Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:57 AM - Re: Wingtip lens (nukeflyboy)
2. 05:22 AM - Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (LES KEARNEY)
3. 06:48 AM - Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (Kelly McMullen)
4. 06:55 AM - Re: DRDT-2 dimpler (MauleDriver)
5. 07:07 AM - Re: Re: qb kit-front floor panels removal and gear mount (MauleDriver)
6. 07:40 AM - Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (Tim Olson)
7. 08:07 AM - Re: Re: Parker Rolo-Flair tool (Michael Schipper)
8. 08:44 AM - Re: qb kit-front floor panels removal and gear mount (Lew Gallagher)
9. 10:09 AM - Re: Re: Parker Rolo-Flair tool (Mark Ritter)
10. 10:21 AM - Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (LES KEARNEY)
11. 11:04 AM - Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (Peter Hudes)
12. 11:22 AM - Re: Re: qb kit-front floor panels removal and gear mount (Bill Schlatterer)
13. 11:24 AM - Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (gary)
14. 11:46 AM - Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (LES KEARNEY)
15. 12:05 PM - Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (Jesse Saint)
16. 12:37 PM - Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (LES KEARNEY)
17. 12:40 PM - Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (Dj Merrill)
18. 12:51 PM - Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (Tim Olson)
19. 01:08 PM - Re: VP200 CU mounting? (Michael Wellenzohn)
20. 01:10 PM - Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (Kelly McMullen)
21. 01:13 PM - Wonderful Oz-RV Family (Michael Wellenzohn)
22. 02:35 PM - Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (William Curtis)
23. 03:23 PM - F-1099G-l and -R (David McNeill)
24. 04:53 PM - Re: qb kit-front floor panels removal and gear mount (Lew Gallagher)
25. 05:33 PM - Re: Parker Rolo-Flair tool (johngoodman)
26. 05:34 PM - Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
27. 06:11 PM - Re: Re: qb kit-front floor panels removal and gear mount (Bill Schlatterer)
28. 06:32 PM - Re: DRDT-2 dimpler (Jon Reining)
29. 07:06 PM - Re: Re: qb kit-front floor panels removal and gear mount (Marcus Cooper)
30. 07:19 PM - Re: Wonderful Oz-RV Family (Patrick Pulis)
31. 07:47 PM - Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (Patrick ONeill)
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: | Re: Wingtip lens |
I have an RV-6 and I frequently turn it greasy side up. Never had the problem
of cracks as you described, nor heard of it. There are a lot of factors here:
slider or tilt-up, epoxy or vinyl resin, number of layers on the layup, 3.5 G
loop or 4.5 G, etc.
I don't think the aluminum is necessary, and it would be tough to make this compound
curve.
You don't plan on doing this (aerobatics) with your 10, do you? If so, install
a G-meter, don't exceed some small number (say 2.5), and stick with the plans.
--------
Dave
RV-6 flying
RV-10 QB building
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156296#156296
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: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
Hi
There are alternatives. The only question being whether or not you want to go down
that road. Jan Eggenfellner's engines (my choice) provide, in my humble opinion,
a effective, viable alternative to the state of the art 1940's Lycoming.
Cheers
Les Kearney
#40643
C-GCWZ reserved
----- Original Message -----
From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.
> GenGrumpy@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Guys,
> >
> > Until something big happens to the major manufacturers, we're
> stuck
> > with either the 2 major manufacturers, or somebody with not a
> lot of
> > track record.
> >
> > Not sure what that "big" is on when it will happen, so.......
> >
> > I went for Aero Sport's engine. I am completely
> satisfied to date
> > with Bart's support and his engine.
> >
> > Better warranty and support than Lyc to boot.....
> >
> > I just hope Bart can figure out how we can run some type of
> ethanol,
> > no leaded gas in our engines in the very near future........
>
> Actually, the engine will run pretty well with ethanol
> fuel. The
> obiggest problem is the rubber in seals, hoses etc. between the
> tank and
> the cylinder :-P , and If I recall correctly, the proseal
> in the tanks
> will degrade over a long period of time. If I'm not
> correct on that, I
> hope someone will let me know! ;-)
> Linn
>
> >
> > grumpy
> > N184JM
> >
> > do not archive
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
It is interesting how folks like to call Lycoming's engines 1940s
designs. Most of the initial versions came on the market in the mid to
late 1950s. None of them reached their current component designs until
the late 60s or early 70s. Remember that most of them carried
1000-1200 TBO when they were introduced. They are as much 1940s
designs as the small block chevy in your current Corvette or SUV. No
the main dimensions haven't changed and not a lot new has been
invented, but they HAVE been substantially refined over the years. In
fact the current oil pump design didn't arrive until 1986-87. Sure,
they have fairly old design magnetos and fuel systems....that have
proven reliable. Tell me, how many years of reliability does your
latest Plasma or Pmag ignition have??? Oh, I forgot...no 6 cylinder P
mags. Ditto on your aftermarket fuel injection units. It is one thing
to experiment in a single seat plane or even 2 seat. But do you really
want to be experimenting hugely with your family on board?
Nothing against alternative power, but its track record is rather
short, and isn't very good. Not to change anyone's mind......just
pointing out that calling a current design IO540 a 1940s design simply
is not intellectually honest.
On Jan 6, 2008 6:17 AM, LES KEARNEY <Kearney@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Hi
>
> There are alternatives. The only question being whether or not you want to
> go down that road. Jan Eggenfellner's engines (my choice) provide, in my
> humble opinion, a effective, viable alternative to the state of the art
> 1940's Lycoming.
>
> Cheers
>
> Les Kearney
> #40643
> C-GCWZ reserved
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
> Date: Friday, January 4, 2008 8:56 pm
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>
>
> > GenGrumpy@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > Until something big happens to the major manufacturers, we're
> > stuck
> > > with either the 2 major manufacturers, or somebody with not a
> > lot of
> > > track record.
> > >
> > > Not sure what that "big" is on when it will happen, so.......
> > >
> > > I went for Aero Sport's engine. I am completely
> > satisfied to date
> > > with Bart's support and his engine.
> > >
> > > Better warranty and support than Lyc to boot.....
> > >
> > > I just hope Bart can figure out how we can run some type of
> > ethanol,
> > > no leaded gas in our engines in the very near future........
> >
> > Actually, the engine will run pretty well with ethanol
> > fuel. The
> > obiggest problem is the rubber in seals, hoses etc. between the
> > tank and
> > the cylinder :-P , and If I recall correctly, the proseal
> > in the tanks
> > will degrade over a long period of time. If I'm not
> > correct on that, I
> > hope someone will let me know! ;-)
> > Linn
> >
> > >
> > > grumpy
> > > N184JM
> > >
> > > do not archive
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: DRDT-2 dimpler |
I guess there really is more than one way to skin a '10.
The folks (Jacob) down in Griffin GA suggested the male die on top
approach - mainly so you don't miss a hole (useful) and don't scratch
(not important). It works but don't ask. I've certainly built a rhythm
around that approach too.
In any case , the DRDT certainly beats its predecessor (can you 'bang'
hear me 'bang' now?)
Bill "with a couple of nervous cats" Watson
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>
> Most people put the male die on the bottom and use the pin as a center and hold.
Yes it may scratch a little but unless you are polishing the aluminum rather
than painting, it makes no difference. You'll find that you can get into
quite the rhythm with the DRDT and knock out dimple jobs in a hurry using the
male on the bottom. Just don't get into the "zone" too much and miss a hole.
Ask several of us how we know. :)
>
> My 0.02
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of MauleDriver
> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 11:15 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: DRDT-2 dimpler
>
>
> This sounds neat. But I can't quite figure out how it helps yet.
>
> The technique I use is with the male die always on the top, I put the
> hold in the male die, then press down the handle which moves the sheet
> and the dies down onto the female die.
>
> Putting the male die on the bottom produces scratches. Allowing the
> sheet to lie on the female die and trying to hit it with the male die
> will sooner or later result in a new hole.
>
> I'm doing the baggage door right now on the DRDT-2 and I just can't
> figure out how to take advantage of a laser guide line.
>
> ...but I think I'll get them anyway and play.
>
> Bill Watson
>
>
>
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: qb kit-front floor panels removal and gear mount |
What brand and model do you use? Didn't even know they existed
(Googling now).
I use a driver with a T-handle to do this - much slower but it works.
Very useful in removing QB tanks. Pic attached.
Thanks!
