Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:45 AM - Re: (Rick Sked)
2. 08:24 AM - Re: ()
3. 08:24 AM - Re: (Kelly McMullen)
4. 08:53 AM - Re: (David McNeill)
5. 09:19 AM - Spins in a -10? (Chad E. Carlson)
6. 10:23 AM - Re: (Gerry Filby)
7. 11:40 AM - Re: (William Curtis)
8. 11:45 AM - Re: 2 Vs 3 blade (Chris W)
9. 12:13 PM - Re: (Rick Sked)
10. 12:23 PM - Re: 2 Vs 3 blade (lessdragprod@aol.com)
11. 12:26 PM - geared drive LS 1 engine (mark vultaggio)
12. 12:50 PM - Re: (Gerry Filby)
13. 01:39 PM - Re: (Tim Olson)
14. 02:23 PM - 27 April... (Scott)
15. 02:25 PM - Re: (David McNeill)
16. 04:42 PM - Section 40 Question - Flaps (Les Kearney)
17. 05:07 PM - Re: Section 40 Question - Flaps (linn Walters)
18. 05:23 PM - Re: Spins in a -10? (JSMcGrew@aol.com)
19. 05:29 PM - Re: Section 40 Question - Flaps (Rick Sked)
20. 05:31 PM - Re: Section 40 Question - Flaps (Lew Gallagher)
21. 05:47 PM - Re: (David Maib)
22. 05:58 PM - Re: Section 40 Question - Flaps (Rene)
23. 06:16 PM - Re: Spins in a -10? (Marcus Cooper)
24. 06:52 PM - Re: Spins in a -10? (Jesse Saint)
25. 08:05 PM - Re: (Kelly McMullen)
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: : RV10-List: |
If you go with a purge valve there is a return line that can be run in seve
ral different ways. Mine runs back into the fuselage and tees off at the ri
ght tank oulet, no modificatin to the tank but do the line while your plumb
ing the brakes. The line has a check valve installed so the fuel can only g
o back to the tee and then into the tank. Procedure is to switch to the lef
t tank, open the purge valve and run the boost pump. Cool fuel runs from th
e left tank and into the purge valve then into the right tank. Cools the sp
ider to prevent vapor lock. The purge valve is also used to shut down the e
ngine instead of pulling the mixture. It shuts the fule off the the injecto
r lines. I used a throttle control cable on mine and a return spring on the
control arm incase the cable fails it will hold the arm in the closed posi
tion. I think the valve should be treated as a critical control on the airc
raft so no lawn mower pulls for me.
Rick Sked
40185
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Britton" <william@gbta.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 9:19:34 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles
Subject: Re: RV10-List:
Does anyone know if the fuel tanks would have to have return lines plumbed
into them as on the egg subie???=C2- I'm not to the engine part yet and p
robably wont be for some time but the tanks are nearing and if I would deci
de to go the auto-conversion route with an engine I would prefer to not hav
e to modify the tanks on an already built wing!!!
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List:
Mark,
I don't know much about the LS1, but I did go to the forum that Bud put on
at Sun-N-Fun. =C2-I was just curious. =C2-Bud or some friend may be on
this list, so this is not meant to be offensive in any way. =C2-
My first impression is the man. =C2-He seems to know a fair bit about eng
ines, and since he is the one that makes the PSRU, he must be very knowledg
eable. =C2-I don't care if he isn't an engineer. =C2-The thing that bot
hered me is that he was making comments and borderline making fun of some o
f the questions asked in the forum. =C2-If I'm trying to sell someone som
ething, I don't treat them like they are stupid when they ask a question.
=C2-The way I saw it, he did that a number of times during the forum, whi
ch I did not like at all.
As far as performance, he said he has tested the engine up to 15,500 and th
en made a comment something like, "but nobody flies a normally aspirated en
gine up that high," insinuating that it has been tested as high as anybody
will want to take it. =C2-It has been mentioned a number of times on this
list that people have gone well above 18,000 to either get over weather or
to test the service ceiling. =C2-While I don't recommend flying over 18,
000 feet for a number of reasons, I regularly recommend that people fly as
high as 18,000 because of economy. =C2-While the LS1 will likely handle t
hat altitude well, is has not been tested.
The next thing that didn't seem to add up much was that he kept mentioning
that it is a 350HP engine. =C2-As I asked further, I found that it can ma
ke that HP at high RPM, while still below redline on the engine, but they n
ever turn it above 3900 rpm. =C2-In this case you are never over somethin
g like 270HP if I remember correctly. =C2-Why does he keep saying that it
can make 350HP when they never take it over 270? =C2-I don't know, and 2
70HP is plenty of power for this plane. =C2-It is likely that even though
you don't take full power at takeoff and low climb, you may be able to mak
e more power at altitude since the engine is capable of more, but I don't k
now, since you are still not turning it faster. =C2-Someone a lot smarter
than me will have to address that. =C2-I'm just sharing observations.
After the forum I actually went by and saw the engine. =C2-It was impress
ive. =C2-It really looked good, and I was very impressed that their PSRU
has a prop governor pad so you can use a standard governor and constant spe
ed prop, and don't have to go with an electric prop. =C2-I really did lik
e that. =C2-The centrifugal clutch is an interesting concept, engaging th
e prop at around 700rpm. =C2-When asked in the forum what happens if it d
isengages in flight, he simply said that it wasn't possible for that to hap
pen.
It appeared to fit within what looked like a standard cowl, maybe not needi
ng the lower air intake hole, but it has not flown yet in a -10, so there a
re no numbers. =C2-It will take a pioneer to actually test it in that res
pect. =C2-The firewall forward is developed, so that should take out a li
ttle of the guesswork, and Bud has taken the time to make it fit and to get
the nose gear system incorporated, so it seems like it is further along th
an the Subaru was when Dan started working with Jan years ago.
So, this is just my impression based on going to the forum and seeing the e
ngine run at idle. =C2-I don't know anything else about it or about Bud.
do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Apr 26, 2008, at 2:24 PM, mark vultaggio wrote:
I posted a question to the wrong list yesterday regarding the Geared Drive
system being offered with a corvette LS 1 engine by Bud Warren.=C2- It wa
s on display at Sun n Fun and seems interesting.=C2- Interested in any co
mments by those=C2- with any experience.=C2- Look at the product at =C2
- http://www.geareddrives.com/
Mark http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.mat
ronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution">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.mat
ronics.com/c
4/25/2008 2:31 PM
====
=======================
==
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 |
|
Bill
This is one issue where you can get the best of both. Simply put the return
line in, and the if you decide to go Lycoming, you simply cap the line and
go fly. This is much easier than trying to retrofit the line if you decide
later to go Subie.
Steve Mills N750SM (reserved)
RV-10 40486 Slow-build Eggenfellner E-6TI
Naperville, Illinois
Finishing kit, engine install
Do Not Archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Britton
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List:
Does anyone know if the fuel tanks would have to have return lines plumbed
into them as on the egg subie??? I'm not to the engine part yet and
probably wont be for some time but the tanks are nearing and if I would
decide to go the auto-conversion route with an engine I would prefer to not
have to modify the tanks on an already built wing!!!
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com> Saint
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List:
Mark,
I don't know much about the LS1, but I did go to the forum that Bud put on
at Sun-N-Fun. I was just curious. Bud or some friend may be on this list,
so this is not meant to be offensive in any way.
My first impression is the man. He seems to know a fair bit about engines,
and since he is the one that makes the PSRU, he must be very knowledgeable.
I don't care if he isn't an engineer. The thing that bothered me is that he
was making comments and borderline making fun of some of the questions asked
in the forum. If I'm trying to sell someone something, I don't treat them
like they are stupid when they ask a question. The way I saw it, he did
that a number of times during the forum, which I did not like at all.
As far as performance, he said he has tested the engine up to 15,500 and
then made a comment something like, "but nobody flies a normally aspirated
engine up that high," insinuating that it has been tested as high as anybody
will want to take it. It has been mentioned a number of times on this list
that people have gone well above 18,000 to either get over weather or to
test the service ceiling. While I don't recommend flying over 18,000 feet
for a number of reasons, I regularly recommend that people fly as high as
18,000 because of economy. While the LS1 will likely handle that altitude
well, is has not been tested.
The next thing that didn't seem to add up much was that he kept mentioning
that it is a 350HP engine. As I asked further, I found that it can make
that HP at high RPM, while still below redline on the engine, but they never
turn it above 3900 rpm. In this case you are never over something like
270HP if I remember correctly. Why does he keep saying that it can make
350HP when they never take it over 270? I don't know, and 270HP is plenty
of power for this plane. It is likely that even though you don't take full
power at takeoff and low climb, you may be able to make more power at
altitude since the engine is capable of more, but I don't know, since you
are still not turning it faster. Someone a lot smarter than me will have to
address that. I'm just sharing observations.
After the forum I actually went by and saw the engine. It was impressive.
It really looked good, and I was very impressed that their PSRU has a prop
governor pad so you can use a standard governor and constant speed prop, and
don't have to go with an electric prop. I really did like that. The
centrifugal clutch is an interesting concept, engaging the prop at around
700rpm. When asked in the forum what happens if it disengages in flight, he
simply said that it wasn't possible for that to happen.
It appeared to fit within what looked like a standard cowl, maybe not
needing the lower air intake hole, but it has not flown yet in a -10, so
there are no numbers. It will take a pioneer to actually test it in that
respect. The firewall forward is developed, so that should take out a
little of the guesswork, and Bud has taken the time to make it fit and to
get the nose gear system incorporated, so it seems like it is further along
than the Subaru was when Dan started working with Jan years ago.
