---------------------------------------------------------- RV10-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 01/06/08: 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:57:15 AM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: Wingtip lens From: "nukeflyboy" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:22:19 AM PST US From: LES KEARNEY Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:48:43 AM PST US From: "Kelly McMullen" Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 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 > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:55:24 AM PST US From: MauleDriver Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:07:52 AM PST US From: MauleDriver Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:40:48 AM PST US From: Tim Olson 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 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 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 >> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:07:01 AM PST US From: Michael Schipper Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:44:10 AM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: qb kit-front floor panels removal and gear mount From: "Lew Gallagher" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:09:23 AM PST US From: Mark Ritter Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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
> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:21:05 AM PST US From: LES KEARNEY Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:04:08 AM PST US From: Peter Hudes 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 > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:22:20 AM PST US From: "Bill Schlatterer" Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:24:22 AM PST US From: "gary" Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:46:26 AM PST US From: LES KEARNEY Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:05:29 PM PST US From: Jesse Saint 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 > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:37:50 PM PST US From: LES KEARNEY Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:40:20 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. From: Dj Merrill 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:51:02 PM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 > 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 > >> 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 >> > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:08:56 PM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: VP200 CU mounting? From: "Michael Wellenzohn" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:10:33 PM PST US From: "Kelly McMullen" Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:13:55 PM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Wonderful Oz-RV Family From: "Michael Wellenzohn" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:35:15 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. From: "William Curtis" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:23:33 PM PST US From: "David McNeill" Subject: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:53:37 PM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: qb kit-front floor panels removal and gear mount From: "Lew Gallagher" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:33:03 PM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: Parker Rolo-Flair tool From: "johngoodman" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:34:32 PM PST US From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:11:25 PM PST US From: "Bill Schlatterer" Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:32:25 PM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: DRDT-2 dimpler From: "Jon Reining" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:06:21 PM PST US From: "Marcus Cooper" Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:19:55 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Wonderful Oz-RV Family From: "Patrick Pulis" 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 --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:47:35 PM PST US From: "Patrick ONeill" Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message rv10-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV10-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv10-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv10-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.