Bill Watson
40605
Lew Gallagher wrote:
>
> Patrick #40715,
>
> I meant to comment on your entry earlier about stripping screws on the side panels.
I also had that problem until I decided to bite the bullet and buy a cordless
impact driver. I'm sure that's what they were put in with -- mass production,
quick build, etc. These drivers are wonderful! I borrowed a friend's
Ryobi to try it. My other cordless tools are DeWalt, so I ended up getting
that one so I could use my existing batteries and charger. I no longer dread
opening and closing panels with the off round nut plates. This is NOT a hammer
drill. When it reaches a certain torque, it goes into impact mode. Usually
it only takes a tap or two in reverse to loosen, then it functions as a regular
electric screw driver. Be careful tightening as it can twist the head off
if you over torque it.
>
> Another time saver was a pneumatic pop riveter -- $20 well spent when it comes
to popping the floor panels alone!
>
> Later, - Lew
>
> --------
> non-pilot
> crazy about building
> waiting on RV-10 finishing kit
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156246#156246
>
>
>
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: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
I've come to view it a little differently. I see it more as
a design of elegant simplicity. You have a large bore engine
that requires no gear reduction. It's air cooled, to save some
weight, but also reduce complexity and possibility of forcing
you to the ground due to a coolant leak. Yes, the thermal
expansion and stability isn't as good, but by opening up the
tolerances a bit you can prevent some major seizures.
When looking at most of the components, they have been designed
in ways that provide great service-ability, with individually
removable cylinders that allow you to do some substantial work
without dismounting the engine. As Kelly mentions, the use
of a magneto, and in fact TWO of them, allows you to get a little
wild and put on an Electric Ignition without committing yourself
to going out on the limb all the way and doing dual-EI systems.
So you retain the non-reliance on electricity to keep the engine
alive. And while an electrical outage is scary if you lose
all your gauges on today's planes, since you're really not
actually flying in IMC that large a percentage of hours, it
would stink a lot more to have that outage cause you to
land in a field, or on a mountainside. It's relatively easy
to put together a dual-battery system to keep the juice flowing,
but it's nice knowing that once you reach that stage, it's
not your engine quitting that you're worried about...just
getting to some VFR conditions.
Then when you look at some of the advances, like roller lifters,
automotive spark plug use with EI, the EI systems themselves,
and some of the minor changes along the way, it really turns
it into a little more refined design of an already really good
basic platform....one that is about as ideal for it's use as
you can find in a piston engine.
When thinking of alternatives, even alternate methods of
doing anything on a Lyc or continential, what you end up doing
if you actually are willing to have an open mind, is to look
at the list of positives and negatives. Every new change
doesn't only have an upside, but it has a downside. The liquid
cooling is a perfect example. Yeah, some of the thermal
stability concepts make a TON of sense, but you really HAVE
to consider that now you have a radiator to maintain, that can
spring a leak, along with numerous hoses and clamps, and even
down to the fact that the porting within the case can end
up being a problem. I've had cars that leaked oil into the
coolant, and vice versa....that would really be a bad situation
in an aircraft. So when you really thoroughly explore even
the changes available to Lycomings or the alternative engines,
you find that some of the downsides are fairly big detractions
from the inherent simplicity of what has become the common
standard. Having a single ignition system and spark plug
on some engines is also kind of a major deal, too, esp. if you
really are going to run 100LL and have plugs foul. So for me,
and people who subscribe to the K.I.S.S. principle in lots
of applications, it really doesn't get much simpler than
that.
Now, things like the LyCon o-ring mod are some pretty simple
no-brainers that would be nice to see as additions. Although
I've never personally had a weepy case on my couple of planes,
I can see it as a benefit, but that's something a builder can
choose to do if they want to....no big deal. There are also
some things that would be nice to see, like perhaps some better
lubrication paths and valve lubrication designs, but as long
as we run 100LL, we kind of need some of that additional valve
clearance. The changes that would be nice to see, are in
general, minor ones, in more external parts of the engine, so
over time they may actually happen. But, considering that
there are lots of engines that go full-lifetime with what we
have today, I don't see those changes as a huge deal. Remember
that an engine lifetime is TBO or 12 years (if I remember right).
If you don't fly it 166 hours per year, you can't feel bad if
after 16 years your engine doesn't make it without a rebuild...
because not flying it is inducing lots of the life-shortening
damage....and that will happen to any engine, not just
Lycomings. If everyone flew their planes using the best
engine operation methods, and they flew them often, I think
you'd probably see some stellar reliabilities. Turn it into
a hangar queen and don't expect so much.
Anyway, I see it as an elegantly simple design with what we
have today. I also have to say I agree with Kelly on one
major point.....while I think it's fantastic to have people experiment,
hopefully the RV-10's that go down that alternative path aren't
looking at them as largely "family" cruising machines. 2-seat
RV's make great platforms for experimenting and testing the
reliability of these new things, but until there are some
repeatedly proven designs with hundreds of thousands of hours on
them, I'd hate to see too many children sitting in the back
seats of the plane. For a "cargo" RV-10, I'm all for it...go
ahead and try just about anything. A 40-hour fly-off as opposed
to a 25-hour is kind of a joke, because in one case you're taking
something that has been done many thousands of times, over and
over, and comparing it to something else that will consistently
be like being in a "Phase 1 test" situation for a few years,
if you really want to know it's reliability in an aircraft
use.
At any rate, whatever you build, get out there and put some
hours on it....that's the best way to determine reliability, and
to stretch longevity....and, have FUN!
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> It is interesting how folks like to call Lycoming's engines 1940s
> designs. Most of the initial versions came on the market in the mid to
> late 1950s. None of them reached their current component designs until
> the late 60s or early 70s. Remember that most of them carried
> 1000-1200 TBO when they were introduced. They are as much 1940s
> designs as the small block chevy in your current Corvette or SUV. No
> the main dimensions haven't changed and not a lot new has been
> invented, but they HAVE been substantially refined over the years. In
> fact the current oil pump design didn't arrive until 1986-87. Sure,
> they have fairly old design magnetos and fuel systems....that have
> proven reliable. Tell me, how many years of reliability does your
> latest Plasma or Pmag ignition have??? Oh, I forgot...no 6 cylinder P
> mags. Ditto on your aftermarket fuel injection units. It is one thing
> to experiment in a single seat plane or even 2 seat. But do you really
> want to be experimenting hugely with your family on board?
> Nothing against alternative power, but its track record is rather
> short, and isn't very good. Not to change anyone's mind......just
> pointing out that calling a current design IO540 a 1940s design simply
> is not intellectually honest.
>
> On Jan 6, 2008 6:17 AM, LES KEARNEY <Kearney@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> There are alternatives. The only question being whether or not you want to
>> go down that road. Jan Eggenfellner's engines (my choice) provide, in my
>> humble opinion, a effective, viable alternative to the state of the art
>> 1940's Lycoming.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Les Kearney
>> #40643
>> C-GCWZ reserved
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>> Date: Friday, January 4, 2008 8:56 pm
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>>
>>
>>> GenGrumpy@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Guys,
>>>>
>>>> Until something big happens to the major manufacturers, we're
>>> stuck
>>>> with either the 2 major manufacturers, or somebody with not a
>>> lot of
>>>> track record.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what that "big" is on when it will happen, so.......
>>>>
>>>> I went for Aero Sport's engine. I am completely
>>> satisfied to date
>>>> with Bart's support and his engine.
>>>>
>>>> Better warranty and support than Lyc to boot.....
>>>>
>>>> I just hope Bart can figure out how we can run some type of
>>> ethanol,
>>>> no leaded gas in our engines in the very near future........
>>> Actually, the engine will run pretty well with ethanol
>>> fuel. The
>>> obiggest problem is the rubber in seals, hoses etc. between the
>>> tank and
>>> the cylinder :-P , and If I recall correctly, the proseal
>>> in the tanks
>>> will degrade over a long period of time. If I'm not
>>> correct on that, I
>>> hope someone will let me know! ;-)
>>> Linn
>>>
>>>> grumpy
>>>> N184JM
>>>>
>>>> do not archive
>>>
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: Parker Rolo-Flair tool |
I think the Rolo-Flair tools are prone to assembly errors. When I
received mine, the wheels were installed backwards, which produced a
hard outside edge on the flair. Close examination showed that the
bevel was on the wrong side, so I called Avery to see about a
replacement. Since it was a Friday and I had some work to do over the
weekend, I decided that it was possible to disassemble the tool myself
(after all, how complicated can it be...I'm building an airplane!) and
reassemble it with the wheels in the correct orientation.