So, this is just my impression based on going to the forum and seeing the
engine run at idle. I don't know anything else about it or about Bud.
do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Apr 26, 2008, at 2:24 PM, mark vultaggio wrote:
I posted a question to the wrong list yesterday regarding the Geared Drive
system being offered with a corvette LS 1 engine by Bud Warren. It was on
display at Sun n Fun and seems interesting. Interested in any comments by
those with any experience. Look at the product at
http://www.geareddrives.com/
Mark
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
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/c
_____
4/25/2008 2:31 PM
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: : RV10-List: |
I alway wonder about the concerns for vapor lock and hot starts that
apparently is the justification for return lines. I've been flying an
IO-360 in my Mooney for 10 years now, and never had more than minor
inconvenience on hot starts if I screw up a bit. It should be just as
prone to those problems as any RV, with tight cowling and stock RSA
Bendix/Precision fuel injection. That includes flying through the
summer each of those years in Aridzona. I just can't see the benefit
for adding that complexity and potential additional failure points.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Rick Sked <ricksked@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> If you go with a purge valve there is a return line that can be run in
> several different ways. Mine runs back into the fuselage and tees off at the
> right tank oulet, no modificatin to the tank but do the line while your
> plumbing the brakes. The line has a check valve installed so the fuel can
> only go back to the tee and then into the tank. Procedure is to switch to
> the left tank, open the purge valve and run the boost pump. Cool fuel runs
> from the left tank and into the purge valve then into the right tank. Cools
> the spider to prevent vapor lock. The purge valve is also used to shut down
> the engine instead of pulling the mixture. It shuts the fule off the the
> injector lines. I used a throttle control cable on mine and a return spring
> on the control arm incase the cable fails it will hold the arm in the closed
> position. I think the valve should be treated as a critical control on the
> aircraft so no lawn mower pulls for me.
>
> Rick Sked
>
> 40185
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Britton" <william@gbta.net>
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 9:19:34 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles
> Subject: Re: RV10-List:
>
>
> Does anyone know if the fuel tanks would have to have return lines plumbed
> into them as on the egg subie??? I'm not to the engine part yet and
> probably wont be for some time but the tanks are nearing and if I would
> decide to go the auto-conversion route with an engine I would prefer to not
> have to modify the tanks on an already built wing!!!
>
> Bill
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jesse Saint
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List:
>
> Mark,
>
>
> I don't know much about the LS1, but I did go to the forum that Bud put on
> at Sun-N-Fun. I was just curious. Bud or some friend may be on this list,
> so this is not meant to be offensive in any way.
>
>
> My first impression is the man. He seems to know a fair bit about engines,
> and since he is the one that makes the PSRU, he must be very knowledgeable.
> I don't care if he isn't an engineer. The thing that bothered me is that he
> was making comments and borderline making fun of some of the questions asked
> in the forum. If I'm trying to sell someone something, I don't treat them
> like they are stupid when they ask a question. The way I saw it, he did
> that a number of times during the forum, which I did not like at all.
>
>
> As far as performance, he said he has tested the engine up to 15,500 and
> then made a comment something like, "but nobody flies a normally aspirated
> engine up that high," insinuating that it has been tested as high as anybody
> will want to take it. It has been mentioned a number of times on this list
> that people have gone well above 18,000 to either get over weather or to
> test the service ceiling. While I don't recommend flying over 18,000 feet
> for a number of reasons, I regularly recommend that people fly as high as
> 18,000 because of economy. While the LS1 will likely handle that altitude
> well, is has not been tested.
>
>
> The next thing that didn't seem to add up much was that he kept mentioning
> that it is a 350HP engine. As I asked further, I found that it can make
> that HP at high RPM, while still below redline on the engine, but they never
> turn it above 3900 rpm. In this case you are never over something like
> 270HP if I remember correctly. Why does he keep saying that it can make
> 350HP when they never take it over 270? I don't know, and 270HP is plenty
> of power for this plane. It is likely that even though you don't take full
> power at takeoff and low climb, you may be able to make more power at
> altitude since the engine is capable of more, but I don't know, since you
> are still not turning it faster. Someone a lot smarter than me will have to
> address that. I'm just sharing observations.
>
>
> After the forum I actually went by and saw the engine. It was impressive.
> It really looked good, and I was very impressed that their PSRU has a prop
> governor pad so you can use a standard governor and constant speed prop, and
> don't have to go with an electric prop. I really did like that. The
> centrifugal clutch is an interesting concept, engaging the prop at around
> 700rpm. When asked in the forum what happens if it disengages in flight, he
> simply said that it wasn't possible for that to happen.
>
>
> It appeared to fit within what looked like a standard cowl, maybe not
> needing the lower air intake hole, but it has not flown yet in a -10, so
> there are no numbers. It will take a pioneer to actually test it in that
> respect. The firewall forward is developed, so that should take out a
> little of the guesswork, and Bud has taken the time to make it fit and to
> get the nose gear system incorporated, so it seems like it is further along
> than the Subaru was when Dan started working with Jan years ago.
>
>
> So, this is just my impression based on going to the forum and seeing the
> engine run at idle. I don't know anything else about it or about Bud.
>
>
> do not archive
>
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
>
> On Apr 26, 2008, at 2:24 PM, mark vultaggio wrote:
>
>
> I posted a question to the wrong list yesterday regarding the Geared Drive
> system being offered with a corvette LS 1 engine by Bud Warren. It was on
> display at Sun n Fun and seems interesting. Interested in any comments by
> those with any experience. Look at the product at
> http://www.geareddrives.com/
>
> Markhttp://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
>
>
> 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/c
>
>
> ________________________________
> 4/25/2008 2:31 PM
>
>
> get=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> p://forums.matronics.com
> blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
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 |
|
So far hot starts have not been a problem. I have just cracked the throttle,
prop forward and mixture at idle cutoff. Start crankning and advance the
mixture and it starts instantly.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List:
I alway wonder about the concerns for vapor lock and hot starts that
apparently is the justification for return lines. I've been flying an IO-360
in my Mooney for 10 years now, and never had more than minor inconvenience
on hot starts if I screw up a bit. It should be just as prone to those
problems as any RV, with tight cowling and stock RSA Bendix/Precision fuel
injection. That includes flying through the summer each of those years in
Aridzona. I just can't see the benefit for adding that complexity and
potential additional failure points.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Rick Sked <ricksked@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> If you go with a purge valve there is a return line that can be run in
> several different ways. Mine runs back into the fuselage and tees off
> at the right tank oulet, no modificatin to the tank but do the line
> while your plumbing the brakes. The line has a check valve installed
> so the fuel can only go back to the tee and then into the tank.
> Procedure is to switch to the left tank, open the purge valve and run
> the boost pump. Cool fuel runs from the left tank and into the purge
> valve then into the right tank. Cools the spider to prevent vapor
> lock. The purge valve is also used to shut down the engine instead of
> pulling the mixture. It shuts the fule off the the injector lines. I
> used a throttle control cable on mine and a return spring on the
> control arm incase the cable fails it will hold the arm in the closed
> position. I think the valve should be treated as a critical control on the
aircraft so no lawn mower pulls for me.
>
> Rick Sked
>
> 40185
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Britton" <william@gbta.net>
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 9:19:34 PM (GMT-0800)
> America/Los_Angeles
> Subject: Re: RV10-List:
>
>
> Does anyone know if the fuel tanks would have to have return lines
> plumbed into them as on the egg subie??? I'm not to the engine part
> yet and probably wont be for some time but the tanks are nearing and
> if I would decide to go the auto-conversion route with an engine I
> would prefer to not have to modify the tanks on an already built wing!!!
>
> Bill
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jesse Saint
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List:
>
> Mark,
>
>
> I don't know much about the LS1, but I did go to the forum that Bud
> put on at Sun-N-Fun. I was just curious. Bud or some friend may be
> on this list, so this is not meant to be offensive in any way.
>
>
> My first impression is the man. He seems to know a fair bit about
> engines, and since he is the one that makes the PSRU, he must be very
knowledgeable.
> I don't care if he isn't an engineer. The thing that bothered me is
> that he was making comments and borderline making fun of some of the
> questions asked in the forum. If I'm trying to sell someone
> something, I don't treat them like they are stupid when they ask a
> question. The way I saw it, he did that a number of times during the
forum, which I did not like at all.
>
>
> As far as performance, he said he has tested the engine up to 15,500
> and then made a comment something like, "but nobody flies a normally
> aspirated engine up that high," insinuating that it has been tested as
> high as anybody will want to take it. It has been mentioned a number
> of times on this list that people have gone well above 18,000 to
> either get over weather or to test the service ceiling. While I don't
> recommend flying over 18,000 feet for a number of reasons, I regularly
> recommend that people fly as high as 18,000 because of economy. While
> the LS1 will likely handle that altitude well, is has not been tested.
>
>
> The next thing that didn't seem to add up much was that he kept
> mentioning that it is a 350HP engine. As I asked further, I found
> that it can make that HP at high RPM, while still below redline on the
> engine, but they never turn it above 3900 rpm. In this case you are
> never over something like 270HP if I remember correctly. Why does he
> keep saying that it can make 350HP when they never take it over 270?
> I don't know, and 270HP is plenty of power for this plane. It is
> likely that even though you don't take full power at takeoff and low
> climb, you may be able to make more power at altitude since the engine
> is capable of more, but I don't know, since you are still not turning
> it faster. Someone a lot smarter than me will have to address that. I'm
just sharing observations.
>
>
> After the forum I actually went by and saw the engine. It was impressive.
> It really looked good, and I was very impressed that their PSRU has a
> prop governor pad so you can use a standard governor and constant
> speed prop, and don't have to go with an electric prop. I really did
> like that. The centrifugal clutch is an interesting concept, engaging
> the prop at around 700rpm. When asked in the forum what happens if it
> disengages in flight, he simply said that it wasn't possible for that to
happen.
>
>
> It appeared to fit within what looked like a standard cowl, maybe not
> needing the lower air intake hole, but it has not flown yet in a -10,
> so there are no numbers. It will take a pioneer to actually test it
> in that respect. The firewall forward is developed, so that should
> take out a little of the guesswork, and Bud has taken the time to make
> it fit and to get the nose gear system incorporated, so it seems like
> it is further along than the Subaru was when Dan started working with Jan
years ago.
>
>
> So, this is just my impression based on going to the forum and seeing
> the engine run at idle. I don't know anything else about it or about Bud.
>
>
> do not archive
>
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
>
> On Apr 26, 2008, at 2:24 PM, mark vultaggio wrote:
>
>
> I posted a question to the wrong list yesterday regarding the Geared
> Drive system being offered with a corvette LS 1 engine by Bud Warren.
> It was on display at Sun n Fun and seems interesting. Interested in
> any comments by those with any experience. Look at the product at
> http://www.geareddrives.com/
>
> Markhttp://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
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matroni
> cs.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
> c
>
>
> ________________________________
> 4/25/2008 2:31 PM
>
>
> get=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> p://forums.matronics.com
> blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
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 |
|
Hi All,
I read and watch this list with interest and envy. I am not a builder
(yet), but I do have a plan in motion and intend to building an RV-10 in
the summer or fall of 2009. I thank you all for the informative thoughts
and ideas I have had the pleasure of observing!!! My "to-do," "wish,"
and "check this/that/the other thing" lists are getting quite lengthy.
