Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:54 AM - Re: DRDT-2 dimpler (Lew Gallagher)
2. 07:37 AM - Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus (MauleDriver)
3. 07:57 AM - Re: Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus (orchidman)
4. 10:27 AM - Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (John Jessen)
5. 11:12 AM - Re: Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus (Jeff Carpenter)
6. 12:33 PM - Re: Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus (pilotdds@aol.com)
7. 01:48 PM - Re: Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus (Phillips, Jack)
8. 03:55 PM - FW: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (John Jessen)
9. 04:57 PM - Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (Tim Olson)
10. 06:25 PM - Re: Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus (Patrick ONeill)
11. 07:05 PM - Re: Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus (Ben Westfall)
12. 07:16 PM - Re: Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus (MauleDriver)
13. 07:27 PM - Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. (Tim Olson)
14. 09:23 PM - Re: Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus (jim berry)
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: DRDT-2 dimpler |
Who'd a thunk there'd a been so much interest in a couple a laser gismo's!
Thanks for the comments.
Last evening I was experimenting in less than daylight to see what the deal with
reflection is. It appears that there's only one spot a few inches off center
on the horizontal axis that would reflect in your eye -- if you made an effort
to look at it. That's because of the angle of the mounting.
This weekend I'll try a simple hood of tape to narrow the cross hair and eliminate
that angle.
Now, off to that pesky career that gets in the way of my real job.
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=156740#156740
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: | Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus |
Well, I just signed up for the 2 day class. I just starting looking at
putting the top on and queried Dave Saylor about the class and found
out one is scheduled for the end of the month. Given all the belly
aching about the fiberglass work, I was getting a bit of indigestion.
What better cure than some training!
Have any of you attended this? Any tips?
Bill "doing misc fuse work and getting ready for fiberglass" Watson
40605
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: Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus |
I'm also going. Airline tickets purchased, suit case has been pulled out.
Maybe a year from now, airline tickets will be a thing of the past. [Laughing]
Really looking forward to meeting some more -10 builders in person.
--------
Gary Blankenbiller
RV10 - # 40674
Fuselage SB
(N410GB reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156758#156758
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: | Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
Oh, gawd help me, but I cannot stop myself. Here goes.
I wrote awhile back that I'm going to stick to Ly-Con because I didn't know
enough to know what questions to ask. Now, I know that was a somewhat
stupid statement, especially because I could find out, given my research
background, but the point was, and this verbiage below confirms it, I have
no clue when enough testing is enough, or enough failures are too many. I
am not an aeronautical or mechanical or anything engineer. The one thing I
cannot abide are statements that say almost nothing, but sound like they
have expertise. "A very small fraction of these ever suffer a serious
failure." Ok then, what's the fraction and how does that compare to the
current crop of Ly-Con's. What's a serious failure? What were the
outcomes? Did the car quit running? Did the people slam into a concrete
wall at 100 mph, because that's what an aviator would essentially do, and
whomever else was onboard, and that's why the family scenario keeps coming
up.
Putting an "experimental" engine into a four place aircraft is fine. As I
said before I'm all for moving the bar forward. I don't know what
engineering good or bad has gone into the certified Ly-Cons. I do know that
the expensive certification process has kept them from easily making these
engines more "advanced." The final testing that goes into the auto
conversions, however, is left to those who are flying them. It was the same
way when the Ly-Cons were first being put out. If the auto conversion folks
put their designs through thousands of hours of testing in conditions that
simulate what a real plane goes through, then fine. Show the data. Show the
process. If they are doing so and I'm naive in what I'm saying, fine,
correct me. But so far, the only statements I've seen are the obfuscating
statements (crap, really) that I typically put into a report when I don't
know the answer.
Why is one PSRU better than another? Why did Jan declare that everyone must
change to the new one? Stronger? How? Is the prop/PSRU combination the
issue? Was there a harmonic issuer? Was the metallurgy on the gears
better? Were the gears cracking? When you check your PSRU oil, will it
tell you that there's a hairline crack in a gear? How will the engine hold
up if you get a coolant leak? Will it stop working or get you to a safe
landing? How will you know you have a coolant leak while in flight? I am
sure that all those who are becoming Subaru test pilots for free will have
asked these and thousands of other questions and gotten very good answers.