After some fiddling with the various parts to get them all back in
place, I was able to get the Rolo-Flair put back together correctly,
and it has served me well ever since. I did talk to Bob Avery about
the issue because I can imagine that I wouldn't be the only one to
receive an incorrectly assembled tool.
If you decide to disassemble yours, be careful not to drop the ball
bearings and springs that will probably pop out when you take the
wheels apart. They're hard to find.
http://www.my9a.com/wings8.asp#062304
Regards,
Mike Schipper
#40576 - Fuse - www.rvten.com
On Jan 5, 2008, at 10:21 PM, johngoodman wrote:
> >
>
> Thanks for the tips. The wheels on mine definitely won't budge. I've
> tried using as much force as I can with only my hands and they won't
> move. If there is a spring there, I can't feel it.
> John
>
> --------
> #40572 QB Wings, QB Fuse arrived
> N711JG reserved
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: qb kit-front floor panels removal and gear mount |
Bill, Nice tool, but you won't believe how these power drivers will change your
life!
Here's a quick shot of the Ryobi on Ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/Ryobi-18-Volt-Impact-Driver-New-P231_W0QQitemZ280189857137QQihZ018QQcategoryZ71297QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Here's the DeWalt like mine: http://cgi.ebay.com/DeWalt-DW056-18V-Cordless-Impact-Driver-NEW_W0QQitemZ280187210049QQihZ018QQcategoryZ42272QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
They're both similar (both probably made at same place in China) -- and the techno
freaks can tell you about torq specs and blows per minute -- just get one
or borrow one, you'll like it!
Later, - Lew
--------
non-pilot
crazy about building
waiting on RV-10 finishing kit
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156339#156339
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: Parker Rolo-Flair tool |
I had the same problem as Michael and had to disassemble and reassemble the
rolo flair tool correctly.
Mark
RV-10/N410MR<html><div></div>
> From: mike@learningplanet.com> To: rv10-list@matronics.com> Subject: Re:
RV10-List: Re: Parker Rolo-Flair tool> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:03:33 -0600
com>> > I think the Rolo-Flair tools are prone to assembly errors. When I >
received mine, the wheels were installed backwards, which produced a > har
d outside edge on the flair. Close examination showed that the > bevel was
on the wrong side, so I called Avery to see about a > replacement. Since it
was a Friday and I had some work to do over the > weekend, I decided that
it was possible to disassemble the tool myself > (after all, how complicate
d can it be...I'm building an airplane!) and > reassemble it with the wheel
s in the correct orientation.> > After some fiddling with the various parts
to get them all back in > place, I was able to get the Rolo-Flair put back
together correctly, > and it has served me well ever since. I did talk to
Bob Avery about > the issue because I can imagine that I wouldn't be the on
ly one to > receive an incorrectly assembled tool.> > If you decide to disa
ssemble yours, be careful not to drop the ball > bearings and springs that
will probably pop out when you take the > wheels apart. They're hard to fin
d.> > http://www.my9a.com/wings8.asp#062304> > Regards,> Mike Schipper> #40
576 - Fuse - www.rvten.com> > > On Jan 5, 2008, at 10:21 PM, johngoodman wr
link.net > > >> >> > Thanks for the tips. The wheels on mine definitely won
't budge. I've > > tried using as much force as I can with only my hands an
d they won't > > move. If there is a spring there, I can't feel it.> > John
> >> > --------> > #40572 QB Wings, QB Fuse arrived> > N711JG reserved> > >
========================> >
>
_________________________________________________________________
Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_0120
08
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
Hi Kelly
My apologies if my characterization of the IO540 seemed =93not intellect
ually honest=94=2E Ouch! I was simply trying to press the point that the
basic design of the Lycoming is firmly rooted in the past=2E There have
been improvements over the years but the fundamental design has not cha
nged=2E
At KOSH this year=2C one engine supplier spent 20 minutes explaining to
me why their IO540 was better than an out of the box Lycoming IO540=2E I
t was all about improving lubrication and fixing problems that Lycoming
could fix didn=27t want to fix because of the certification process=2E M
y club AME (Canadian A=26P) speaks of his high replacement rate for IO54
0 jugs=2E
I just don=92t see the attractiveness of these engines=2E They are old=2C
problematic designs=2E
I believe there is there is an effective / viable alternative to =93trad
itional=94 engines=2E My choice is he Eggenfellener engine=2E The nice t
hing about the experimental world is the discussion does not always have
to be theoretical ' we can actually implement our opinions as I am do
ing=2E
I do not claim to be an engine expert so my decision was not easy=2E The
population of a/c owners I know is small=2E Out of this group=2C 2 have
had engine failures=2C 1 being catastrophic=2E Both landed safely=2E My
14 years of flying a Lyc O-360 has given me a different perspective as
well=2E I have replaced jugs over the years=2E This year during my annua
l=2C my AME found a cracked exhaust port on a jug that had only 500 hrs
TIS=2E
I can only decide based on my experience flying an O-360 Lyc for 14 year
s=2E My view is that the only reason traditional engines are perceived t
o be reliable is that repetitive inspections are used to compensate for
design problems=2E As well=2C when problems as identified=2C they are no
t reported as they are =93maintenance issues=94=2E
I believe the actual alternative engine is a far safer than the traditio
nal engine=2E How many IO540=92s have been built over the years ' 10K=2C
20K=3F I don=92t know but whatever the number=2C the production run as
been spread over many decades and has been fraught with problems=2E The
years past crankshaft debacle points to QA/QC problems=2E What assurance
do we have that newer engines won=92t suffer from similar design an/or
prouction problems=3F I can=92t afford to take that chance=2E
Compare the production runs of auto engines to a/c engines=2E Auto engin
e production runs can run into the hundreds of thousands in a single yea
r=2E Think of the QA/QC and engineering effort that goes into these engi
nes=2C the quality of the parts and the tolerances of the manufacturing
process=2E Hands down=2C I am of the opinion that these engines will hav
e a higher inherent reliability than traditional engines=2E Keep in mind
that my engine will be a factory new engine (in fact I helped un-crate
it on Thursday at the Eggenfellenr shop)=2E It is not a reman=2C it is n
ot rebuilt=2C and it is not modified=2E
There are new risks I need to manage but these are reasonable=2E Will th
is engine be more or less risky than a traditional engine ' I can=92t
say=2E But I will mitigate the risk reviewing each system=2C identifying
risks and doing what I can to mitigate each risk=2E
Finally=2C I cringe when I hear the concept of family safety raised when
discussing non traditional aircraft engines=2E So much so I have now cr
eated a variation on Goodwin=92s Law=2E
Kearney=92s Variation on Goodwin=92s Law=3A
As an online discussion of experimental aircraft engines grows longer=2C
the probability of a mentioning the safety of family members approaches
one=2E
I will not expose my family=2C including myself=2C to any unreasonable r
isk when flying=2E I plan to test=2C check and recheck every system=2C e
lectrical=2C mechanical etc before anyone flies in the aircraft=2E I wil
l have a competent second set of eyes check my work=2E What does not pas
s muster will be corrected=2E
Cheers
Les Kearney
=2340643
C-GCWZ (reserved)
----- Original Message -----
From=3A Kelly McMullen =3Capilot2=40gmail=2Ecom=3E
Date=3A Sunday=2C January 6=2C 2008 7=3A59 am
Subject=3A Re=3A RV10-List=3A Kitplane=27s article=2C Ly-Con=27s case cl
osed=2E
To=3A rv10-list=40matronics=2Ecom
=3E --=3E RV10-List message posted by=3A =22Kelly McMullen=22
=3E =3Capilot2=40gmail=2Ecom=3E
=3E It is interesting how folks like to call Lycoming=27s engines 1940s
=3E designs=2E Most of the initial versions came on the market in the
=3E mid to
=3E late 1950s=2E None of them reached their current component designs u
ntil
=3E the late 60s or early 70s=2E Remember that most of them carried
=3E 1000-1200 TBO when they were introduced=2E They are as much 1940s
=3E designs as the small block chevy in your current Corvette or
=3E SUV=2E No
=3E the main dimensions haven=27t changed and not a lot new has been
=3E invented=2C but they HAVE been substantially refined over the
=3E years=2E In