:-)
In all of my reading and research, I have not been able to determine if:
a.) the RV-10 is safely spinnable
b.) anyone has compiled details of its spin characteristics (providing
the answer to a. is yes)
I know the -10, along with the -9(A) are not intended or designed for
aerobatics, but this does not address the spin question to my
satisfaction. For example, Cessna 1[578]2 aircraft are not built for
aerobatics (15[02] Aerobat being the exception), but they are certified
to spin.
The ability / inability to spin has absolutely no bearing on my decision
to build a -10; in fact, I am asking out of little more than morbid
curiosity.
Thank you in advance for any additional info and/or thoughts on the
subject.
Chad E. Carlson
Eastern Daylight Time ( UTC -4 )
"Pilots may be temporarily uncertain of their position, but they are
never lost."
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Perry, Phil
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:55 PM
Subject: RV10-List: RE: LS1
Hi Mark,
I'm not a big fan of alternative engines, but the LS1 (combined with
fuel prices) has opened my eyes.
I'm still not sure if I'll put the LS1 in there or not, but I do know
I'll at least consider it.
Bud and I are members of the same EAA chapter (302). He's a great
resource.
Like I said, I'm still undecided. But there is a lot to like about
the LS1 price, packaging, and options.
Phil
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: mark vultaggio [mailto:mvultaggio@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 1:25 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List:
I posted a question to the wrong list yesterday regarding the Geared
Drive system being offered with a corvette LS 1 engine by Bud Warren.
It was on display at Sun n Fun and seems interesting. Interested in any
comments by those with any experience. Look at the product at
http://www.geareddrives.com/
Mark
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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 |
|
Have to disagree with you there. Yesterday when returning to KHAF in my
RV-9 I had to pull up and shutdown after landing to pull a barrier across
the taxiway to one side (it's the annual "Dream Machines" event where the
county turns the field into an obstacle course for pilots). I could hear
the fuel gurgling under the cowl. After about 10 minutes I jumped back in
and cranked and cranked and cranked - nothing - the fuel had boiled off in
the heat soaked cowl. AFP fuel purge to the rescue ! I pulled the purge
valve and ran the boost pump for about 30 seconds - ignition on, crank,
close purge valve and she fired right up.
As for complexity - I don't see the argument. There's one valve which is
open from startup to shutdown - what's the failure mode ? If its going to
fail it will be on the ground when you are operating the valve at startup or
shutdown.
I've flown the Bendix ignition and the AFP I currently have installed on my
9. My RV-10 will be fitted with the AFP return valve, that's for sure.
g
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List:
I alway wonder about the concerns for vapor lock and hot starts that
apparently is the justification for return lines. I've been flying an IO-360
in my Mooney for 10 years now, and never had more than minor inconvenience
on hot starts if I screw up a bit. It should be just as prone to those
problems as any RV, with tight cowling and stock RSA Bendix/Precision fuel
injection. That includes flying through the summer each of those years in
Aridzona. I just can't see the benefit for adding that complexity and
potential additional failure points.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Rick Sked <ricksked@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> If you go with a purge valve there is a return line that can be run in
> several different ways. Mine runs back into the fuselage and tees off
> at the right tank oulet, no modificatin to the tank but do the line
> while your plumbing the brakes. The line has a check valve installed
> so the fuel can only go back to the tee and then into the tank.
> Procedure is to switch to the left tank, open the purge valve and run
> the boost pump. Cool fuel runs from the left tank and into the purge
> valve then into the right tank. Cools the spider to prevent vapor
> lock. The purge valve is also used to shut down the engine instead of
> pulling the mixture. It shuts the fule off the the injector lines. I
> used a throttle control cable on mine and a return spring on the
> control arm incase the cable fails it will hold the arm in the closed
> position. I think the valve should be treated as a critical control on the
aircraft so no lawn mower pulls for me.
>
> Rick Sked
>
> 40185
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Britton" <william@gbta.net>
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 9:19:34 PM (GMT-0800)
> America/Los_Angeles
> Subject: Re: RV10-List:
>
>
> Does anyone know if the fuel tanks would have to have return lines
> plumbed into them as on the egg subie??? I'm not to the engine part
> yet and probably wont be for some time but the tanks are nearing and
> if I would decide to go the auto-conversion route with an engine I
> would prefer to not have to modify the tanks on an already built wing!!!
>
> Bill
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jesse Saint
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List:
>
> Mark,
>
>
> I don't know much about the LS1, but I did go to the forum that Bud
> put on at Sun-N-Fun. I was just curious. Bud or some friend may be
> on this list, so this is not meant to be offensive in any way.
>
>
> My first impression is the man. He seems to know a fair bit about
> engines, and since he is the one that makes the PSRU, he must be very
knowledgeable.
> I don't care if he isn't an engineer. The thing that bothered me is
> that he was making comments and borderline making fun of some of the
> questions asked in the forum. If I'm trying to sell someone
> something, I don't treat them like they are stupid when they ask a
> question. The way I saw it, he did that a number of times during the
forum, which I did not like at all.
>
>
> As far as performance, he said he has tested the engine up to 15,500
> and then made a comment something like, "but nobody flies a normally
> aspirated engine up that high," insinuating that it has been tested as
> high as anybody will want to take it. It has been mentioned a number
> of times on this list that people have gone well above 18,000 to
> either get over weather or to test the service ceiling. While I don't
> recommend flying over 18,000 feet for a number of reasons, I regularly
> recommend that people fly as high as 18,000 because of economy. While
> the LS1 will likely handle that altitude well, is has not been tested.
>
>
> The next thing that didn't seem to add up much was that he kept
> mentioning that it is a 350HP engine. As I asked further, I found
> that it can make that HP at high RPM, while still below redline on the
> engine, but they never turn it above 3900 rpm. In this case you are
> never over something like 270HP if I remember correctly. Why does he
> keep saying that it can make 350HP when they never take it over 270?
> I don't know, and 270HP is plenty of power for this plane. It is
> likely that even though you don't take full power at takeoff and low
> climb, you may be able to make more power at altitude since the engine
> is capable of more, but I don't know, since you are still not turning
> it faster. Someone a lot smarter than me will have to address that. I'm
just sharing observations.
>
>
> After the forum I actually went by and saw the engine. It was impressive.
> It really looked good, and I was very impressed that their PSRU has a
> prop governor pad so you can use a standard governor and constant
> speed prop, and don't have to go with an electric prop. I really did
> like that. The centrifugal clutch is an interesting concept, engaging
> the prop at around 700rpm. When asked in the forum what happens if it
> disengages in flight, he simply said that it wasn't possible for that to
happen.
>
>
> It appeared to fit within what looked like a standard cowl, maybe not
> needing the lower air intake hole, but it has not flown yet in a -10,
> so there are no numbers. It will take a pioneer to actually test it
> in that respect. The firewall forward is developed, so that should
> take out a little of the guesswork, and Bud has taken the time to make
> it fit and to get the nose gear system incorporated, so it seems like
> it is further along than the Subaru was when Dan started working with Jan
years ago.
>
>
> So, this is just my impression based on going to the forum and seeing
> the engine run at idle. I don't know anything else about it or about Bud.
>
>
> do not archive
>
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
>
> On Apr 26, 2008, at 2:24 PM, mark vultaggio wrote:
>
>
> I posted a question to the wrong list yesterday regarding the Geared
> Drive system being offered with a corvette LS 1 engine by Bud Warren.
> It was on display at Sun n Fun and seems interesting. Interested in
> any comments by those with any experience. Look at the product at
> http://www.geareddrives.com/
>
> Markhttp://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
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matroni
> cs.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
> c
>
>
> ________________________________
> 4/25/2008 2:31 PM
>
>
> get=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> p://forums.matronics.com
> blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
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 |
|
So that begs the question. If you had a standard Bendix type fuel injection system
on that Lycoming, would you have had that same "fuel gurgling" and "hot start
problem?"
With the AFP system, there is more fuel "above" the engine in the bigger fuel spider
and purge valve than the standard Bendix/Precision type fuel system.
A lot of folks that are adamant about the installation of purge valves use "improved
hot starts" as a justification. I fly behind a Lycoming angle valve IO-360
with a Bendix fuel injection and hot starts are a non-issue even on the hottest
days. If you have a Lycoming engine with a Bendix type fuel system and have
a "hot start" issue, then the "technique" needs to be worked on. For me it
is, no prime, mixture to ICO, throttle 1/4 and just crank the engine. Engine ALWAYS
starts in 2-3 blades.
There have been a few aircraft brought down because the builder/operators have
failed to safety wire the stop on the purge valve.
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7280/dsc00248yu1.jpg
This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences. In an effort to try
to avoid one problem, an additional --more severe problem is introduced.
Some related information:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=14998&
William
http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
-------- Original Message --------
> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>
>
> Have to disagree with you there. Yesterday when returning to KHAF in my
> RV-9 I had to pull up and shutdown after landing to pull a barrier across
> the taxiway to one side (it's the annual "Dream Machines" event where the
> county turns the field into an obstacle course for pilots). I could hear
> the fuel gurgling under the cowl. After about 10 minutes I jumped back in
> and cranked and cranked and cranked - nothing - the fuel had boiled off in
> the heat soaked cowl. AFP fuel purge to the rescue ! I pulled the purge
> valve and ran the boost pump for about 30 seconds - ignition on, crank,
> close purge valve and she fired right up.
>
> As for complexity - I don't see the argument. There's one valve which is
> open from startup to shutdown - what's the failure mode ? If its going to
> fail it will be on the ground when you are operating the valve at startup or
> shutdown.
>
> I've flown the Bendix ignition and the AFP I currently have installed on my
> 9. My RV-10 will be fitted with the AFP return valve, that's for sure.
>
> g
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:21 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List:
>
>
> I alway wonder about the concerns for vapor lock and hot starts that
> apparently is the justification for return lines. I've been flying an IO-360
> in my Mooney for 10 years now, and never had more than minor inconvenience
> on hot starts if I screw up a bit. It should be just as prone to those
> problems as any RV, with tight cowling and stock RSA Bendix/Precision fuel
> injection. That includes flying through the summer each of those years in
> Aridzona. I just can't see the benefit for adding that complexity and
> potential additional failure points.