I haven't ever seen anyone come back with a list of these questions and the
answers and posted them, but since I'm not following the postings on these
lists, maybe they have. Hope so. Now, this is not to say that every and
all Ly-Con's shouldn't be taken to task with the thousands of questions that
an auto conversion should be, with each question answered by test results.
We should all be wanting to know what's the deal. Why do Ly-Con's develop
hairline cracks in their jugs after 500 hours? Etc. We have a very large
number of very good engine build specialists out there with good knowledge
and experience and the willingness to share information (and Ly-Con will
share some test results).
I want Les to succeed. I want Jan, even though I have reservations about
the person, to succeed. I want the folks from South Africa to build the
best darn engine that has come along in a long long time. Just don't rely
on non-critical statements. If you deal with a person who won't back up
their claims with facts and thorough testing, walk away, which is what I did
with Jan. And don't subject anyone else to your test bed. And, one more
thing, make sure that when it fails, and it will, they all will, that the
manufacturer is the type that will come, take the engine back, go over it
with a fine toothed gizmo, do root cause analysis until the cows come home,
and help the NTSB determine if the fault was the engine and why, and not
just walk away and say it wasn't their fault. You've taken it upon yourself
to be their test bed, they might as well admit to that and be part of it
contractually. I know they won't, but to me, that is the reality of it and
that's why I'll go the route that seems to be working. Ly-Con's with
annuals. Annuals because I know the environment and how they are run are
going to cause problems, eventually, sometimes sooner than later, and that's
why we do annuals, not because the technology is so old or bad that we
shouldn't have to need them. We do them because when our engine quits, we
cannot pull off to the side of the road, we get to do what race car drivers
do, we get to plow into the barrier at speeds that do not usually guarantee
happy outcomes in a vehicle built out of aluminum, sans safety cage.
Les, I met you once in Oregon and have followed your comments on this list
and I've always been impressed with your care and thoroughness and
intelligence. Please help us all out as you go through this journey and
document as much as possible, especially in terms of the questions that you
have asked and the answers given. That baby is going to run smooth as silk
when you first fire it up, I'm sure. But I'd be doing an annual's worth on
it every 50 hours for the forseeable future, until you and the fleet of
similar installations are sure you have a winner. Good luck!
John Jessen
40328.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of LES KEARNEY
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.
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
>
> RV10-List Email Forum -
> _-
> = - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> _-
> = - List Contribution Web Site -
> _-
> = -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
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: Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus |
I attended the class last year... worth every penny. What you learn
about how much meat you take off the top will save you a couple of
weeks of walking around alone. The best tip I've got is to have
lunch at the little Mexican joint on Airport Blvd.
Jeff Carpenter
40304
On Jan 8, 2008, at 6:10 AM, MauleDriver wrote:
>
> Well, I just signed up for the 2 day class. I just starting
> looking at putting the top on and queried Dave Saylor about the
> class and found out one is scheduled for the end of the month.
> Given all the belly aching about the fiberglass work, I was getting
> a bit of indigestion. What better cure than some training!
>
> Have any of you attended this? Any tips?
>
> Bill "doing misc fuse work and getting ready for fiberglass" Watson
> 40605
>
>
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: Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus |
Great mexican food and competitive fuel prices.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Carpenter <jeff@westcottpress.com>
Sent: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 9:23 am
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus
?
I attended the class last year... worth every penny. What you learn about how much
meat you take off the top will save you a couple of weeks of walking around
alone. The best tip I've got is to have lunch at the little Mexican joint on
Airport Blvd.?
?
Jeff Carpenter?
40304?
?
On Jan 8, 2008, at 6:10 AM, MauleDriver wrote:?
?
>?
