackets down exactly 1/4" from
the plans and whalla it worked perfectly.
The bracket protrudes a bit over the door but the operation is flawless. :D :D
:D :D :D :D :D
--------
OSH '08 or Bust
Q/B Kit - Doors/windows/fiberglass stuff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149243#149243
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: | Is there a call for planned alternate engine use? |
There are a few things I would like to add to this and I might say that I h
ave been thinking about this issue a lot.
I have heard all the stories about the certified engines and the need for i
nspections and and the need for replacing parts. I don't spend much time at
community airports because I am really a glider pilot who flies off a priv
ate field. The few times I am at those larger airports( to get my transpond
er certified) I have seen aircraft owners at the repair shops coming by to
check on there aircraft as it is getting checked or repaired. Some of these
owners have some bucks and they look like they are sweating it. I spoke to
one Malibu owner and he looked and spoke about the idea that he was going
to have to start thinking about the ownership thing really long and hard. I
thought to myself about this and had come to a conclusion that I really wi
ll not be enjoying this if that guy becomes me. Here in Southern California
I think the hourly rate is about $110-$120 and hour. I notice, the repair
guys sure talk a lot to each other. No way to set up a flexible spending ac
count for the airplane, I'm self employed.
This is not to say one engine is going to be more trouble free than the oth
er, each system as a hole has its week links, recognizing them and evaluati
ng them is the difficult part.
One more thing to perhaps consider. My power flying will be taking me routi
nely over high terrain, 5-6K with many areas more like 8-9K and occationall
y higher still. Being the cross country glider pilot that I am, I will be f
lying my RV10 the same way I fly my sailplane, monitoring my glide ability
to my next landable spot(I already have so many of them in my database.)Wit
h that said, the higher the safer. What a shock it will be going from a gli
de of 7 NM per thousand feet to say(7NM devided by 5) and don't forget sett
ing up for landing, EEEHHG!
One more thing to consider. THERMAL activity and what we call the boundary
layer. If you don't want to fly high or can't during the summer months, at
least here on the west coast, you will be restricted to flying early mornin
gs or late afternoon or evenings, otherwise expect a rough ride on those re
ally good soaring days and trust me, they happen more often than you think.
I think the passengers would like the higher ride even it they have to wea
r a nasal canula.
Thinking very hard and looking for the quite in all the noise. Basically, n
o answer yet decided.
JOhn G. 409
-List: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?To: rv10-list@matro
nics.com
Hi Dean
In my opinion, there is no compelling set of *facts* that will convince all
engine buyers to go one way or another. To me the issue is one of risk man
agement and a) what risks am I willing to take on and b) how can I mitigate
these risks. Aviation is a risky pastime, so we need to do what we can to
mitigate the risks.
I have about 1,100 hours on a PA28/180C that has an O-360 engine that was o
verhauled in 1979. Since I have owned the a/c, I have replaced all the jugs
(one twice). The last jug I replaced had 400 hours on it when it develope
d an exhaust port crack. I have had scored cylinders and broken rings. I fl
y the engine not too hard and usually with a fairly consistent hand on the
throttle. In the past, I have spent a lot of time over very inhospitable co
untry (bush) in northern Alberta. My visceral fear is that I will have a ca
tastrophic failure.
Over the years I have known two pilots who have had major failures on an O-
360. Today I was speaking with a friend (who has many more hours than I) ab
out this. He mentioned that he has had 3 engine failures over the years. Th
e reason I mention these is just to put my views in context. I do not consi
der Lyc or Cont engines to be God=92s gift to aviation ' they just happen
to be the big players. My view is that the apparent reliability of these e
ngines is because of the repetitive inspections that cause failing parts to
be replaced before a failure occurs. For example, the A&P at the local fly
ing club says they have a history or replacing jugs on IO540s.
So in my view, traditional aircraft engines are risky with the risk being m
itigated (notice I did not say eliminated) through a repetitive inspection
process. Private owners do annuals and don=92t fly that much. Commercial op
s have more frequent inspections because they fly more. The result is likel
y the same or similar.
So why did I decide on an *alternative* engine? I admit some of the decisio
n is based on faith and a willingness to accept a different type of risk. T
he key reasons for me are:
a desire to have what I believe is a better engineered engine. A Subaru eng
ine that represents year 2000 engineering principles is a better engine tha
t a state of the art 1940s engine. Better tolerances etc. This link to Ross
Farnham=92s website is fairly eloquent on this matter. http://www.sdsefi.c
om/air7.html . My opinion is that the engine will not be a risky as a Lyc o
r Cont engine.
Since Oshkosh 1999 when I saw the Continental diesel mock-up that was to be
a replacement for engines similar to my O-360, I have wanted to have an a/
c engine that represent the latest technology in terms of electronics, igni
tion, etc. Again, the Subaru fits this requirement. Even mainstream a/c are
now going this route. The Diamond Twinstar has electronic igntition.
There are products in the market that help mitigate the unique risks of a m
odern engine. Specifically, I plan to use the Vertical Power VP200 system t
o manage my electrical system. The electrical design for VP200 has been vet
ted by Jan. Now I have a way to mitigate the electrical risks, a way design
ed by people far smarter than I
The Subaru will provide very similar performance to the IO540. Perhaps the
non turbo version was not as fast as the IO540, but then again that may be
because it was flying on a fairly dirty airframe. With a turbo, it will cer
tainly perform better at altitude.