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Rick Sked <ricksked@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > If you go with a purge valve there is a return line that can be run in
> > several different ways. Mine runs back into the fuselage and tees off
> > at the right tank oulet, no modificatin to the tank but do the line
> > while your plumbing the brakes. The line has a check valve installed
> > so the fuel can only go back to the tee and then into the tank.
> > Procedure is to switch to the left tank, open the purge valve and run
> > the boost pump. Cool fuel runs from the left tank and into the purge
> > valve then into the right tank. Cools the spider to prevent vapor
> > lock. The purge valve is also used to shut down the engine instead of
> > pulling the mixture. It shuts the fule off the the injector lines. I
> > used a throttle control cable on mine and a return spring on the
> > control arm incase the cable fails it will hold the arm in the closed
> > position. I think the valve should be treated as a critical control on the
> aircraft so no lawn mower pulls for me.
> >
> > Rick Sked
> >
> > 40185
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "William Britton" <william@gbta.net>
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> >
> > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 9:19:34 PM (GMT-0800)
> > America/Los_Angeles
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Does anyone know if the fuel tanks would have to have return lines
> > plumbed into them as on the egg subie??? I'm not to the engine part
> > yet and probably wont be for some time but the tanks are nearing and
> > if I would decide to go the auto-conversion route with an engine I
> > would prefer to not have to modify the tanks on an already built wing!!!
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jesse Saint
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List:
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> >
> > I don't know much about the LS1, but I did go to the forum that Bud
> > put on at Sun-N-Fun. I was just curious. Bud or some friend may be
> > on this list, so this is not meant to be offensive in any way.
> >
> >
> > My first impression is the man. He seems to know a fair bit about
> > engines, and since he is the one that makes the PSRU, he must be very
> knowledgeable.
> > I don't care if he isn't an engineer. The thing that bothered me is
> > that he was making comments and borderline making fun of some of the
> > questions asked in the forum. If I'm trying to sell someone
> > something, I don't treat them like they are stupid when they ask a
> > question. The way I saw it, he did that a number of times during the
> forum, which I did not like at all.
> >
> >
> > As far as performance, he said he has tested the engine up to 15,500
> > and then made a comment something like, "but nobody flies a normally
> > aspirated engine up that high," insinuating that it has been tested as
> > high as anybody will want to take it. It has been mentioned a number
> > of times on this list that people have gone well above 18,000 to
> > either get over weather or to test the service ceiling. While I don't
> > recommend flying over 18,000 feet for a number of reasons, I regularly
> > recommend that people fly as high as 18,000 because of economy. While
> > the LS1 will likely handle that altitude well, is has not been tested.
> >
> >
> > The next thing that didn't seem to add up much was that he kept
> > mentioning that it is a 350HP engine. As I asked further, I found
> > that it can make that HP at high RPM, while still below redline on the
> > engine, but they never turn it above 3900 rpm. In this case you are
> > never over something like 270HP if I remember correctly. Why does he
> > keep saying that it can make 350HP when they never take it over 270?
> > I don't know, and 270HP is plenty of power for this plane. It is
> > likely that even though you don't take full power at takeoff and low
> > climb, you may be able to make more power at altitude since the engine
> > is capable of more, but I don't know, since you are still not turning
> > it faster. Someone a lot smarter than me will have to address that. I'm
> just sharing observations.
> >
> >
> > After the forum I actually went by and saw the engine. It was impressive.
> > It really looked good, and I was very impressed that their PSRU has a
> > prop governor pad so you can use a standard governor and constant
> > speed prop, and don't have to go with an electric prop. I really did
> > like that. The centrifugal clutch is an interesting concept, engaging
> > the prop at around 700rpm. When asked in the forum what happens if it
> > disengages in flight, he simply said that it wasn't possible for that to
> happen.
> >
> >
> > It appeared to fit within what looked like a standard cowl, maybe not
> > needing the lower air intake hole, but it has not flown yet in a -10,
> > so there are no numbers. It will take a pioneer to actually test it
> > in that respect. The firewall forward is developed, so that should
> > take out a little of the guesswork, and Bud has taken the time to make
> > it fit and to get the nose gear system incorporated, so it seems like
> > it is further along than the Subaru was when Dan started working with Jan
> years ago.
> >
> >
> > So, this is just my impression based on going to the forum and seeing
> > the engine run at idle. I don't know anything else about it or about Bud.
> >
> >
> > do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jesse Saint
> > Saint Aviation, Inc.
> > jesse@saintaviation.com
> > Cell: 352-427-0285
> > Fax: 815-377-3694
> >
> >
> > On Apr 26, 2008, at 2:24 PM, mark vultaggio wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I posted a question to the wrong list yesterday regarding the Geared
> > Drive system being offered with a corvette LS 1 engine by Bud Warren.
> > It was on display at Sun n Fun and seems interesting. Interested in
> > any comments by those with any experience. Look at the product at
> > http://www.geareddrives.com/
> >
> > Markhttp://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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matroni
> > cs.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
> > c
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > 4/25/2008 2:31 PM
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 Vs 3 blade |
linn Walters wrote:
> I tried the archives but no joy. Is there any side-by-side in-the-air
> data available on the 2 or 3 blade props??? I seem to recall some
> comments about efficiency ..... but don't recall the facts (if there
> are any) or which way the discussion went.
>
I can't site the source but it is from a report done by NASA that
determined that a perfect 3 blade is "slightly" less efficient than a
perfect 2 blade. However in practice, other variables, such as engine,
airframe, altitude, cruise speed, etc, will have more of an effect than
the theoretical difference in efficiency between a 2 and 3 blade prop.
With all the variables beyond our control it is very difficult to
determine what prop would work the best for any given situation by
comparing various reports from various builders. What I would really
like to see is Van's (or anybody else for that matter) build 2 identical
planes. Do side by side flight tests to see how close they are in the
air for a base line. Then start testing various changes in side by side
tests. Seems to me that is the best way to get data that is very useful.
do not archive
--
Chris W
KE5GIX
"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"
Ham Radio Repeater Database.
http://hrrdb.com
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: : RV10-List: |
Willaim,
I agree totally!! Technique is the best method but in a pinch...purge away, I live
in Las Vegas...bit warm here in the summer...and...well, It came with my AFP
system so instead of putting it in a baggie and sit it on the shelf...I used
it. I do agree that it is an additional risk factor, but if installed properly,inspected
and maintained it is as much risk as using nylocks on control surfaces...I
still have not accepted that with open arms yet....but how many have
failed? I never heard of one, so lets crank it up a notch...how many of you are
reusing them over and over on the build? I have a set I use for mock up only,
final assembly will get all new ones.
Rick Sked
40185
Polishing the baffels
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Curtis" <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 11:50:48 AM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles
Subject: RE: RV10-List:
So that begs the question. If you had a standard Bendix type fuel injection system
on that Lycoming, would you have had that same "fuel gurgling" and "hot start
problem?"
With the AFP system, there is more fuel "above" the engine in the bigger fuel spider
and purge valve than the standard Bendix/Precision type fuel system.
A lot of folks that are adamant about the installation of purge valves use "improved
hot starts" as a justification. I fly behind a Lycoming angle valve IO-360
with a Bendix fuel injection and hot starts are a non-issue even on the hottest
days. If you have a Lycoming engine with a Bendix type fuel system and have
a "hot start" issue, then the "technique" needs to be worked on. For me it
is, no prime, mixture to ICO, throttle 1/4 and just crank the engine. Engine ALWAYS
starts in 2-3 blades.
There have been a few aircraft brought down because the builder/operators have
failed to safety wire the stop on the purge valve.
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7280/dsc00248yu1.jpg
This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences. In an effort to try
to avoid one problem, an additional --more severe problem is introduced.
Some related information:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=14998&
William
http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
-------- Original Message --------
> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>
>
> Have to disagree with you there. Yesterday when returning to KHAF in my
> RV-9 I had to pull up and shutdown after landing to pull a barrier across
> the taxiway to one side (it's the annual "Dream Machines" event where the
> county turns the field into an obstacle course for pilots). I could hear
> the fuel gurgling under the cowl. After about 10 minutes I jumped back in
> and cranked and cranked and cranked - nothing - the fuel had boiled off in
> the heat soaked cowl. AFP fuel purge to the rescue ! I pulled the purge
> valve and ran the boost pump for about 30 seconds - ignition on, crank,
> close purge valve and she fired right up.
>
> As for complexity - I don't see the argument. There's one valve which is
> open from startup to shutdown - what's the failure mode ? If its going to
> fail it will be on the ground when you are operating the valve at startup or
> shutdown.
>
> I've flown the Bendix ignition and the AFP I currently have installed on my
> 9. My RV-10 will be fitted with the AFP return valve, that's for sure.
>
> g
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:21 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List:
>
>
> I alway wonder about the concerns for vapor lock and hot starts that
> apparently is the justification for return lines. I've been flying an IO-360
> in my Mooney for 10 years now, and never had more than minor inconvenience
> on hot starts if I screw up a bit. It should be just as prone to those
> problems as any RV, with tight cowling and stock RSA Bendix/Precision fuel
> injection. That includes flying through the summer each of those years in
> Aridzona. I just can't see the benefit for adding that complexity and
> potential additional failure points.
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Rick Sked <ricksked@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > If you go with a purge valve there is a return line that can be run in
> > several different ways. Mine runs back into the fuselage and tees off
> > at the right tank oulet, no modificatin to the tank but do the line
> > while your plumbing the brakes. The line has a check valve installed
> > so the fuel can only go back to the tee and then into the tank.
> > Procedure is to switch to the left tank, open the purge valve and run
> > the boost pump. Cool fuel runs from the left tank and into the purge
> > valve then into the right tank. Cools the spider to prevent vapor
> > lock. The purge valve is also used to shut down the engine instead of
> > pulling the mixture. It shuts the fule off the the injector lines. I
> > used a throttle control cable on mine and a return spring on the
> > control arm incase the cable fails it will hold the arm in the closed
> > position. I think the valve should be treated as a critical control on the
> aircraft so no lawn mower pulls for me.
> >
> > Rick Sked
> >
> > 40185
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "William Britton" <william@gbta.net>
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> >
> > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 9:19:34 PM (GMT-0800)
> > America/Los_Angeles
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Does anyone know if the fuel tanks would have to have return lines
> > plumbed into them as on the egg subie??? I'm not to the engine part
> > yet and probably wont be for some time but the tanks are nearing and
> > if I would decide to go the auto-conversion route with an engine I
> > would prefer to not have to modify the tanks on an already built wing!!!