> Well, I just signed up for the 2 day class. I just starting > looking at putting
the top on and queried Dave Saylor about the > class and found out one is
scheduled for the end of the month. > Given all the belly aching about the fiberglass
work, I was getting > a bit of indigestion. What better cure than some
training!?
>?
> Have any of you attended this? Any tips??
>?
> Bill "doing misc fuse work and getting ready for fiberglass" Watson?
> 40605?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
?
?
?
________________________________________________________________________
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: | Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus |
Good Bill, you go and attend the class, then I can hire you as a
consultant when I'm at that stage on mine.
Jack Phillips
#40610
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of MauleDriver
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 9:11 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus
Well, I just signed up for the 2 day class. I just starting looking at
putting the top on and queried Dave Saylor about the class and found
out one is scheduled for the end of the month. Given all the belly
aching about the fiberglass work, I was getting a bit of indigestion.
What better cure than some training!
Have any of you attended this? Any tips?
Bill "doing misc fuse work and getting ready for fiberglass" Watson
40605
_________________________________________________
or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify
the sender
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - Norsk
- Portuguese
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: | Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
Someone pointed out to me that people might have mistaken my use of Ly-Con.
I meant the Lycoming / Continental engine makers and not the rebuilders.
Sorry if I didn't use this correctly.
John
_____
From: John Jessen [mailto:N212PJ@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 10:00 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.
Oh, gawd help me, but I cannot stop myself. Here goes.
I wrote awhile back that I'm going to stick to Ly-Con because I didn't know
enough to know what questions to ask. Now, I know that was a somewhat
stupid statement, especially because I could find out, given my research
background, but the point was, and this verbiage below confirms it, I have
no clue when enough testing is enough, or enough failures are too many. I
am not an aeronautical or mechanical or anything engineer. The one thing I
cannot abide are statements that say almost nothing, but sound like they
have expertise. "A very small fraction of these ever suffer a serious
failure." Ok then, what's the fraction and how does that compare to the
current crop of Ly-Con's. What's a serious failure? What were the
outcomes? Did the car quit running? Did the people slam into a concrete
wall at 100 mph, because that's what an aviator would essentially do, and
whomever else was onboard, and that's why the family scenario keeps coming
up.
Putting an "experimental" engine into a four place aircraft is fine. As I
said before I'm all for moving the bar forward. I don't know what
engineering good or bad has gone into the certified Ly-Cons. I do know that
the expensive certification process has kept them from easily making these
engines more "advanced." The final testing that goes into the auto
conversions, however, is left to those who are flying them. It was the same
way when the Ly-Cons were first being put out. If the auto conversion folks
put their designs through thousands of hours of testing in conditions that
simulate what a real plane goes through, then fine. Show the data. Show the
process. If they are doing so and I'm naive in what I'm saying, fine,
correct me. But so far, the only statements I've seen are the obfuscating
statements (crap, really) that I typically put into a report when I don't
know the answer.
Why is one PSRU better than another? Why did Jan declare that everyone must
change to the new one? Stronger? How? Is the prop/PSRU combination the
issue? Was there a harmonic issuer? Was the metallurgy on the gears
better? Were the gears cracking? When you check your PSRU oil, will it
tell you that there's a hairline crack in a gear? How will the engine hold
up if you get a coolant leak? Will it stop working or get you to a safe
landing? How will you know you have a coolant leak while in flight? I am
sure that all those who are becoming Subaru test pilots for free will have
asked these and thousands of other questions and gotten very good answers.
I haven't ever seen anyone come back with a list of these questions and the
answers and posted them, but since I'm not following the postings on these
lists, maybe they have. Hope so. Now, this is not to say that every and
all Ly-Con's shouldn't be taken to task with the thousands of questions that
an auto conversion should be, with each question answered by test results.
We should all be wanting to know what's the deal. Why do Ly-Con's develop
hairline cracks in their jugs after 500 hours? Etc. We have a very large
number of very good engine build specialists out there with good knowledge
and experience and the willingness to share information (and Ly-Con will
share some test results).