=3E fact the current oil pump design didn=27t arrive until 1986-
=3E 87=2E Sure=2C
=3E they have fairly old design magnetos and fuel systems=2E=2E=2E=2Etha
t have
=3E proven reliable=2E Tell me=2C how many years of reliability does you
r
=3E latest Plasma or Pmag ignition have=3F=3F=3F Oh=2C I forgot=2E=2E=2E
no 6
=3E cylinder P
=3E mags=2E Ditto on your aftermarket fuel injection units=2E It is one
thing
=3E to experiment in a single seat plane or even 2 seat=2E But do you re
ally
=3E want to be experimenting hugely with your family on board=3F
=3E Nothing against alternative power=2C but its track record is rather
=3E short=2C and isn=27t very good=2E Not to change anyone=27s mind=2E=2E
=2E=2E=2E=2Ejust
=3E pointing out that calling a current design IO540 a 1940s design simp
ly
=3E is not intellectually honest=2E
=3E
=3E On Jan 6=2C 2008 6=3A17 AM=2C LES KEARNEY =3CKearney=40shaw=2Eca=3E
wrote=3A
=3E =3E Hi
=3E =3E
=3E =3E There are alternatives=2E The only question being whether or not
=3E you want to
=3E =3E go down that road=2E Jan Eggenfellner=27s engines (my choice)
=3E provide=2C in my
=3E =3E humble opinion=2C a effective=2C viable alternative to the state
=3E of the art
=3E =3E 1940=27s Lycoming=2E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E Cheers
=3E =3E
=3E =3E Les Kearney
=3E =3E =2340643
=3E =3E C-GCWZ reserved
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E ----- Original Message -----
=3E =3E From=3A linn Walters =3Cpitts=5Fpilot=40bellsouth=2Enet=3E
=3E =3E Date=3A Friday=2C January 4=2C 2008 8=3A56 pm
=3E =3E Subject=3A Re=3A RV10-List=3A Kitplane=27s article=2C Ly-Con=27s
case closed=2E
=3E =3E To=3A rv10-list=40matronics=2Ecom
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E =3E GenGrumpy=40aol=2Ecom wrote=3A
=3E =3E =3E
=3E =3E =3E =3E Guys=2C
=3E =3E =3E =3E
=3E =3E =3E =3E Until something big happens to the major manufacturers=2C
we=27re
=3E =3E =3E stuck
=3E =3E =3E =3E with either the 2 major manufacturers=2C or somebody wit
h
=3E not a
=3E =3E =3E lot of
=3E =3E =3E =3E track record=2E
=3E =3E =3E =3E
=3E =3E =3E =3E Not sure what that =22big=22 is on when it will happen=2C
so=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E
=3E =3E =3E =3E
=3E =3E =3E =3E I went for Aero Sport=27s engine=2E I am completely
=3E =3E =3E satisfied to date
=3E =3E =3E =3E with Bart=27s support and his engine=2E
=3E =3E =3E =3E
=3E =3E =3E =3E Better warranty and support than Lyc to boot=2E=2E=2E=2E
=2E
=3E =3E =3E =3E
=3E =3E =3E =3E I just hope Bart can figure out how we can run some type
of
=3E =3E =3E ethanol=2C
=3E =3E =3E =3E no leaded gas in our engines in the very near future=2E=2E
=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E
=3E =3E =3E
=3E =3E =3E Actually=2C the engine will run pretty well with ethanol
=3E =3E =3E fuel=2E The
=3E =3E =3E obiggest problem is the rubber in seals=2C hoses etc=2E betw
een the
=3E =3E =3E tank and
=3E =3E =3E the cylinder =3A-P =2C and If I recall correctly=2C the pro
seal
=3E =3E =3E in the tanks
=3E =3E =3E will degrade over a long period of time=2E If I=27m not
=3E =3E =3E correct on that=2C I
=3E =3E =3E hope someone will let me know! =3B-)
=3E =3E =3E Linn
=3E =3E =3E
=3E =3E =3E =3E
=3E =3E =3E =3E grumpy
=3E =3E =3E =3E N184JM
=3E =3E =3E =3E
=3E =3E =3E =3E do not archive
=3E =3E =3E
=3E =3E =3E
=3E =3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E
=3E =5F-======================
========================
=============
=3E =5F-= - The
=3E RV10-List Email Forum -
=3E =5F-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
=3E =5F-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription=2C
=3E =5F-= Archive Search =26 Download=2C 7-Day Browse=2C Chat=2C FAQ=2C
=3E =5F-= Photoshare=2C and much much more=3A
=3E =5F-= --=3E http=3A//www=2Ematronics=2Ecom/Navigator=3FRV10-List
=3E =5F-======================
========================
=============
=3E =5F-
=3E = - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
=3E =5F-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
=3E =5F-= --=3E http=3A//forums=2Ematronics=2Ecom
=3E =5F-======================
========================
=============
=3E =5F-
=3E = - List Contribution Web Site -
=3E =5F-= Thank you for your generous support!
=3E =5F-
=3E = -Matt Dralle=2C List Admin=2E
=3E =5F-= --=3E http=3A//www=2Ematronics=2Ecom/contribution
=3E =5F-======================
========================
=============
=3E
=3E
=3E
=3E
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
Les,
On Jan 6, 2008, at 10:16 AM, LES KEARNEY wrote:
> Hi Kelly
>
>
> Compare the production runs of auto engines to a/c engines. Auto
> engine production runs can run into the hundreds of thousands in a
> single year. Think of the QA/QC and engineering effort that goes
> into these engines, the quality of the parts and the tolerances of
> the manufacturing process. Hands down, I am of the opinion that
> these engines will have a higher inherent reliability than
> traditional engines. Keep in mind that my engine will be a factory
> new engine (in fact I helped un-crate it on Thursday at the
> Eggenfellenr shop). It is not a reman, it is not rebuilt, and it is
> not modified
Auto engines have been designed and tested to be operated in a
different environment than aircraft engines. They are operated a
majority of their life at a low percentage of power at low RPMs, not
at a high percentage of power at high RPMs.
> There are new risks I need to manage but these are reasonable. Will
> this engine be more or less risky than a traditional engine I
> cant say. But I will mitigate the risk reviewing each system,
> identifying risks and doing what I can to mitigate each risk.
How are you going to evaluate and mitigate the risks associated with
the PRU and prop combo?
>
Pete Hudes
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: qb kit-front floor panels removal and gear mount |
Just curious? Why would you want an impact driver for screws? Most DC
power drills have a variable setting for screws and are designed to slip at
each setting. I set mine on the lightest one, screw until it slips and go
on. Never had a screw break or bend the platenut and never had one that
would not back out easily. What do you gain with the impact driver ?
BTW, my 7 qb came with a polishing bonnet under the baggage floors ;-) No
charge !
Just curious ?
Bill S
7a 80/80
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lew Gallagher
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:42 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: qb kit-front floor panels removal and gear mount
Bill, Nice tool, but you won't believe how these power drivers will change
your life!
Here's a quick shot of the Ryobi on Ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Ryobi-18-Volt-Impact-Driver-New-P231_W0QQitemZ2801898571
37QQihZ018QQcategoryZ71297QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Here's the DeWalt like mine:
http://cgi.ebay.com/DeWalt-DW056-18V-Cordless-Impact-Driver-NEW_W0QQitemZ280
187210049QQihZ018QQcategoryZ42272QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
They're both similar (both probably made at same place in China) -- and the
techno freaks can tell you about torq specs and blows per minute -- just get
one or borrow one, you'll like it!
Later, - Lew
--------
non-pilot
crazy about building
waiting on RV-10 finishing kit
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156339#156339
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: | Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
I find it interesting that Superior started with the desire to build the
best modifications possible to the basic Lycoming engine. When all said and
done, their list of modifications is not as long as you might expect. As
Tim said it is hard to beat the total qualities of a Lycoming. Yes
improvements can be made, but I just don't see any technology that will
revolutionize the power plant.
Gary
40274 Paint shop says it is done, Yupppeeeee!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.
I've come to view it a little differently. I see it more as
a design of elegant simplicity. You have a large bore engine
that requires no gear reduction. It's air cooled, to save some
weight, but also reduce complexity and possibility of forcing
you to the ground due to a coolant leak. Yes, the thermal
expansion and stability isn't as good, but by opening up the
tolerances a bit you can prevent some major seizures.
When looking at most of the components, they have been designed
in ways that provide great service-ability, with individually
removable cylinders that allow you to do some substantial work
without dismounting the engine. As Kelly mentions, the use
of a magneto, and in fact TWO of them, allows you to get a little
wild and put on an Electric Ignition without committing yourself
to going out on the limb all the way and doing dual-EI systems.