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jesse Saint
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List:
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> >
> > I don't know much about the LS1, but I did go to the forum that Bud
> > put on at Sun-N-Fun. I was just curious. Bud or some friend may be
> > on this list, so this is not meant to be offensive in any way.
> >
> >
> > My first impression is the man. He seems to know a fair bit about
> > engines, and since he is the one that makes the PSRU, he must be very
> knowledgeable.
> > I don't care if he isn't an engineer. The thing that bothered me is
> > that he was making comments and borderline making fun of some of the
> > questions asked in the forum. If I'm trying to sell someone
> > something, I don't treat them like they are stupid when they ask a
> > question. The way I saw it, he did that a number of times during the
> forum, which I did not like at all.
> >
> >
> > As far as performance, he said he has tested the engine up to 15,500
> > and then made a comment something like, "but nobody flies a normally
> > aspirated engine up that high," insinuating that it has been tested as
> > high as anybody will want to take it. It has been mentioned a number
> > of times on this list that people have gone well above 18,000 to
> > either get over weather or to test the service ceiling. While I don't
> > recommend flying over 18,000 feet for a number of reasons, I regularly
> > recommend that people fly as high as 18,000 because of economy. While
> > the LS1 will likely handle that altitude well, is has not been tested.
> >
> >
> > The next thing that didn't seem to add up much was that he kept
> > mentioning that it is a 350HP engine. As I asked further, I found
> > that it can make that HP at high RPM, while still below redline on the
> > engine, but they never turn it above 3900 rpm. In this case you are
> > never over something like 270HP if I remember correctly. Why does he
> > keep saying that it can make 350HP when they never take it over 270?
> > I don't know, and 270HP is plenty of power for this plane. It is
> > likely that even though you don't take full power at takeoff and low
> > climb, you may be able to make more power at altitude since the engine
> > is capable of more, but I don't know, since you are still not turning
> > it faster. Someone a lot smarter than me will have to address that. I'm
> just sharing observations.
> >
> >
> > After the forum I actually went by and saw the engine. It was impressive.
> > It really looked good, and I was very impressed that their PSRU has a
> > prop governor pad so you can use a standard governor and constant
> > speed prop, and don't have to go with an electric prop. I really did
> > like that. The centrifugal clutch is an interesting concept, engaging
> > the prop at around 700rpm. When asked in the forum what happens if it
> > disengages in flight, he simply said that it wasn't possible for that to
> happen.
> >
> >
> > It appeared to fit within what looked like a standard cowl, maybe not
> > needing the lower air intake hole, but it has not flown yet in a -10,
> > so there are no numbers. It will take a pioneer to actually test it
> > in that respect. The firewall forward is developed, so that should
> > take out a little of the guesswork, and Bud has taken the time to make
> > it fit and to get the nose gear system incorporated, so it seems like
> > it is further along than the Subaru was when Dan started working with Jan
> years ago.
> >
> >
> > So, this is just my impression based on going to the forum and seeing
> > the engine run at idle. I don't know anything else about it or about Bud.
> >
> >
> > do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jesse Saint
> > Saint Aviation, Inc.
> > jesse@saintaviation.com
> > Cell: 352-427-0285
> > Fax: 815-377-3694
> >
> >
> > On Apr 26, 2008, at 2:24 PM, mark vultaggio wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I posted a question to the wrong list yesterday regarding the Geared
> > Drive system being offered with a corvette LS 1 engine by Bud Warren.
> > It was on display at Sun n Fun and seems interesting. Interested in
> > any comments by those with any experience. Look at the product at
> > http://www.geareddrives.com/
> >
> > Markhttp://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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matroni
> > cs.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
> > c
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > 4/25/2008 2:31 PM
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 Vs 3 blade |
Why build two RV-10s?? When we could fly two different propellers on the same RV-10.
IMHO, it will take more time to get the?flight test data than it will?take to change
the propellers.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris W <3edcft6@cox.net>
Sent: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:40 am
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 2 Vs 3 blade
?
linn Walters wrote:?
> I tried the archives but no joy. Is there any side-by-side in-the-air > data
available on the 2 or 3 blade props??? I seem to recall some > comments about
efficiency ..... but don't recall the facts (if there > are any) or which way
the discussion went.?
>?
?
I can't site the source but it is from a report done by NASA that determined that
a perfect 3 blade is "slightly" less efficient than a perfect 2 blade. However
in practice, other variables, such as engine, airframe, altitude, cruise speed,
etc, will have more of an effect than the theoretical difference in efficiency
between a 2 and 3 blade prop. With all the variables beyond our control
it is very difficult to determine what prop would work the best for any given
situation by comparing various reports from various builders. What I would really
like to see is Van's (or anybody else for that matter) build 2 identical
planes. Do side by side flight tests to see how close they are in the air for
a base line. Then start testing various changes in side by side tests. Seems to
me that is the best way to get data that is very useful.?
?
do not archive?
?
-- Chris W?
KE5GIX?
?
"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM, learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"?
?
Ham Radio Repeater Database.?
http://hrrdb.com?
?
?
?
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: | geared drive LS 1 engine |
Jesse,
Thanks for the comments. I spoke with Bud at length at Sun n Fun and
have some of the same sentiments as you. He is obviously a smart man
and very experienced. I have known many people who are very confident
to the point of cockiness. For some individuals, frustration,
repetition and some level of genius often do not make for good
salesmanship.
My "problem" with the whole project is represented that there are no
weak links or problems associated with the combination. I have been
around long enough to know that all things in life come with trade offs.
I have no problem dealing with potential weaknesses but would like to
know what they are up front. When questions were asked they seemed to
be partially answered and partially dismissed . I hope it is because
the product is truly that good and the number of weak links are few.
Time will tell.
Several people asked bud about rebuilds, time intervals and costs. At
approximately 5700.00 for a new crate engine, I would be inclined to run
it for a reasonable time (whatever that proves to be) and then just sell
the old engine to some hot rodder and buy a new one and get the piece of
mind of another new unit. I wish I was technically competent with
regard to aviation engines to know if the combination of the LS 1 engine
and his drive unit and clutch eliminate the balance, harmonic,
crankshaft loading issues that are present with aircraft. Certainly the
money spent on designing and testing the LS 1 engine for automotive use
was significant and the motor has proven itself for its original
intended use. The package fits nicely in the -10 cowl (with minor mod)
and the heating and air conditioning possibilities are nice bonuses.
Limiting the power to Vans rec's would be easy enough if there was data
available for the proper settings of the throttle. I wonder how
"waterproof" the electronics are in the a/c environment and what could
be done to add the necessary redundancies to put these up in the air
safely. I should have paid more attention in school.... I am a fan of
what Bud has done and very much want him to be a success. He is
impressive with all of his racing and aviation knowledge and I wish I
lived closer to Texas to keep tabs on his program
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 |
|
Like I said I've flown behind both, for my money the purge valve is a great
addition to the engine.
I'm not adamant about the installation - take it or leave it as suits your
application. I really like having it on my plane.
I've heard the "risk factor / point of failure" arguments before, but
they're not generally supported with a description of a incident that
illustrates. What is the failure mode in flight that will threaten one's
safety ?
Totally agree with you about good technique as applied to a system where its
appropriate/needed. The AFP system doesn't need the technique. One less
thing to fuss over ...
g
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 11:51 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List:
So that begs the question. If you had a standard Bendix type fuel injection
system on that Lycoming, would you have had that same "fuel gurgling" and
"hot start problem?"
With the AFP system, there is more fuel "above" the engine in the bigger
fuel spider and purge valve than the standard Bendix/Precision type fuel
system.
A lot of folks that are adamant about the installation of purge valves use
"improved hot starts" as a justification. I fly behind a Lycoming angle
valve IO-360 with a Bendix fuel injection and hot starts are a non-issue
even on the hottest days. If you have a Lycoming engine with a Bendix type
fuel system and have a "hot start" issue, then the "technique" needs to be
worked on. For me it is, no prime, mixture to ICO, throttle 1/4 and just
crank the engine. Engine ALWAYS starts in 2-3 blades.
There have been a few aircraft brought down because the builder/operators
have failed to safety wire the stop on the purge valve.
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7280/dsc00248yu1.jpg
This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences. In an effort
to try to avoid one problem, an additional --more severe problem is
introduced.
Some related information:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=14998&
William
http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
-------- Original Message --------
> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>
>
> Have to disagree with you there. Yesterday when returning to KHAF in
> my
> RV-9 I had to pull up and shutdown after landing to pull a barrier
> across the taxiway to one side (it's the annual "Dream Machines" event
> where the county turns the field into an obstacle course for pilots).
> I could hear the fuel gurgling under the cowl. After about 10 minutes
> I jumped back in and cranked and cranked and cranked - nothing - the
> fuel had boiled off in the heat soaked cowl. AFP fuel purge to the
> rescue ! I pulled the purge valve and ran the boost pump for about 30
> seconds - ignition on, crank, close purge valve and she fired right up.
>
> As for complexity - I don't see the argument. There's one valve which
> is open from startup to shutdown - what's the failure mode ? If its
> going to fail it will be on the ground when you are operating the
> valve at startup or shutdown.
>
> I've flown the Bendix ignition and the AFP I currently have installed
> on my 9. My RV-10 will be fitted with the AFP return valve, that's for
sure.
>
> g
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
> McMullen
> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:21 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List:
>
>
> I alway wonder about the concerns for vapor lock and hot starts that
> apparently is the justification for return lines. I've been flying an
> IO-360 in my Mooney for 10 years now, and never had more than minor
> inconvenience on hot starts if I screw up a bit. It should be just as
> prone to those problems as any RV, with tight cowling and stock RSA
> Bendix/Precision fuel injection. That includes flying through the
> summer each of those years in Aridzona. I just can't see the benefit
> for adding that complexity and potential additional failure points.
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Rick Sked <ricksked@embarqmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > If you go with a purge valve there is a return line that can be run
> > in several different ways. Mine runs back into the fuselage and tees
> > off at the right tank oulet, no modificatin to the tank but do the
> > line while your plumbing the brakes. The line has a check valve
> > installed so the fuel can only go back to the tee and then into the
tank.
> > Procedure is to switch to the left tank, open the purge valve and
> > run the boost pump. Cool fuel runs from the left tank and into the
> > purge valve then into the right tank. Cools the spider to prevent
> > vapor lock. The purge valve is also used to shut down the engine
> > instead of pulling the mixture. It shuts the fule off the the
> > injector lines. I used a throttle control cable on mine and a return
> > spring on the control arm incase the cable fails it will hold the
> > arm in the closed position. I think the valve should be treated as a
> > critical control on the
> aircraft so no lawn mower pulls for me.