I want Les to succeed. I want Jan, even though I have reservations about
the person, to succeed. I want the folks from South Africa to build the
best darn engine that has come along in a long long time. Just don't rely
on non-critical statements. If you deal with a person who won't back up
their claims with facts and thorough testing, walk away, which is what I did
with Jan. And don't subject anyone else to your test bed. And, one more
thing, make sure that when it fails, and it will, they all will, that the
manufacturer is the type that will come, take the engine back, go over it
with a fine toothed gizmo, do root cause analysis until the cows come home,
and help the NTSB determine if the fault was the engine and why, and not
just walk away and say it wasn't their fault. You've taken it upon yourself
to be their test bed, they might as well admit to that and be part of it
contractually. I know they won't, but to me, that is the reality of it and
that's why I'll go the route that seems to be working. Ly-Con's with
annuals. Annuals because I know the environment and how they are run are
going to cause problems, eventually, sometimes sooner than later, and that's
why we do annuals, not because the technology is so old or bad that we
shouldn't have to need them. We do them because when our engine quits, we
cannot pull off to the side of the road, we get to do what race car drivers
do, we get to plow into the barrier at speeds that do not usually guarantee
happy outcomes in a vehicle built out of aluminum, sans safety cage.
Les, I met you once in Oregon and have followed your comments on this list
and I've always been impressed with your care and thoroughness and
intelligence. Please help us all out as you go through this journey and
document as much as possible, especially in terms of the questions that you
have asked and the answers given. That baby is going to run smooth as silk
when you first fire it up, I'm sure. But I'd be doing an annual's worth on
it every 50 hours for the forseeable future, until you and the fleet of
similar installations are sure you have a winner. Good luck!
John Jessen
40328.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of LES KEARNEY
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.
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
>
> RV10-List Email Forum -
> _-
> = - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> _-
> = - List Contribution Web Site -
> _-
> = -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
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: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
John,
That was one of the most well written statements I've read
in a long time on that subject.
Keep in mind that statistics give meaning when you can
determine probabilities, and overall quantities are an
important part of that. With 100 flying Lycomings, if we
had 2 fail, we'd have 2% failure rate, right? But, consider
that the Subaru or other conversions are currently less
than 1% of the installed base of Lycomings (in RV-10's).
That means that, down the road a while as an example,
you may know 10 people who have Lycoming failures, and
perhaps 2 who have had alternative engine failures, you
really need to look at the data pool that the numbers come
from then. If we have 1000 lycomings, and 10 fail, that's 1%.
If we have 1/100th the number of Alternatives, (i.e. 10)
and we have 2 fail, then the failure rate is 20%. But, to
the public, they'll hear lots more bitching on the newsgroup
from the Lycoming crowd....simply because that's where the
larger NUMBER of failures is. From the looks of it,
even once the alternatives get flying in more quantities,
they're going to be less than 5 or 10% of the total RV-10
fleet. So, the failure rates have the possibility to
be many times larger for every failure.
Also, it's just plain not right to consider the statistical
failure rate of AUTO engines in AUTOS as the basis for
what the failure rate will be in aircraft. You absolutely
need to be operating the engines in the airframe to
get anything meaningful to go on.
That means that today, we have very very little statistical
data on the alternatives, and even in number of hours flown,
there are many many times less hours being put on them.
So, a single failure or two is very significant. One of
the large concerns I have is also that those with the
alternatives will tend to be tight-lipped about their
failures...which is understandable, but it just means that
nobody can determine the actual reliability.
Related to the question about PRSU reliability, and why
the new one is being *required*..... If they had only 2 or
3 failures, think about what that means as a portion of the
total. And then think about what that would mean if you
scaled that percentage up to the same overall quantities
as the number of lycomings flying. 2 or 3 PRSU failures
could mean 2000, or even 10,000 failures in Lycoming
quantities. Over time, there will be a trend, but until
the same unit gets lots of time on it, we'll never know.