So you retain the non-reliance on electricity to keep the engine
alive. And while an electrical outage is scary if you lose
all your gauges on today's planes, since you're really not
actually flying in IMC that large a percentage of hours, it
would stink a lot more to have that outage cause you to
land in a field, or on a mountainside. It's relatively easy
to put together a dual-battery system to keep the juice flowing,
but it's nice knowing that once you reach that stage, it's
not your engine quitting that you're worried about...just
getting to some VFR conditions.
Then when you look at some of the advances, like roller lifters,
automotive spark plug use with EI, the EI systems themselves,
and some of the minor changes along the way, it really turns
it into a little more refined design of an already really good
basic platform....one that is about as ideal for it's use as
you can find in a piston engine.
When thinking of alternatives, even alternate methods of
doing anything on a Lyc or continential, what you end up doing
if you actually are willing to have an open mind, is to look
at the list of positives and negatives. Every new change
doesn't only have an upside, but it has a downside. The liquid
cooling is a perfect example. Yeah, some of the thermal
stability concepts make a TON of sense, but you really HAVE
to consider that now you have a radiator to maintain, that can
spring a leak, along with numerous hoses and clamps, and even
down to the fact that the porting within the case can end
up being a problem. I've had cars that leaked oil into the
coolant, and vice versa....that would really be a bad situation
in an aircraft. So when you really thoroughly explore even
the changes available to Lycomings or the alternative engines,
you find that some of the downsides are fairly big detractions
from the inherent simplicity of what has become the common
standard. Having a single ignition system and spark plug
on some engines is also kind of a major deal, too, esp. if you
really are going to run 100LL and have plugs foul. So for me,
and people who subscribe to the K.I.S.S. principle in lots
of applications, it really doesn't get much simpler than
that.
Now, things like the LyCon o-ring mod are some pretty simple
no-brainers that would be nice to see as additions. Although
I've never personally had a weepy case on my couple of planes,
I can see it as a benefit, but that's something a builder can
choose to do if they want to....no big deal. There are also
some things that would be nice to see, like perhaps some better
lubrication paths and valve lubrication designs, but as long
as we run 100LL, we kind of need some of that additional valve
clearance. The changes that would be nice to see, are in
general, minor ones, in more external parts of the engine, so
over time they may actually happen. But, considering that
there are lots of engines that go full-lifetime with what we
have today, I don't see those changes as a huge deal. Remember
that an engine lifetime is TBO or 12 years (if I remember right).
If you don't fly it 166 hours per year, you can't feel bad if
after 16 years your engine doesn't make it without a rebuild...
because not flying it is inducing lots of the life-shortening
damage....and that will happen to any engine, not just
Lycomings. If everyone flew their planes using the best
engine operation methods, and they flew them often, I think
you'd probably see some stellar reliabilities. Turn it into
a hangar queen and don't expect so much.
Anyway, I see it as an elegantly simple design with what we
have today. I also have to say I agree with Kelly on one
major point.....while I think it's fantastic to have people experiment,
hopefully the RV-10's that go down that alternative path aren't
looking at them as largely "family" cruising machines. 2-seat
RV's make great platforms for experimenting and testing the
reliability of these new things, but until there are some
repeatedly proven designs with hundreds of thousands of hours on
them, I'd hate to see too many children sitting in the back
seats of the plane. For a "cargo" RV-10, I'm all for it...go
ahead and try just about anything. A 40-hour fly-off as opposed
to a 25-hour is kind of a joke, because in one case you're taking
something that has been done many thousands of times, over and
over, and comparing it to something else that will consistently
be like being in a "Phase 1 test" situation for a few years,
if you really want to know it's reliability in an aircraft
use.
At any rate, whatever you build, get out there and put some
hours on it....that's the best way to determine reliability, and
to stretch longevity....and, have FUN!
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
Peter
As I mntioned in my post to Kelly=2C I am not an engine expert / guru /
authority by any stretch=2E Below is an exract from Ross Farnham=27s web
site=3A http=3A//www=2Esdsefi=2Ecom/air7=2Ehtml
Many lay people often point out that automotive engines are not designed
for continuous high output applications and will blow up when installed
in an aircraft=2E This view is a result of complete ignorance in my opi
nion and is not supported by any credible facts=2E Modern automotive eng
ines make use of the latest advances in computer design and modeling to
optimize the design of everything from port flow=2C port resonance tunin
g=2C combustion chamber characteristics=2C vibrational node analysis and
mechanical stresses=2E Machining and metallurgy technology is far super
ior to the old days when the air cooled=2C flat engines were developed=2E
Technology has indeed progressed on automotive engines in the last 40 y
ears=2E
Automotive engines are routinely tested during development at full power
and maximum rpm for periods of up to 1200 hours on a dynomometer=2E The
se engines must be able to withstand whatever stresses a customer might
inflict on them such as flat out cruising on the autobahn or endurance r
acing=2C without failure=2E Manufacturer=27s limits are conservative to
guarantee longevity and reliability=2E The engineering and capital inves
tment that goes into a new engine release dwarfs any similar development
by any piston aircraft engine manufacturer=2E The testing and validatio
n methods FAR exceed those required on piston aircraft engines=2E In Eur
ope=2C cars are routinely cruised at speeds (RPMs and load) 50-100=25 hi
gher than what we see in North America with no ill effects in life span=2E
This is real world=2C long term hard use=2E
Just one example of the demonstrated real world reliability on the popul
ar Subaru EJ22 engine was the 1989 record set by 3 Legacy=27s at an Ariz
ona test track=2E These cars were run flat out for 17 days straight with
out failure at an average speed of over 138 mph=2E Similar records have
been set by Saab and Chevrolet=2E How many people reading this article t
hink that most aircraft engines would survive at 100=25 takeoff power fo
r 400 hours=3F Subaru now offers the production 2=2E5L turbo STI rated a
t 300 hp=2C With the popularity of showroom stock endurance racing in th
e last decade=2C we get to see just how good the design and engineering
is on modern cars=2E Thousands of Hondas=2C Toyotas=2C Oldsmobiles=2C Ch
evrolets=2C Mitsubishis=2C VWs etc=2E are mercilessly flogged to the rev
limiter at full throttle for hundreds of hours between rebuilds=2E A ve
ry small fraction of these ever suffer a serious failure=2E Aircraft use
does not put this kind of cyclic stress on an engine=2C being a constan
t load=2C relatively low rpm situation=2E Most modern car engines outlas
t the chassis without ever being removed=2E This performance can be equa
ted into lifespans of between 4000 and 8000 hours=2E Even operating at 7
5=25 of maximum power and rpm limits=2C it is reasonable to expect a TBO
of at least 1000 hours in aircraft use=2E
Cheers
Les
----- Original Message -----
From=3A Peter Hudes =3Cphudes=40ix=2Enetcom=2Ecom=3E
Date=3A Sunday=2C January 6=2C 2008 12=3A21 pm
Subject=3A Re=3A RV10-List=3A Kitplane=27s article=2C Ly-Con=27s case cl
osed=2E
To=3A rv10-list=40matronics=2Ecom
=3E --=3E RV10-List message posted by=3A Peter Hudes =3Cphudes=40ix=2Ene
tcom=2Ecom=3E
=3E
=3E Les=2C
=3E
=3E On Jan 6=2C 2008=2C at 10=3A16 AM=2C LES KEARNEY wrote=3A
=3E
=3E =3E Hi Kelly
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E Compare the production runs of auto engines to a/c engines=2E
=3E Auto
=3E =3E engine production runs can run into the hundreds of thousands
=3E in a
=3E =3E single year=2E Think of the QA/QC and engineering effort that
=3E goes
=3E =3E into these engines=2C the quality of the parts and the
=3E tolerances of
=3E =3E the manufacturing process=2E Hands down=2C I am of the opinion
=3E that
=3E =3E these engines will have a higher inherent reliability
=3E than
=3E =3E traditional engines=2E Keep in mind that my engine will be a
=3E factory
=3E =3E new engine (in fact I helped un-crate it on Thursday at
=3E the
=3E =3E Eggenfellenr shop)=2E It is not a reman=2C it is not rebuilt=2C
and
=3E it is
=3E =3E not modified
=3E
=3E
=3E Auto engines have been designed and tested to be operated in
=3E a
=3E different environment than aircraft engines=2E They are operated
=3E a
=3E majority of their life at a low percentage of power at low RPMs=2C
=3E not
=3E at a high percentage of power at high RPMs=2E
=3E
=3E =3E There are new risks I need to manage but these are reasonable=2E
=3E Will
=3E =3E this engine be more or less risky than a traditional engine '
=3E I
=3E =3E can=92t say=2E But I will mitigate the risk reviewing each
=3E system=2C
=3E =3E identifying risks and doing what I can to mitigate each risk=2E
=3E
=3E How are you going to evaluate and mitigate the risks associated
=3E with
=3E the PRU and prop combo=3F
=3E =3E
=3E
=3E Pete Hudes
=3E
=3E =5F-======================
========================
=============
=3E =5F-= - The
=3E RV10-List Email Forum -
=3E =5F-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
=3E =5F-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription=2C
=3E =5F-= Archive Search =26 Download=2C 7-Day Browse=2C Chat=2C FAQ=2C
=3E =5F-= Photoshare=2C and much much more=3A
=3E =5F-= --=3E http=3A//www=2Ematronics=2Ecom/Navigator=3FRV10-List
=3E =5F-======================
========================
=============
=3E =5F-
=3E = - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
=3E =5F-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
=3E =5F-= --=3E http=3A//forums=2Ematronics=2Ecom
=3E =5F-======================
========================
=============
=3E =5F-
=3E = - List Contribution Web Site -
=3E =5F-= Thank you for your generous support!