> >
> > Rick Sked
> >
> > 40185
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "William Britton" <william@gbta.net>
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> >
> > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 9:19:34 PM (GMT-0800)
> > America/Los_Angeles
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Does anyone know if the fuel tanks would have to have return lines
> > plumbed into them as on the egg subie??? I'm not to the engine part
> > yet and probably wont be for some time but the tanks are nearing and
> > if I would decide to go the auto-conversion route with an engine I
> > would prefer to not have to modify the tanks on an already built wing!!!
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jesse Saint
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List:
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> >
> > I don't know much about the LS1, but I did go to the forum that Bud
> > put on at Sun-N-Fun. I was just curious. Bud or some friend may be
> > on this list, so this is not meant to be offensive in any way.
> >
> >
> > My first impression is the man. He seems to know a fair bit about
> > engines, and since he is the one that makes the PSRU, he must be
> > very
> knowledgeable.
> > I don't care if he isn't an engineer. The thing that bothered me is
> > that he was making comments and borderline making fun of some of the
> > questions asked in the forum. If I'm trying to sell someone
> > something, I don't treat them like they are stupid when they ask a
> > question. The way I saw it, he did that a number of times during
> > the
> forum, which I did not like at all.
> >
> >
> > As far as performance, he said he has tested the engine up to 15,500
> > and then made a comment something like, "but nobody flies a normally
> > aspirated engine up that high," insinuating that it has been tested
> > as high as anybody will want to take it. It has been mentioned a
> > number of times on this list that people have gone well above 18,000
> > to either get over weather or to test the service ceiling. While I
> > don't recommend flying over 18,000 feet for a number of reasons, I
> > regularly recommend that people fly as high as 18,000 because of
> > economy. While the LS1 will likely handle that altitude well, is has
not been tested.
> >
> >
> > The next thing that didn't seem to add up much was that he kept
> > mentioning that it is a 350HP engine. As I asked further, I found
> > that it can make that HP at high RPM, while still below redline on
> > the engine, but they never turn it above 3900 rpm. In this case you
> > are never over something like 270HP if I remember correctly. Why
> > does he keep saying that it can make 350HP when they never take it over
270?
> > I don't know, and 270HP is plenty of power for this plane. It is
> > likely that even though you don't take full power at takeoff and low
> > climb, you may be able to make more power at altitude since the
> > engine is capable of more, but I don't know, since you are still not
> > turning it faster. Someone a lot smarter than me will have to
> > address that. I'm
> just sharing observations.
> >
> >
> > After the forum I actually went by and saw the engine. It was
impressive.
> > It really looked good, and I was very impressed that their PSRU has
> > a prop governor pad so you can use a standard governor and constant
> > speed prop, and don't have to go with an electric prop. I really
> > did like that. The centrifugal clutch is an interesting concept,
> > engaging the prop at around 700rpm. When asked in the forum what
> > happens if it disengages in flight, he simply said that it wasn't
> > possible for that to
> happen.
> >
> >
> > It appeared to fit within what looked like a standard cowl, maybe
> > not needing the lower air intake hole, but it has not flown yet in a
> > -10, so there are no numbers. It will take a pioneer to actually
> > test it in that respect. The firewall forward is developed, so that
> > should take out a little of the guesswork, and Bud has taken the
> > time to make it fit and to get the nose gear system incorporated, so
> > it seems like it is further along than the Subaru was when Dan
> > started working with Jan
> years ago.
> >
> >
> > So, this is just my impression based on going to the forum and
> > seeing the engine run at idle. I don't know anything else about it or
about Bud.
> >
> >
> > do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jesse Saint
> > Saint Aviation, Inc.
> > jesse@saintaviation.com
> > Cell: 352-427-0285
> > Fax: 815-377-3694
> >
> >
> > On Apr 26, 2008, at 2:24 PM, mark vultaggio wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I posted a question to the wrong list yesterday regarding the Geared
> > Drive system being offered with a corvette LS 1 engine by Bud Warren.
> > It was on display at Sun n Fun and seems interesting. Interested in
> > any comments by those with any experience. Look at the product at
> > http://www.geareddrives.com/
> >
> > Markhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.co
> > m/
> > contribution
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matro
> > ni
> > cs.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.co
> > m/
> > c
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > 4/25/2008 2:31 PM
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: : RV10-List: |
But, specifically the RV-10 IO-540.....
In 330+ hours, I haven't yet had a problem with hot starts. I've flown
on hot days, and had to restart, but just by using the normal hot start
procedure I've always had good luck. Now, my comments are limited
to the IO-540, in an RV-10 installation, using a precision fuel
injection system. If someone wants to use the AFP fuel injection
system....great....but, you may then have a good case for needing
a purge valve...I don't know. They are 2 different systems.
Also, I have a lightspeed ignition, which has been a common install
on IO-540's. So, perhaps someone with just dual mags may have
a small variation in results as well.
In short, all of those things affect how it may work for you, so
you need to be very specific about the exact situation that the
experiences you have come from. There may be combinations that
work perfectly without, and there may be combinations that
definitely require it to be workable for hot starts. I know
I'm very happy with the setup I'm using....for what that's worth.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Gerry Filby wrote:
>
> Like I said I've flown behind both, for my money the purge valve is a great
> addition to the engine.
>
> I'm not adamant about the installation - take it or leave it as suits your
> application. I really like having it on my plane.
>
> I've heard the "risk factor / point of failure" arguments before, but
> they're not generally supported with a description of a incident that
> illustrates. What is the failure mode in flight that will threaten one's
> safety ?
>
> Totally agree with you about good technique as applied to a system where its
> appropriate/needed. The AFP system doesn't need the technique. One less
> thing to fuss over ...
>
> g
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis
> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 11:51 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List:
>
>
> So that begs the question. If you had a standard Bendix type fuel injection
> system on that Lycoming, would you have had that same "fuel gurgling" and
> "hot start problem?"
> With the AFP system, there is more fuel "above" the engine in the bigger
> fuel spider and purge valve than the standard Bendix/Precision type fuel
> system.
>
> A lot of folks that are adamant about the installation of purge valves use
> "improved hot starts" as a justification. I fly behind a Lycoming angle
> valve IO-360 with a Bendix fuel injection and hot starts are a non-issue
> even on the hottest days. If you have a Lycoming engine with a Bendix type
> fuel system and have a "hot start" issue, then the "technique" needs to be
> worked on. For me it is, no prime, mixture to ICO, throttle 1/4 and just
> crank the engine. Engine ALWAYS starts in 2-3 blades.
>
> There have been a few aircraft brought down because the builder/operators
> have failed to safety wire the stop on the purge valve.
> http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7280/dsc00248yu1.jpg
> This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences. In an effort
> to try to avoid one problem, an additional --more severe problem is
> introduced.
>
> Some related information:
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=14998&
>
> William
> http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>>
>>
>> Have to disagree with you there. Yesterday when returning to KHAF in
>> my
>> RV-9 I had to pull up and shutdown after landing to pull a barrier
>> across the taxiway to one side (it's the annual "Dream Machines" event
>> where the county turns the field into an obstacle course for pilots).
>> I could hear the fuel gurgling under the cowl. After about 10 minutes
>> I jumped back in and cranked and cranked and cranked - nothing - the
>> fuel had boiled off in the heat soaked cowl. AFP fuel purge to the
>> rescue ! I pulled the purge valve and ran the boost pump for about 30
>> seconds - ignition on, crank, close purge valve and she fired right up.
>>
>> As for complexity - I don't see the argument. There's one valve which
>> is open from startup to shutdown - what's the failure mode ? If its
>> going to fail it will be on the ground when you are operating the
>> valve at startup or shutdown.
>>
>> I've flown the Bendix ignition and the AFP I currently have installed
>> on my 9. My RV-10 will be fitted with the AFP return valve, that's for
> sure.
>> g
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
>> McMullen
>> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:21 AM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List:
>>
>>
>> I alway wonder about the concerns for vapor lock and hot starts that
>> apparently is the justification for return lines. I've been flying an
>> IO-360 in my Mooney for 10 years now, and never had more than minor
>> inconvenience on hot starts if I screw up a bit. It should be just as
>> prone to those problems as any RV, with tight cowling and stock RSA
>> Bendix/Precision fuel injection. That includes flying through the
>> summer each of those years in Aridzona. I just can't see the benefit
>> for adding that complexity and potential additional failure points.
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Rick Sked <ricksked@embarqmail.com>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you go with a purge valve there is a return line that can be run
>>> in several different ways. Mine runs back into the fuselage and tees
>>> off at the right tank oulet, no modificatin to the tank but do the
>>> line while your plumbing the brakes. The line has a check valve
>>> installed so the fuel can only go back to the tee and then into the
> tank.
>>> Procedure is to switch to the left tank, open the purge valve and
>>> run the boost pump. Cool fuel runs from the left tank and into the
>>> purge valve then into the right tank. Cools the spider to prevent
>>> vapor lock. The purge valve is also used to shut down the engine
>>> instead of pulling the mixture. It shuts the fule off the the
>>> injector lines. I used a throttle control cable on mine and a return
>>> spring on the control arm incase the cable fails it will hold the
>>> arm in the closed position. I think the valve should be treated as a
>>> critical control on the
>> aircraft so no lawn mower pulls for me.
>>> Rick Sked
>>>
>>> 40185
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "William Britton" <william@gbta.net>
>>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>>>
>>> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 9:19:34 PM (GMT-0800)
>>> America/Los_Angeles
>>> Subject: Re: RV10-List:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does anyone know if the fuel tanks would have to have return lines
>>> plumbed into them as on the egg subie??? I'm not to the engine part
>>> yet and probably wont be for some time but the tanks are nearing and
>>> if I would decide to go the auto-conversion route with an engine I
>>> would prefer to not have to modify the tanks on an already built wing!!!
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Jesse Saint
>>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>>> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:33 PM
>>> Subject: Re: RV10-List:
>>>
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know much about the LS1, but I did go to the forum that Bud
>>> put on at Sun-N-Fun. I was just curious. Bud or some friend may be
>>> on this list, so this is not meant to be offensive in any way.
>>>
>>>
>>> My first impression is the man. He seems to know a fair bit about
>>> engines, and since he is the one that makes the PSRU, he must be
>>> very
>> knowledgeable.