That's the other sad thing about the alternatives. For
instance, the Subie being sold in 2008 is NOT the same as
the ones sold in 2007. So, how are people to determine
the long term reliability?
Still, it's a builders prerogative to choose their engine,
and I'm glad we have the option. The real hope is that
the alternatives can build on a design that they find
to work well, and put lots of operational time on it so
that some day it can become a larger and larger share of
the overall market. Given some high reliabilities, I
would think that many engines could be great choices, but
for today, that choice is for those who are willing to
accept a much greater share of uncertainty.
I'm also uncertain if my engine, or my engine operational
styles are going to cause me any grief down the road, but
at least there's a pretty good pool of operational data
that we can look at to give a general feel of the outlook.
Tim
John Jessen wrote:
> Oh, gawd help me, but I cannot stop myself. Here goes.
>
> I wrote awhile back that I'm going to stick to Ly-Con because I didn't
> know enough to know what questions to ask. Now, I know that was a
> somewhat stupid statement, especially because I could find out, given my
> research background, but the point was, and this verbiage below confirms
> it, I have no clue when enough testing is enough, or enough failures are
> too many. I am not an aeronautical or mechanical or anything engineer.
> The one thing I cannot abide are statements that say almost nothing, but
> sound like they have expertise. "/A very small fraction of these ever
> suffer a serious failure." /Ok then, what's the fraction and how does
> that compare to the current crop of Ly-Con's. What's a serious
> failure? What were the outcomes? Did the car quit running? Did the
> people slam into a concrete wall at 100 mph, because that's what an
> aviator would essentially do, and whomever else was onboard, and that's
> why the family scenario keeps coming up.
>
> Putting an "experimental" engine into a four place aircraft is fine. As
> I said before I'm all for moving the bar forward. I don't know what
> engineering good or bad has gone into the certified Ly-Cons. I do know
> that the expensive certification process has kept them from easily
> making these engines more "advanced." The final testing that goes into
> the auto conversions, however, is left to those who are flying them. It
> was the same way when the Ly-Cons were first being put out. If the auto
> conversion folks put their designs through thousands of hours of testing
> in conditions that simulate what a real plane goes through, then fine.
> Show the data. Show the process. If they are doing so and I'm naive in
> what I'm saying, fine, correct me. But so far, the only statements I've
> seen are the obfuscating statements (crap, really) that I typically put
> into a report when I don't know the answer.
>
> Why is one PSRU better than another? Why did Jan declare that everyone
> must change to the new one? Stronger? How? Is the prop/PSRU
> combination the issue? Was there a harmonic issuer? Was the metallurgy
> on the gears better? Were the gears cracking? When you check your PSRU
> oil, will it tell you that there's a hairline crack in a gear? How will
> the engine hold up if you get a coolant leak? Will it stop working or
> get you to a safe landing? How will you know you have a coolant leak
> while in flight? I am sure that all those who are becoming Subaru test
> pilots for free will have asked these and thousands of other questions
> and gotten very good answers. I haven't ever seen anyone come back with
> a list of these questions and the answers and posted them, but since I'm
> not following the postings on these lists, maybe they have. Hope so.
> Now, this is not to say that every and all Ly-Con's shouldn't be taken
> to task with the thousands of questions that an auto conversion should
> be, with each question answered by test results. We should all be
> wanting to know what's the deal. Why do Ly-Con's develop hairline
> cracks in their jugs after 500 hours? Etc. We have a very large number
> of very good engine build specialists out there with good knowledge and
> experience and the willingness to share information (and Ly-Con will
> share some test results).
>
> I want Les to succeed. I want Jan, even though I have reservations
> about the person, to succeed. I want the folks from South Africa to
> build the best darn engine that has come along in a long long time.