=3E =5F-
=3E = -Matt Dralle=2C List Admin=2E
=3E =5F-= --=3E http=3A//www=2Ematronics=2Ecom/contribution
=3E =5F-======================
========================
=============
=3E
=3E
=3E
=3E
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: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
This has turned out to be another great alternative engine war.
Anybody care to offer opinions on the best primer to use on the
outside of the engine, alternative or otherwise?
do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Jan 6, 2008, at 2:42 PM, LES KEARNEY wrote:
> Peter
>
> As I mntioned in my post to Kelly, I am not an engine expert /
> guru / authority by any stretch. Below is an exract from Ross
> Farnham's website: http://www.sdsefi.com/air7.html
>
> Many lay people often point out that automotive engines are not
> designed for continuous high output applications and will blow up
> when installed in an aircraft. This view is a result of complete
> ignorance in my opinion and is not supported by any credible facts.
> Modern automotive engines make use of the latest advances in
> computer design and modeling to optimize the design of everything
> from port flow, port resonance tuning, combustion chamber
> characteristics, vibrational node analysis and mechanical stresses.
> Machining and metallurgy technology is far superior to the old days
> when the air cooled, flat engines were developed. Technology has
> indeed progressed on automotive engines in the last 40 years.
> Automotive engines are routinely tested during development at full
> power and maximum rpm for periods of up to 1200 hours on a
> dynomometer. These engines must be able to withstand whatever
> stresses a customer might inflict on them such as flat out cruising
> on the autobahn or endurance racing, without failure. Manufacturer's
> limits are conservative to guarantee longevity and reliability. The
> engineering and capital investment that goes into a new engine
> release dwarfs any similar development by any piston aircraft engine
> manufacturer. The testing and validation methods FAR exceed those
> required on piston aircraft engines. In Europe, cars are routinely
> cruised at speeds (RPMs and load) 50-100% higher than what we see in
> North America with no ill effects in life span. This is real world,
> long term hard use.
>
> Just one example of the demonstrated real world reliability on the
> popular Subaru EJ22 engine was the 1989 record set by 3 Legacy's at
> an Arizona test track. These cars were run flat out for 17 days
> straight without failure at an average speed of over 138 mph.
> Similar records have been set by Saab and Chevrolet. How many people
> reading this article think that most aircraft engines would survive
> at 100% takeoff power for 400 hours? Subaru now offers the
> production 2.5L turbo STI rated at 300 hp, With the popularity of
> showroom stock endurance racing in the last decade, we get to see
> just how good the design and engineering is on modern cars.
> Thousands of Hondas, Toyotas, Oldsmobiles, Chevrolets, Mitsubishis,
> VWs etc. are mercilessly flogged to the rev limiter at full throttle
> for hundreds of hours between rebuilds. A very small fraction of
> these ever suffer a serious failure. Aircraft use does not put this
> kind of cyclic stress on an engine, being a constant load,
> relatively low rpm situation. Most modern car engines outlast the
> chassis without ever being removed. This performance can be equated
> into lifespans of between 4000 and 8000 hours. Even operating at 75%
> of maximum power and rpm limits, it is reasonable to expect a TBO of
> at least 1000 hours in aircraft use.
>
> Cheers
>
> Les
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter Hudes <phudes@ix.netcom.com>
> Date: Sunday, January 6, 2008 12:21 pm
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>
> >
> > Les,
> >
> > On Jan 6, 2008, at 10:16 AM, LES KEARNEY wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Kelly
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Compare the production runs of auto engines to a/c engines.
> > Auto
> > > engine production runs can run into the hundreds of thousands
> > in a
> > > single year. Think of the QA/QC and engineering effort that
> > goes
> > > into these engines, the quality of the parts and the
> > tolerances of
> > > the manufacturing process. Hands down, I am of the opinion
> > that
> > > these engines will have a higher inherent reliability
> > than
> > > traditional engines. Keep in mind that my engine will be a
> > factory
> > > new engine (in fact I helped un-crate it on Thursday at
> > the
> > > Eggenfellenr shop). It is not a reman, it is not rebuilt, and
> > it is
> > > not modified
> >
> >
> > Auto engines have been designed and tested to be operated in
> > a
> > different environment than aircraft engines. They are operated
> > a
> > majority of their life at a low percentage of power at low RPMs,
> > not
> > at a high percentage of power at high RPMs.
> >
> > > There are new risks I need to manage but these are reasonable.
> > Will
> > > this engine be more or less risky than a traditional engine '
> > I
> > > can=92t say. But I will mitigate the risk reviewing each
> > system,
> > > identifying risks and doing what I can to mitigate each risk.
> >
> > How are you going to evaluate and mitigate the risks associated
> > with
> > the PRU and prop combo?
> > >
> >
> > Pete Hudes
> >
===========
> > RV10-List Email Forum -
===========
> > _-
> > = - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
===========
> > _-
> > = - List Contribution Web Site -
> > _-
> > = -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
===========
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
Peter
To answer your questions regarding the prop and PSRU, I will be monitoring the
PSRU oil temp and doing oil analysis on a regular basis. There will also be periodic
inspections for oil leaks etc. Anything out of the ordinary will be investigated
and resolved. This is pretty much what I am doing with my Lyc O-360.
Cheers
Les
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Hudes <phudes@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.
>
> Les,
>
> How are you going to evaluate and mitigate the risks associated
> with
> the PRU and prop combo?
> >
>
> Pete Hudes
>
> RV10-List Email Forum -
> _-
> = - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> _-
> = - List Contribution Web Site -
> _-
> = -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
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: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
Jesse Saint wrote:
> This has turned out to be another great alternative engine war. Anybody
> care to offer opinions on the best primer to use on the outside of the
> engine, alternative or otherwise?
Yellow? ;-)
-Dj
do not archive
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
Who needs primer? Since we're (majority...or currently all, in
the RV-10's) flying behind Lycomings, all the oil soaking the
engine should keep the rust away, right? ;)
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Jesse Saint wrote:
> This has turned out to be another great alternative engine war. Anybody
> care to offer opinions on the best primer to use on the outside of the
> engine, alternative or otherwise?