>>> I don't care if he isn't an engineer. The thing that bothered me is
>>> that he was making comments and borderline making fun of some of the
>>> questions asked in the forum. If I'm trying to sell someone
>>> something, I don't treat them like they are stupid when they ask a
>>> question. The way I saw it, he did that a number of times during
>>> the
>> forum, which I did not like at all.
>>>
>>> As far as performance, he said he has tested the engine up to 15,500
>>> and then made a comment something like, "but nobody flies a normally
>>> aspirated engine up that high," insinuating that it has been tested
>>> as high as anybody will want to take it. It has been mentioned a
>>> number of times on this list that people have gone well above 18,000
>>> to either get over weather or to test the service ceiling. While I
>>> don't recommend flying over 18,000 feet for a number of reasons, I
>>> regularly recommend that people fly as high as 18,000 because of
>>> economy. While the LS1 will likely handle that altitude well, is has
> not been tested.
>>>
>>> The next thing that didn't seem to add up much was that he kept
>>> mentioning that it is a 350HP engine. As I asked further, I found
>>> that it can make that HP at high RPM, while still below redline on
>>> the engine, but they never turn it above 3900 rpm. In this case you
>>> are never over something like 270HP if I remember correctly. Why
>>> does he keep saying that it can make 350HP when they never take it over
> 270?
>>> I don't know, and 270HP is plenty of power for this plane. It is
>>> likely that even though you don't take full power at takeoff and low
>>> climb, you may be able to make more power at altitude since the
>>> engine is capable of more, but I don't know, since you are still not
>>> turning it faster. Someone a lot smarter than me will have to
>>> address that. I'm
>> just sharing observations.
>>>
>>> After the forum I actually went by and saw the engine. It was
> impressive.
>>> It really looked good, and I was very impressed that their PSRU has
>>> a prop governor pad so you can use a standard governor and constant
>>> speed prop, and don't have to go with an electric prop. I really
>>> did like that. The centrifugal clutch is an interesting concept,
>>> engaging the prop at around 700rpm. When asked in the forum what
>>> happens if it disengages in flight, he simply said that it wasn't
>>> possible for that to
>> happen.
>>>
>>> It appeared to fit within what looked like a standard cowl, maybe
>>> not needing the lower air intake hole, but it has not flown yet in a
>>> -10, so there are no numbers. It will take a pioneer to actually
>>> test it in that respect. The firewall forward is developed, so that
>>> should take out a little of the guesswork, and Bud has taken the
>>> time to make it fit and to get the nose gear system incorporated, so
>>> it seems like it is further along than the Subaru was when Dan
>>> started working with Jan
>> years ago.
>>>
>>> So, this is just my impression based on going to the forum and
>>> seeing the engine run at idle. I don't know anything else about it or
> about Bud.
>>>
>>> do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jesse Saint
>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 26, 2008, at 2:24 PM, mark vultaggio wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I posted a question to the wrong list yesterday regarding the Geared
>>> Drive system being offered with a corvette LS 1 engine by Bud Warren.
>>> It was on display at Sun n Fun and seems interesting. Interested in
>>> any comments by those with any experience. Look at the product at
>>> http://www.geareddrives.com/
>>>
>>> Markhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.co
>>> m/
>>> contribution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matro
>>> ni
>>> cs.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.co
>>> m/
>>> c
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> 4/25/2008 2:31 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Rudy-
After visiting the hangar this a.m., decided to first pursue the larger
windshield.
-The extended layer of DBM will make a "hump" on the inside.
-It will be difficult to recreate straight and curved joggle edges.
-The mess, both fibreglass goo and bondo dust...
-I really, really, really don't want to mess with more gel coat to
repair the new edges.
At least those are the highlights. Thanks for the suggestion, but will
save that as a back-up plan.
I did go on an information-gathering field trip this noon. Stopped into
a couple open hangars to inquire about the carb heat issue. Without
exception, everyone agreed with you that I don't want or need ram air in
this situation. So, you saved me from chopping another hole in the
baffling.
Too bad Young Eagles wasn't today -- awesome weather!
Thanks again!
-Scott
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Agree on the nuts. I use all new MS21042 for final assembly control surfaces
and linkages. Someone will fly this airplane when I have become a sport
pilot.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Sked
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List:
Willaim,
I agree totally!! Technique is the best method but in a pinch...purge away,
I live in Las Vegas...bit warm here in the summer...and...well, It came with
my AFP system so instead of putting it in a baggie and sit it on the
shelf...I used it. I do agree that it is an additional risk factor, but if
installed properly,inspected and maintained it is as much risk as using
nylocks on control surfaces...I still have not accepted that with open arms
yet....but how many have failed? I never heard of one, so lets crank it up a
notch...how many of you are reusing them over and over on the build? I have
a set I use for mock up only, final assembly will get all new ones.
Rick Sked
40185
Polishing the baffels
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Curtis" <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 11:50:48 AM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles
Subject: RE: RV10-List:
So that begs the question. If you had a standard Bendix type fuel injection
system on that Lycoming, would you have had that same "fuel gurgling" and
"hot start problem?"
With the AFP system, there is more fuel "above" the engine in the bigger
fuel spider and purge valve than the standard Bendix/Precision type fuel
system.
A lot of folks that are adamant about the installation of purge valves use
"improved hot starts" as a justification. I fly behind a Lycoming angle
valve IO-360 with a Bendix fuel injection and hot starts are a non-issue
even on the hottest days. If you have a Lycoming engine with a Bendix type
fuel system and have a "hot start" issue, then the "technique" needs to be
worked on. For me it is, no prime, mixture to ICO, throttle 1/4 and just
crank the engine. Engine ALWAYS starts in 2-3 blades.
There have been a few aircraft brought down because the builder/operators
have failed to safety wire the stop on the purge valve.
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7280/dsc00248yu1.jpg
This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences. In an effort
to try to avoid one problem, an additional --more severe problem is
introduced.
Some related information:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=14998&
William
http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
-------- Original Message --------
> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>
>
> Have to disagree with you there. Yesterday when returning to KHAF in
> my
> RV-9 I had to pull up and shutdown after landing to pull a barrier
> across the taxiway to one side (it's the annual "Dream Machines" event
> where the county turns the field into an obstacle course for pilots).
> I could hear the fuel gurgling under the cowl. After about 10 minutes
> I jumped back in and cranked and cranked and cranked - nothing - the
> fuel had boiled off in the heat soaked cowl. AFP fuel purge to the
> rescue ! I pulled the purge valve and ran the boost pump for about 30
> seconds - ignition on, crank, close purge valve and she fired right up.
>
> As for complexity - I don't see the argument. There's one valve which
> is open from startup to shutdown - what's the failure mode ? If its
> going to fail it will be on the ground when you are operating the
> valve at startup or shutdown.
>
> I've flown the Bendix ignition and the AFP I currently have installed
> on my 9. My RV-10 will be fitted with the AFP return valve, that's for
sure.
>
> g
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
> McMullen
> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:21 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List:
>
>
> I alway wonder about the concerns for vapor lock and hot starts that
> apparently is the justification for return lines. I've been flying an
> IO-360 in my Mooney for 10 years now, and never had more than minor
> inconvenience on hot starts if I screw up a bit. It should be just as
> prone to those problems as any RV, with tight cowling and stock RSA
> Bendix/Precision fuel injection. That includes flying through the
> summer each of those years in Aridzona. I just can't see the benefit
> for adding that complexity and potential additional failure points.
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Rick Sked <ricksked@embarqmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > If you go with a purge valve there is a return line that can be run
> > in several different ways. Mine runs back into the fuselage and tees
> > off at the right tank oulet, no modificatin to the tank but do the
> > line while your plumbing the brakes. The line has a check valve
> > installed so the fuel can only go back to the tee and then into the
tank.
> > Procedure is to switch to the left tank, open the purge valve and
> > run the boost pump. Cool fuel runs from the left tank and into the
> > purge valve then into the right tank. Cools the spider to prevent
> > vapor lock. The purge valve is also used to shut down the engine
> > instead of pulling the mixture. It shuts the fule off the the
> > injector lines. I used a throttle control cable on mine and a return
> > spring on the control arm incase the cable fails it will hold the
> > arm in the closed position. I think the valve should be treated as a
> > critical control on the
> aircraft so no lawn mower pulls for me.
> >
> > Rick Sked
> >
> > 40185
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "William Britton" <william@gbta.net>
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> >
> > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 9:19:34 PM (GMT-0800)
> > America/Los_Angeles
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Does anyone know if the fuel tanks would have to have return lines
> > plumbed into them as on the egg subie??? I'm not to the engine part
> > yet and probably wont be for some time but the tanks are nearing and
> > if I would decide to go the auto-conversion route with an engine I
> > would prefer to not have to modify the tanks on an already built wing!!!
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jesse Saint
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List:
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> >
> > I don't know much about the LS1, but I did go to the forum that Bud
> > put on at Sun-N-Fun. I was just curious. Bud or some friend may be
> > on this list, so this is not meant to be offensive in any way.
> >
> >
> > My first impression is the man. He seems to know a fair bit about
> > engines, and since he is the one that makes the PSRU, he must be
> > very
> knowledgeable.
> > I don't care if he isn't an engineer. The thing that bothered me is
> > that he was making comments and borderline making fun of some of the
> > questions asked in the forum. If I'm trying to sell someone
> > something, I don't treat them like they are stupid when they ask a
> > question. The way I saw it, he did that a number of times during
> > the
> forum, which I did not like at all.
> >
> >
> > As far as performance, he said he has tested the engine up to 15,500
> > and then made a comment something like, "but nobody flies a normally
> > aspirated engine up that high," insinuating that it has been tested
> > as high as anybody will want to take it. It has been mentioned a
> > number of times on this list that people have gone well above 18,000
> > to either get over weather or to test the service ceiling. While I
> > don't recommend flying over 18,000 feet for a number of reasons, I
> > regularly recommend that people fly as high as 18,000 because of
> > economy. While the LS1 will likely handle that altitude well, is has
not been tested.
> >
> >
> > The next thing that didn't seem to add up much was that he kept
> > mentioning that it is a 350HP engine. As I asked further, I found
> > that it can make that HP at high RPM, while still below redline on
> > the engine, but they never turn it above 3900 rpm. In this case you
> > are never over something like 270HP if I remember correctly. Why
> > does he keep saying that it can make 350HP when they never take it over
270?