> Just don't rely on non-critical statements. If you deal with a person
> who won't back up their claims with facts and thorough testing, walk
> away, which is what I did with Jan. And don't subject anyone else to
> your test bed. And, one more thing, make sure that when it fails, and
> it will, they all will, that the manufacturer is the type that will
> come, take the engine back, go over it with a fine toothed gizmo, do
> root cause analysis until the cows come home, and help the NTSB
> determine if the fault was the engine and why, and not just walk away
> and say it wasn't their fault. You've taken it upon yourself to be
> their test bed, they might as well admit to that and be part of it
> contractually. I know they won't, but to me, that is the reality of it
> and that's why I'll go the route that seems to be working. Ly-Con's
> with annuals. Annuals because I know the environment and how they are
> run are going to cause problems, eventually, sometimes sooner than
> later, and that's why we do annuals, not because the technology is so
> old or bad that we shouldn't have to need them. We do them because when
> our engine quits, we cannot pull off to the side of the road, we get to
> do what race car drivers do, we get to plow into the barrier at speeds
> that do not usually guarantee happy outcomes in a vehicle built out of
> aluminum, sans safety cage.
>
> Les, I met you once in Oregon and have followed your comments on this
> list and I've always been impressed with your care and thoroughness and
> intelligence. Please help us all out as you go through this journey and
> document as much as possible, especially in terms of the questions that
> you have asked and the answers given. That baby is going to run smooth
> as silk when you first fire it up, I'm sure. But I'd be doing an
> annual's worth on it every 50 hours for the forseeable future, until you
> and the fleet of similar installations are sure you have a winner. Good
> luck!
>
> John Jessen
> 40328.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *LES KEARNEY
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:42 AM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed.
>
> 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
> > > 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 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: | Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus |
I haven't attended before, but will be attending this one. I'm happy to hear
some other list members are going. I'm looking forward to putting some more
faces to the names.
I've done quite a bit of glass work on boats, but all the trimming and
finishing for an aircraft has been giving me a bit of pause. Especially
with all the good things I hear about it. I'll be fitting the top in a month
or two so the class timing was about perfect for me.
Best Regards,
Patrick #40715 / N690CT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of MauleDriver
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:11 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus
Well, I just signed up for the 2 day class. I just starting looking at
putting the top on and queried Dave Saylor about the class and found
out one is scheduled for the end of the month. Given all the belly
aching about the fiberglass work, I was getting a bit of indigestion.
What better cure than some training!
Have any of you attended this? Any tips?
Bill "doing misc fuse work and getting ready for fiberglass" Watson
40605
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: | Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus |
I'm attending as well and look forward to meeting all of you.
I do have to say the best tip I've gotten though would be to farm out the
fiberglass!!!
Sure wish I wasn't flying in on Southwest Airlines for this one too.
-Ben Westfall
#40579 PDX
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of MauleDriver
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:11 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus
Well, I just signed up for the 2 day class. I just starting looking at
putting the top on and queried Dave Saylor about the class and found
out one is scheduled for the end of the month. Given all the belly
aching about the fiberglass work, I was getting a bit of indigestion.
What better cure than some training!
Have any of you attended this? Any tips?
Bill "doing misc fuse work and getting ready for fiberglass" Watson
40605
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: Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus |
That's what I like to hear. I just put the top on for the first time
and did a lot of walking around. A little experienced help and
guidance will go a long way. I've played with fiberglass a bit over the
years but only as a hacker. Adding a little technique and craft will be
nice.
...this Mexican food thing is worrying me a bit though
Bill
Jeff Carpenter wrote:
>
> I attended the class last year... worth every penny. What you learn
> about how much meat you take off the top will save you a couple of
> weeks of walking around alone. The best tip I've got is to have lunch
> at the little Mexican joint on Airport Blvd.
>
> Jeff Carpenter
> 40304
>
>
> On Jan 8, 2008, at 6:10 AM, MauleDriver wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, I just signed up for the 2 day class. I just starting looking
>> at putting the top on and queried Dave Saylor about the class and
>> found out one is scheduled for the end of the month. Given all the
>> belly aching about the fiberglass work, I was getting a bit of
>> indigestion. What better cure than some training!
>>
>> Have any of you attended this? Any tips?