>
> do not archive
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
> On Jan 6, 2008, at 2:42 PM, LES KEARNEY wrote:
>
>> Peter
>>
>> As I mntioned in my post to Kelly, I am not an engine expert / guru /
>> authority by any stretch. Below is an exract from Ross Farnham's
>> website: http://www.sdsefi.com/air7.html
>> //
>> /Many lay people often point out that automotive engines are not
>> designed for continuous high output applications and will blow up when
>> installed in an aircraft. This view is a result of complete ignorance
>> in my opinion and is not supported by any credible facts. Modern
>> automotive engines make use of the latest advances in computer design
>> and modeling to optimize the design of everything from port flow, port
>> resonance tuning, combustion chamber characteristics, vibrational node
>> analysis and mechanical stresses. Machining and metallurgy technology
>> is far superior to the old days when the air cooled, flat engines were
>> developed. Technology has indeed progressed on automotive engines in
>> the last 40 years./
>>
>> /Automotive engines are routinely tested during development at full
>> power and maximum rpm for periods of up to 1200 hours on a
>> dynomometer. These engines must be able to withstand whatever stresses
>> a customer might inflict on them such as flat out cruising on the
>> autobahn or endurance racing, without failure. Manufacturer's limits
>> are conservative to guarantee longevity and reliability. The
>> engineering and capital investment that goes into a new engine release
>> dwarfs any similar development by any piston aircraft engine
>> manufacturer. The testing and validation methods FAR exceed those
>> required on piston aircraft engines. In Europe, cars are routinely
>> cruised at speeds (RPMs and load) 50-100% higher than what we see in
>> North America with no ill effects in life span. This is real world,
>> long term hard use./
>>
>> /Just one example of the demonstrated real world reliability on the
>> popular Subaru EJ22 engine was the 1989 record set by 3 Legacy's at an
>> Arizona test track. These cars were run flat out for 17 days straight
>> without failure at an average speed of over 138 mph. Similar records
>> have been set by Saab and Chevrolet. How many people reading this
>> article think that most aircraft engines would survive at 100% takeoff
>> power for 400 hours? Subaru now offers the production 2.5L turbo STI
>> rated at 300 hp, With the popularity of showroom stock endurance
>> racing in the last decade, we get to see just how good the design and
>> engineering is on modern cars. Thousands of Hondas, Toyotas,
>> Oldsmobiles, Chevrolets, Mitsubishis, VWs etc. are mercilessly flogged
>> to the rev limiter at full throttle for hundreds of hours between
>> rebuilds. A very small fraction of these ever suffer a serious
>> failure. Aircraft use does not put this kind of cyclic stress on an
>> engine, being a constant load, relatively low rpm situation. Most
>> modern car engines outlast the chassis without ever being removed.
>> This performance can be equated into lifespans of between 4000 and
>> 8000 hours. Even operating at 75% of maximum power and rpm limits, it
>> is reasonable to expect a TBO of at least 1000 hours in aircraft use./
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Les
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Peter Hudes <phudes@ix.netcom.com <mailto:phudes@ix.netcom.com>>
>> Date: Sunday, January 6, 2008 12:21 pm
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
>>
>> <mailto:phudes@ix.netcom.com>>
>> >
>> > Les,
>> >
>> > On Jan 6, 2008, at 10:16 AM, LES KEARNEY wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Kelly
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Compare the production runs of auto engines to a/c engines.
>> > Auto
>> > > engine production runs can run into the hundreds of thousands
>> > in a
>> > > single year. Think of the QA/QC and engineering effort that
>> > goes
>> > > into these engines, the quality of the parts and the
>> > tolerances of
>> > > the manufacturing process. Hands down, I am of the opinion
>> > that
>> > > these engines will have a higher inherent reliability
>> > than
>> > > traditional engines. Keep in mind that my engine will be a
>> > factory
>> > > new engine (in fact I helped un-crate it on Thursday at
>> > the
>> > > Eggenfellenr shop). It is not a reman, it is not rebuilt, and
>> > it is
>> > > not modified
>> >
>> >
>> > Auto engines have been designed and tested to be operated in
>> > a
>> > different environment than aircraft engines. They are operated
>> > a
>> > majority of their life at a low percentage of power at low RPMs,
>> > not
>> > at a high percentage of power at high RPMs.
>> >
>> > > There are new risks I need to manage but these are reasonable.
>> > Will
>> > > this engine be more or less risky than a traditional engine
>> > I
>> > > cant say. But I will mitigate the risk reviewing each
>> > system,
>> > > identifying risks and doing what I can to mitigate each risk.
>> >
>> > How are you going to evaluate and mitigate the risks associated
>> > with
>> > the PRU and prop combo?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Pete Hudes
>> >
>> > ==========
>> >
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> > ==========
>> > _-
>> >
>> =  href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> > ==========
>> > _-
>> > =  generous support!
>> > _-
>> > = -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> >
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> > ==========
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> *
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: VP200 CU mounting? |
Jesse,
would it be possible to see some pictures of the mount?
Best Regards from Switzerland
Michael
--------
RV-10 builder (fuselage)
#511
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156405#156405
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: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
Hi Les,
I'm afraid you are missing the point. Yes, flat air cooled engines
were designed before WWII. No, the IO540 was not.
The current, dynamically counter balanced engine dates from the late
seventies/early 80s. Lets see...oh yeah, that is about when Subaru
came out with their H-4 design...which was really a water cooled
modification of the VW design, that dates back to, oh yeah, before
WWII. So, design vintage is really pretty much the same. We all
naturally defend whatever choice we make. You hear a LOT more about
Lycoming problems because there are thousands of them out there. All
the so called automotive technology, really has changed little since
1970 other than ignition and fuel delivery. I think you will find that
cylinder wall machining, piston machining, cam machining etc have
changed very little. Most of the improvement was incremental for
durability, emission control and fuel economy. Aircraft engines have
had similar improvements, you just don't hear much about them, because
they don't change the certification.
For Lycomings, very few have roller lifters. Very few have cold air
induction. Even fewer have electronic ignition. If you think it is
better, you can get Superior's investment cast cylinders. You can have
an engine shop do custom improvements, like honing the valve guides
instead of reaming. You can go with gapless rings to reduce blowby and
oil contamination. Etc. Etc. There simply is very little technology
difference beyond the electronic engine management unit. Which happens
to be one of the biggest failure modes of autos today. You would be
astounded how many ECUs get changed out in cars...whether or not they
are the real problem.
Or you can choose as you have a very proven auto engine, that has very
little experience in aircraft, with a PSRU that has even less aviation
experience. That is the beauty of experimentals...you have the right
to choose.
Then you can choose zinc chromate or epoxy primer and Continental
gold, Lyc gray or blue, Ultimate black, Mattituck red/gold, or purple
for your engine color. ;-) And as Tim said, you get to install
radiator, engine management computer and monitor those extra systems.
On Jan 6, 2008 11:16 AM, LES KEARNEY <Kearney@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Kelly
>
>
> My apologies if my characterization of the IO540 seemed "not intellectually
> honest". Ouch! I was simply trying to press the point that the basic design
> of the Lycoming is firmly rooted in the past. There have been improvements
> over the years but the fundamental design has not changed.
>
>
> At KOSH this year, one engine supplier spent 20 minutes explaining to me why
> their IO540 was better than an out of the box Lycoming IO540. It was all
> about improving lubrication and fixing problems that Lycoming could fix
> didn't want to fix because of the certification process. My club AME
> (Canadian A&P) speaks of his high replacement rate for IO540 jugs.
>
>
> I just don't see the attractiveness of these engines. They are old,
> problematic designs.
>
>
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: | Wonderful Oz-RV Family |
I just wanted to tell you folks that by purchasing the kit you get way more than
sheet metal and, composite parts, you actually become part of a wonderful community.
I spend my last two month traveling through Australia with my wife. And I took
the chance to drop some emails to RV-10 builders there and I hardly remember being
so much welcome ever before.
I want to thank Pat, Chris and John for your hospitality!!!
Take care and keep on building.
Michael (Switzerland)
www.wellenzohn.net
--------
RV-10 builder (fuselage)
#511
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156408#156408
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: | Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
I agree but Penske Yellow, not that unsafe school bus Yellow;-)
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those
who matter don't mind."
-- Dr. Suess
-------- Original Message --------
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
> > This has turned out to be another great alternative engine war. Anybody
> > care to offer opinions on the best primer to use on the outside of the
> > engine, alternative or otherwise?
>
> Yellow? ;-)
>
> -Dj
> do not archive
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: | F-1099G-l and -R |
Seems like there ought to be at least one screw in that piece holding it to
the fairing skin. My plans don't show one; they are from 4th quarter 2004
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: qb kit-front floor panels removal and gear mount |
Bill,
I had trouble not stripping out the Phillip's heads on the side panels that were
on the QB fuse -- they were really tight. I even tried the hammer impact driver
on some. The advantage of these cordless impact drivers (don't think impact
wrench, like lug nut wrenches) is that they end with the impact when they
tighten, start with impact when they loosen. You also have no torque on the wrist
like you do with the drill/screw drivers. And there's almost no chance of
messing up the head of the screw.
Keep what you've got if you're happy with it!