I live in a cold environment (it is -25c today). I like the idea of a water
cooled engine and easier starts, no pre-heating and water based heating sy
stem.
I like the idea of a well balanced engine that is not vibrating the hell ou
t of avionics and passengers.
I especially like the idea of no more shock cooling, no more burning oil li
ke a tramp steamer and a quieter engine.
In my opinion, the engine portion of the firewall forward package is much s
afer than a traditional a/c engine.
Where are the big risks? In my opinion the biggest risk is the PSRU that ge
ars down the crank RPM to a something appropriate for the prop. I know many
people have mentioned that they have had problems with earlier versions. I
couple of people have kindly shared their experiences on a private basis
' which I truly appreciate. So based on what I have learned to date, this
seems to be the big risk I need to manage. Worst case, I need to monitor t
he health of the PSRU and if problems occur, swap it out. For the differenc
e in cost of the engine, I could afford to have a spare PSRU or 3 sitting o
n shelf in case it was needed.
The next biggest risk is electrical failure. As I mentioned above, I plan t
o use a solid state system to control / monitor my a/c electrical system an
d I plan to have a redundant battery system.
Either way, things can hit the fan and then it will be time to do a dead st
ick landing. The only way to mange this risk is to know your a/c and stay c
urrent. Having a high speed Rosary might help as well.
Anyway, I am not trying to convince anyone that my choice is the right one
for anyone but me. As John Cox and the oracle it the Indiana Jones ride at
Disney says: =93Choose Wisely=94. Unfortunately, no one knows what the wise
choice is until after the fact.
I reserve the right to be 100% wrong in my choice and intolerably smug if I
am right.
Cheers
Les Kearney
#40643 ' Still singing the section 29 blues
C-GCWZ Reserved
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of ddddsp1@juno.comSent: November-28-07 1:41 PMTo:
rv10-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: RV10-List: Is there a call for planned
alternate engine use?
Can someone update me on the ADVANTAGES of an Eggenfeller engine vs a Lycom
ing O-540 for the RV10?
Dean
_____________________________________________________________Turn up the he
at with a beautiful new home sauna. Click now! http://www.matronics.com/co
ntributionhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matroni
cs.com
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: | Alternate engines vs Alternate power systems? |
While many people focus on the engine (Auto vs Lyc/Cont) in these
discussions and will make a decision based primarily on that point. I
believe that the 'alternative' power issue is MUCH larger. Not only is
the engine often 'new' and lacking millions of air-hours experience
(which is no guarantee, but does provide a factual database for
statistical analysis and expectation setting), but frequently and of
necessity in most of the alternate power systems also there is a PSRU
which is new or new to that engine (what was wrong with version 2? or 3?
or X? how many versions will there be after the one you buy/test?),
perhaps add in a new propeller? Maybe the propeller controller
(electronic/?). Engine mount? Exhaust? Cooling? Electrical? Ignition?
Fuel distribution? Turbo/Supercharger? Intercooler? Cowling? Cowl Flaps?
Induction air? . . . . I'm sure there are others.
From a risk management perspective, when you consider each item
individually, for someone WELL VERSED in these technologies the
individual risks may indeed be or appear to be manageable. I'm glad
there are people in the world that have the skills and are able to do
the experienced based engineering/analysis/discovery & experimenting.
However when you consider ALL of those things possibly being combined
together for the 1st time in an airplane that you are the test pilot of.
If / When the power system begins to operate in an unexpected manner,
which of us is able to determine _in real time_ the offending
component/s? I'm sure that the mathematicians out there could provide
real numbers, but when the number of variables increases the risk
increases exponentially.
Now there are some are well equipped with the technical engineering and
test pilot skills to tackle this and find it within their comfort zone,
If that's truly the case, good for you, At my advanced age I haven't the
time or inclination to gain/acquire the equivalent knowledge. While we
build/license and (someday :-\ ) fly our 'RV's as 'experimental'
aircraft. IMHO I believe that most of us are not true 'experimenters'
but rather 'kit assemblers' I don't mean to demean any of us by that
term, but only to point out that in my case the selection of one of
Van's designs had a LOT to do with the fact that there were over 5000
of them in the air. vs some other 'kit' mfg.
So when you consider an 'alternate' engine also consider ALL of the
other things that need to be a part of that power system, and if you're
considering getting it as a 'package' because you think someone who is
smarter / more experienced / than you has done all of the analysis,
engineering, and testing make absolutely certain that whoever you buy it
from FULLY discloses each and every component, and exactly how much
engineering / testing has been done on ALL of the integrated parts in
the package. Someone that really has that training will not hesitate to
provide the information and data. A technical entrepreneur will provide
anecdotes. When you have that information, assign whatever risk factors
you believe in and make your decision, just make it fully informed.
The real tragedy would be for someone without the background/skills to
make a decision, believing one thing and then finding out, too late they
were wrong.
Deems Davis # 406
http://deemsrv10.com/
> *
>
> *
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|