>>
>> Bill "doing misc fuse work and getting ready for fiberglass" Watson
>> 40605
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Re: Kitplane's article, Ly-Con's case closed. |
John,
That was a well-thought post.
Keep in mind that statistics give meaning when you can
determine probabilities, and overall quantities are an
important part of that. With 100 flying Lycomings, if we
had 2 fail, we'd have 2% failure rate, right? But, consider
that the Subaru or other conversions are currently less
than 1% of the installed base of Lycomings (in RV-10's).
That means that, down the road a while as an example,
you may know 10 people who have Lycoming failures, and
perhaps 2 who have had alternative engine failures, you
really need to look at the data pool that the numbers come
from then. If we have 1000 lycomings, and 10 fail, that's 1%.
If we have 1/100th the number of Alternatives, (i.e. 10)
and we have 2 fail, then the failure rate is 20%. But, to
the public, they'll hear lots more bitching on the newsgroup
from the Lycoming crowd....simply because that's where the
larger NUMBER of failures is. From the looks of it,
even once the alternatives get flying in more quantities,
they're going to be less than 5 or 10% of the total RV-10
fleet. So, the failure rates have the possibility to
be many times larger for every failure.
Also, it's just plain not right to consider the statistical
failure rate of AUTO engines in AUTOS as the basis for
what the failure rate will be in aircraft. You absolutely
need to be operating the engines in the airframe to
get anything meaningful to go on.
That means that today, we have very very little statistical
data on the alternatives, and even in number of hours flown,
there are many many times less hours being put on them.
So, a single failure or two is very significant. One of
the large concerns I have is also that those with the
alternatives will tend to be tight-lipped about their
failures...which is understandable, but it just means that
nobody can determine the actual reliability.
Related to the question about PRSU reliability, and why
the new one is being *required*..... If they had only 2 or
3 failures, think about what that means as a portion of the
total. And then think about what that would mean if you
scaled that percentage up to the same overall quantities
as the number of lycomings flying. 2 or 3 PRSU failures
could mean 2000, or even 10,000 failures in Lycoming
quantities. Over time, there will be a trend, but until
the same unit gets lots of time on it, we'll never know.
That's the other sad thing about the alternatives. For
instance, the Subie being sold in 2008 is NOT the same as
the ones sold in 2007. So, how are people to determine
the long term reliability?
Still, it's a builders prerogative to choose their engine,
and I'm glad we have the option. The real hope is that
the alternatives can build on a design that they find
to work well, and put lots of operational time on it so
that some day it can become a larger and larger share of
the overall market. Given some high reliabilities, I
would think that many engines could be great choices, but
for today, that choice is for those who are willing to
accept a much greater share of uncertainty.
I'm also uncertain if my engine, or my engine operational
styles are going to cause me any grief down the road, but
at least there's a pretty good pool of operational data
that we can look at to give a general feel of the outlook.
Tim
John Jessen wrote:
> Oh, gawd help me, but I cannot stop myself. Here goes.
>
> I wrote awhile back that I'm going to stick to Ly-Con because I didn't
> know enough to know what questions to ask. Now, I know that was a
> somewhat stupid statement, especially because I could find out, given my
> research background, but the point was, and this verbiage below confirms
> it, I have no clue when enough testing is enough, or enough failures are
> too many. I am not an aeronautical or mechanical or anything engineer.
> The one thing I cannot abide are statements that say almost nothing, but
> sound like they have expertise. "/A very small fraction of these ever
> suffer a serious failure." /Ok then, what's the fraction and how does
> that compare to the current crop of Ly-Con's. What's a serious
> failure? What were the outcomes? Did the car quit running? Did the
> people slam into a concrete wall at 100 mph, because that's what an
> aviator would essentially do, and whomever else was onboard, and that's
> why the family scenario keeps coming up.