Later, - Lew
--------
non-pilot
crazy about building
waiting on RV-10 finishing kit
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156453#156453
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: Parker Rolo-Flair tool |
After all the suggestions, I started to gently disassemble the tool and suddenly
it started rotating correctly. Go figure. Anyway, thanks for all the help and
comments.
John
--------
#40572 QB Wings, QB Fuse arrived
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156462#156462
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: | Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
Maybe a bit more Chartreuse. :D
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.
Jesse Saint wrote:
> This has turned out to be another great alternative engine war. Anybody
> care to offer opinions on the best primer to use on the outside of the
> engine, alternative or otherwise?
Yellow? ;-)
-Dj
do not archive
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: qb kit-front floor panels removal and gear mount |
Actually, Lew, one of the parts of airplane building I like best is
collecting the tools. What's "happy with it" got to do with it! Man, if
that impact "driver" is 2% better,... Well,... I need one don't I ??? More
toys,...
Bill S :-)
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lew Gallagher
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 6:51 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: qb kit-front floor panels removal and gear mount
Bill,
I had trouble not stripping out the Phillip's heads on the side panels that
were on the QB fuse -- they were really tight. I even tried the hammer
impact driver on some. The advantage of these cordless impact drivers
(don't think impact wrench, like lug nut wrenches) is that they end with the
impact when they tighten, start with impact when they loosen. You also have
no torque on the wrist like you do with the drill/screw drivers. And
there's almost no chance of messing up the head of the screw.
Keep what you've got if you're happy with it!
Later, - Lew
--------
non-pilot
crazy about building
waiting on RV-10 finishing kit
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156453#156453
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: DRDT-2 dimpler |
Is the US Weekly in the background how you entice your wife to help you in the
workshop?
Jon Reining 40514
Wishing I had a workshop to work on the RV10...
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156472#156472
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: qb kit-front floor panels removal and gear mount |
Bill has my vote for the "Best answer seen to date" award!
I agree 100% with your logic and follow it closely ;)
Marcus
<billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Actually, Lew, one of the parts of airplane building I like best is
collecting the tools. What's "happy with it" got to do with it! Man, if
that impact "driver" is 2% better,... Well,... I need one don't I ??? More
toys,...
Bill S :-)
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lew Gallagher
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 6:51 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: qb kit-front floor panels removal and gear mount
Bill,
I had trouble not stripping out the Phillip's heads on the side panels that
were on the QB fuse -- they were really tight. I even tried the hammer
impact driver on some. The advantage of these cordless impact drivers
(don't think impact wrench, like lug nut wrenches) is that they end with the
impact when they tighten, start with impact when they loosen. You also have
no torque on the wrist like you do with the drill/screw drivers. And
there's almost no chance of messing up the head of the screw.
Keep what you've got if you're happy with it!
Later, - Lew
--------
non-pilot
crazy about building
waiting on RV-10 finishing kit
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156453#156453
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: | Wonderful Oz-RV Family |
Cross pollination within the RV-10 community worldwide is great. Thanks
for your overview of my build Mike and thank you to all of you out there
for your wonderful tips, advice, after market gadgets and heads-up
regarding the things to be on the look out for as one builds this
beautiful mammoth.
Many thanks from a warm to hot downunder.
Patrick Pulis
Adelaide, South Australia
#40299 VH-XPP
(building ailerons)
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Wellenzohn [mailto:rv-10@wellenzohn.net]
Sent: Monday, 7 January 2008 7:42 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Wonderful Oz-RV Family
--> <rv-10@wellenzohn.net>
I just wanted to tell you folks that by purchasing the kit you get way
more than sheet metal and, composite parts, you actually become part of
a wonderful community.
I spend my last two month traveling through Australia with my wife. And
I took the chance to drop some emails to RV-10 builders there and I
hardly remember being so much welcome ever before.
I want to thank Pat, Chris and John for your hospitality!!!
Take care and keep on building.
Michael (Switzerland)
www.wellenzohn.net
--------
RV-10 builder (fuselage)
#511
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156408#156408
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 |
|
| Subject: | Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
I haven't decided on a primer yet. I'm still in the process of tearing it
down so that I can alodine it.
Best Regards,
Patrick #40714 / N690CT
Do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.
This has turned out to be another great alternative engine war. Anybody
care to offer opinions on the best primer to use on the outside of the
engine, alternative or otherwise?
do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Jan 6, 2008, at 2:42 PM, LES KEARNEY wrote:
Peter
As I mntioned in my post to Kelly, I am not an engine expert / guru /
authority by any stretch. Below is an exract from Ross Farnham's website:
http://www.sdsefi.com/air7.html
Many lay people often point out that automotive engines are not designed for
continuous high output applications and will blow up when installed in an
aircraft. This view is a result of complete ignorance in my opinion and is
not supported by any credible facts. Modern automotive engines make use of
the latest advances in computer design and modeling to optimize the design
of everything from port flow, port resonance tuning, combustion chamber
characteristics, vibrational node analysis and mechanical stresses.
Machining and metallurgy technology is far superior to the old days when the
air cooled, flat engines were developed. Technology has indeed progressed on
automotive engines in the last 40 years.
Automotive engines are routinely tested during development at full power and
maximum rpm for periods of up to 1200 hours on a dynomometer. These engines
must be able to withstand whatever stresses a customer might inflict on them
such as flat out cruising on the autobahn or endurance racing, without
failure. Manufacturer's limits are conservative to guarantee longevity and
reliability. The engineering and capital investment that goes into a new
engine release dwarfs any similar development by any piston aircraft engine
manufacturer. The testing and validation methods FAR exceed those required
on piston aircraft engines. In Europe, cars are routinely cruised at speeds
(RPMs and load) 50-100% higher than what we see in North America with no ill
effects in life span. This is real world, long term hard use.
Just one example of the demonstrated real world reliability on the popular
Subaru EJ22 engine was the 1989 record set by 3 Legacy's at an Arizona test
track. These cars were run flat out for 17 days straight without failure at
an average speed of over 138 mph. Similar records have been set by Saab and
Chevrolet. How many people reading this article think that most aircraft
engines would survive at 100% takeoff power for 400 hours? Subaru now offers
the production 2.5L turbo STI rated at 300 hp, With the popularity of
showroom stock endurance racing in the last decade, we get to see just how
good the design and engineering is on modern cars. Thousands of Hondas,
Toyotas, Oldsmobiles, Chevrolets, Mitsubishis, VWs etc. are mercilessly
flogged to the rev limiter at full throttle for hundreds of hours between
rebuilds. A very small fraction of these ever suffer a serious failure.
Aircraft use does not put this kind of cyclic stress on an engine, being a
constant load, relatively low rpm situation. Most modern car engines outlast
the chassis without ever being removed. This performance can be equated into
lifespans of between 4000 and 8000 hours. Even operating at 75% of maximum
power and rpm limits, it is reasonable to expect a TBO of at least 1000
hours in aircraft use.
Cheers
Les
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Hudes <phudes@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.
>
> Les,
>
> On Jan 6, 2008, at 10:16 AM, LES KEARNEY wrote:
>
> > Hi Kelly
> >
> >
> >
> > Compare the production runs of auto engines to a/c engines.
> Auto
> > engine production runs can run into the hundreds of thousands
> in a
> > single year. Think of the QA/QC and engineering effort that
> goes
> > into these engines, the quality of the parts and the
> tolerances of
> > the manufacturing process. Hands down, I am of the opinion
> that
> > these engines will have a higher inherent reliability
> than
> > traditional engines. Keep in mind that my engine will be a
> factory
> > new engine (in fact I helped un-crate it on Thursday at
> the
> > Eggenfellenr shop). It is not a reman, it is not rebuilt, and
> it is
> > not modified
>
>
> Auto engines have been designed and tested to be operated in
> a
> different environment than aircraft engines. They are operated
> a
> majority of their life at a low percentage of power at low RPMs,
> not
> at a high percentage of power at high RPMs.
>
> > There are new risks I need to manage but these are reasonable.
> Will
> > this engine be more or less risky than a traditional engine -
> I
> > can't say. But I will mitigate the risk reviewing each
> system,
> > identifying risks and doing what I can to mitigate each risk.
>
> How are you going to evaluate and mitigate the risks associated
> with
> the PRU and prop combo?
> >
>
> Pete Hudes
>
> ==========
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com
/Navigator?RV10-List
> ==========
> _-
>
 href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> _-
> =  generous support!
> _-
> = -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contri
bution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com
/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contri
bution
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! --
|