>
> Putting an "experimental" engine into a four place aircraft is fine. As
> I said before I'm all for moving the bar forward. I don't know what
> engineering good or bad has gone into the certified Ly-Cons. I do know
> that the expensive certification process has kept them from easily
> making these engines more "advanced." The final testing that goes into
> the auto conversions, however, is left to those who are flying them. It
> was the same way when the Ly-Cons were first being put out. If the auto
> conversion folks put their designs through thousands of hours of testing
> in conditions that simulate what a real plane goes through, then fine.
> Show the data. Show the process. If they are doing so and I'm naive in
> what I'm saying, fine, correct me. But so far, the only statements I've
> seen are the obfuscating statements (crap, really) that I typically put
> into a report when I don't know the answer.
>
> Why is one PSRU better than another? Why did Jan declare that everyone
> must change to the new one? Stronger? How? Is the prop/PSRU
> combination the issue? Was there a harmonic issuer? Was the metallurgy
> on the gears better? Were the gears cracking? When you check your PSRU
> oil, will it tell you that there's a hairline crack in a gear? How will
> the engine hold up if you get a coolant leak? Will it stop working or
> get you to a safe landing? How will you know you have a coolant leak
> while in flight? I am sure that all those who are becoming Subaru test
> pilots for free will have asked these and thousands of other questions
> and gotten very good answers. I haven't ever seen anyone come back with
> a list of these questions and the answers and posted them, but since I'm
> not following the postings on these lists, maybe they have. Hope so.
> Now, this is not to say that every and all Ly-Con's shouldn't be taken
> to task with the thousands of questions that an auto conversion should
> be, with each question answered by test results. We should all be
> wanting to know what's the deal. Why do Ly-Con's develop hairline
> cracks in their jugs after 500 hours? Etc. We have a very large number
> of very good engine build specialists out there with good knowledge and
> experience and the willingness to share information (and Ly-Con will
> share some test results).
>
> I want Les to succeed. I want Jan, even though I have reservations
> about the person, to succeed. I want the folks from South Africa to
> build the best darn engine that has come along in a long long time.
> Just don't rely on non-critical statements. If you deal with a person
> who won't back up their claims with facts and thorough testing, walk
> away, which is what I did with Jan. And don't subject anyone else to
> your test bed. And, one more thing, make sure that when it fails, and
> it will, they all will, that the manufacturer is the type that will
> come, take the engine back, go over it with a fine toothed gizmo, do
> root cause analysis until the cows come home, and help the NTSB
> determine if the fault was the engine and why, and not just walk away
> and say it wasn't their fault. You've taken it upon yourself to be
> their test bed, they might as well admit to that and be part of it
> contractually. I know they won't, but to me, that is the reality of it
> and that's why I'll go the route that seems to be working. Ly-Con's
> with annuals. Annuals because I know the environment and how they are
> run are going to cause problems, eventually, sometimes sooner than
> later, and that's why we do annuals, not because the technology is so
> old or bad that we shouldn't have to need them. We do them because when
> our engine quits, we cannot pull off to the side of the road, we get to
> do what race car drivers do, we get to plow into the barrier at speeds
> that do not usually guarantee happy outcomes in a vehicle built out of
> aluminum, sans safety cage.
>
> Les, I met you once in Oregon and have followed your comments on this
> list and I've always been impressed with your care and thoroughness and
> intelligence. Please help us all out as you go through this journey and
> document as much as possible, especially in terms of the questions that
> you have asked and the answers given. That baby is going to run smooth
> as silk when you first fire it up, I'm sure. But I'd be doing an
> annual's worth on it every 50 hours for the forseeable future, until you
> and the fleet of similar installations are sure you have a winner. Good
> luck!
>
> John Jessen
> 40328.
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: Fiberglass class in Watsonville with RV10 focus |
I attended last year's class with Jeff and will second his comments. I had just
spent 2 weeks gradually trimming my cabin top to fit before leaving for Dave's
workshop. They showed us how to do the job in 2-3 hours, plus lots of other
good stuff. Well worth your time and money.
Jim Berry
40482
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156855#156855
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! --
|