> > I don't know, and 270HP is plenty of power for this plane. It is
> > likely that even though you don't take full power at takeoff and low
> > climb, you may be able to make more power at altitude since the
> > engine is capable of more, but I don't know, since you are still not
> > turning it faster. Someone a lot smarter than me will have to
> > address that. I'm
> just sharing observations.
> >
> >
> > After the forum I actually went by and saw the engine. It was
impressive.
> > It really looked good, and I was very impressed that their PSRU has
> > a prop governor pad so you can use a standard governor and constant
> > speed prop, and don't have to go with an electric prop. I really
> > did like that. The centrifugal clutch is an interesting concept,
> > engaging the prop at around 700rpm. When asked in the forum what
> > happens if it disengages in flight, he simply said that it wasn't
> > possible for that to
> happen.
> >
> >
> > It appeared to fit within what looked like a standard cowl, maybe
> > not needing the lower air intake hole, but it has not flown yet in a
> > -10, so there are no numbers. It will take a pioneer to actually
> > test it in that respect. The firewall forward is developed, so that
> > should take out a little of the guesswork, and Bud has taken the
> > time to make it fit and to get the nose gear system incorporated, so
> > it seems like it is further along than the Subaru was when Dan
> > started working with Jan
> years ago.
> >
> >
> > So, this is just my impression based on going to the forum and
> > seeing the engine run at idle. I don't know anything else about it or
about Bud.
> >
> >
> > do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jesse Saint
> > Saint Aviation, Inc.
> > jesse@saintaviation.com
> > Cell: 352-427-0285
> > Fax: 815-377-3694
> >
> >
> > On Apr 26, 2008, at 2:24 PM, mark vultaggio wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I posted a question to the wrong list yesterday regarding the Geared
> > Drive system being offered with a corvette LS 1 engine by Bud Warren.
> > It was on display at Sun n Fun and seems interesting. Interested in
> > any comments by those with any experience. Look at the product at
> > http://www.geareddrives.com/
> >
> > Markhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.co
> > m/
> > contribution
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matro
> > ni
> > cs.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.co
> > m/
> > c
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > 4/25/2008 2:31 PM
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Section 40 Question - Flaps |
Hi
I thought I'd throw a building question into the mix.
I have just installed the flap tubes per the plans. My question is how
freely should they rotate? They seem a bit stiff and I can hear a bit of a
rubbing sound as they move in the nylon blocks. It may also be that the
center horn is rubbing a bit on the center tunnel walls.
Any comments form those who have gone before?
Inquiring minds need to know
Les
#40643
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Section 40 Question - Flaps |
Les Kearney wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>
> I thought I'd throw a building question into the mix.
>
How dare you??? A building question??? On topic for this forum????
Now, when's the last time you read a question like that here??? Don't
answer .... it was a rhetorical question.
> I have just installed the flap tubes per the plans. My question is
> how freely should they rotate? They seem a bit stiff and I can hear a
> bit of a rubbing sound as they move in the nylon blocks. It may also
> be that the center horn is rubbing a bit on the center tunnel walls.
>
Well, I've just been there, done that, and even hooked up a battery to
the flap motor to see it work!!!
answers: I think they should rotate freely .... but mine don't. I had
a devil of a time just getting the blocks slid onto the tubing!
Something may be out of whack if the horn is near the side wall. Mine
is in the center of the tunnel. Or maybe mine is out of whack???? ;-)
. What we need is a real consensus here!
>
>
> Any comments form those who have gone before?
>
We don't need any comments forms. :-D . Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Well, I DID read it!!!
> Inquiring minds need to know
>
And now, before it's too late!!!
Linn
do not archive
>
>
> Les
>
> #40643
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Spins in a -10? |
I'm a bit reluctant to post this, but I think it may be a useful data point
for the group.
During my fly-off phase I tested the spin characteristics of my RV-10. I
will mention that I was wearing a chute, and I've had spin training in both the
T-3A Firefly and T-37. Also, a little CYA, I am not recommending this as
something to go out and try.
I tested it at a gross weight of 2195# with CG at 110.33" aft of datum. I
tested it in both left and right spins entered from a power-off stall. With
pro-spin controls (you really need to be ham-fisting it to get it to enter), the
aircraft was quick to enter a spin. Once the controls are neutralized, the
spin immediately stopped, requiring a recovery from the subsequent nose low
attitude. While the stall characteristics of the RV-10 are quite docile in my
opinion, the spin happens fairly quickly. The biggest issue I found was the
short time from stall to extreme nose low attitudes in the initial development
of the spin; the RV-10 is quick to gain speed in this attitude and the
possibility of an overspeed and/or an over-G is large during the recovery. I
believe a spin in IFR would be quickly disorienting. My overall assessment is
that
while you can make the aircraft spin, you either have to want to do it or are
really screwing things up to make it happen. If it does happen, it appears
that neutralizing the controls stops it.
I'll add another disclaimer that this assessment was in MY airplane, at ONE
particular weight and ONE particular CG location with ONE particular type of
entry. It was not at all a comprehensive spin test, but, it gives me some
further understanding of the flight characteristics of my plane.
-Jim
#40134
In a message dated 4/27/2008 12:21:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
me@chadcarlson.com writes:
Hi All,
I read and watch this list with interest and envy. I am not a builder (yet),
but I do have a plan in motion and intend to building an RV-10 in the summer
or fall of 2009. I thank you all for the informative thoughts and ideas I
have had the pleasure of observing!!! My "to-do," "wish," and "check
this/that/the other thing" lists are getting quite lengthy. :-)
In all of my reading and research, I have not been able to determine if:
a.) the RV-10 is safely spinnable
b.) anyone has compiled details of its spin characteristics (providing the
answer to a. is yes)
I know the -10, along with the -9(A) are not intended or designed for
aerobatics, but this does not address the spin question to my satisfaction. For
example, Cessna 1[578]2 aircraft are not built for aerobatics (15[02] Aerobat
being the exception), but they are certified to spin.
The ability / inability to spin has absolutely no bearing on my decision to
build a -10; in fact, I am asking out of little more than morbid curiosity.
Thank you in advance for any additional info and/or thoughts on the subject.
Chad E. Carlson
Eastern Daylight Time ( UTC -4 )
"Pilots may be temporarily uncertain of their position, but they are never
lost."
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: _Perry, Phil_ (mailto:Phil.Perry@netapp.com)
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:55 PM
Subject: RV10-List: RE: LS1
Hi Mark,
I'm not a big fan of alternative engines, but the LS1 (combined with fuel
prices) has opened my eyes.
I'm still not sure if I'll put the LS1 in there or not, but I do know I'll
at least consider it.
Bud and I are members of the same EAA chapter (302). He's a great resource.
Like I said, I'm still undecided. But there is a lot to like about the LS1
price, packaging, and options.
Phil
____________________________________
From: mark vultaggio [mailto:mvultaggio@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 1:25 PM
Subject: RV10-List:
I posted a question to the wrong list yesterday regarding the Geared Drive
system being offered with a corvette LS 1 engine by Bud Warren. It was on
display at Sun n Fun and seems interesting. Interested in any comments by those
with any experience. Look at the product at _http://www.geareddrives.com/_
(http://www.geareddrives.com/)
Mark
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/c
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/c
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Section 40 Question - Flaps |
Les,
I had the same thing, I think it mainly has to do with the close tolerance
the tube has in the nylon block and the small amount of misalignment that o
ccurs across the sets of blocks. Try lossening the bolts and tighten slowly
while moving the flap tube alternating from block to block. It does get be
tter as you move the tube more and more.
Rick Sked
40185
----- Original Message -----
From: "Les Kearney" <kearney@shaw.ca>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 4:38:03 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles
Subject: RV10-List: Section 40 Question - =C2-Flaps
Hi
I thought I=99d throw a building question into the mix.
I have just installed the flap tubes per the plans. My question is how free
ly should they rotate? They seem a bit stiff and I can hear a bit of a rubb
ing sound as they move in the nylon blocks. It may also be that the center
horn is rubbing a bit on the center tunnel walls.
Any comments form those who have gone before?
Inquiring minds need to know
Les
============
====
=======================
==
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Section 40 Question - Flaps |
Hey Les,
It's been awhile back, but I remember this same problem on our quick build fuse.
I hadn't read anything about it, didn't like it, didn't ask anybody, and just
enlarged the aluminum so that the flap tubes only touch nylon. Smooth as
silk now.
Later, - Lew
--------
non-pilot
crazy about building
NOW OFICIALLY BUILDER #40549
doors almost finished, pants on, WHEW!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=179704#179704
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: : RV10-List: |
All new for final assembly, keep used ones for all of the "put it
together, take it back apart, put it back together, ad infinitum" tasks.
David Maib
40559
On Apr 27, 2008, at 4:22 PM, David McNeill wrote:
Agree on the nuts. I use all new MS21042 for final assembly control
surfaces
and linkages. Someone will fly this airplane when I have become a sport
pilot.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Sked
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List:
Willaim,
I agree totally!! Technique is the best method but in a pinch...purge
away,
I live in Las Vegas...bit warm here in the summer...and...well, It
came with
my AFP system so instead of putting it in a baggie and sit it on the
shelf...I used it. I do agree that it is an additional risk factor,
but if
installed properly,inspected and maintained it is as much risk as using
nylocks on control surfaces...I still have not accepted that with
open arms
yet....but how many have failed? I never heard of one, so lets crank
it up a
notch...how many of you are reusing them over and over on the build?
I have
a set I use for mock up only, final assembly will get all new ones.
Rick Sked
40185
Polishing the baffels
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Curtis" <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 11:50:48 AM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles
Subject: RE: RV10-List:
So that begs the question. If you had a standard Bendix type fuel
injection
system on that Lycoming, would you have had that same "fuel gurgling"
and
"hot start problem?"
With the AFP system, there is more fuel "above" the engine in the bigger
fuel spider and purge valve than the standard Bendix/Precision type fuel
system.
A lot of folks that are adamant about the installation of purge
valves use
"improved hot starts" as a justification. I fly behind a Lycoming angle
valve IO-360 with a Bendix fuel injection and hot starts are a non-issue
even on the hottest days. If you have a Lycoming engine with a Bendix
type
fuel system and have a "hot start" issue, then the "technique" needs
to be
worked on. For me it is, no prime, mixture to ICO, throttle 1/4 and just
crank the engine. Engine ALWAYS starts in 2-3 blades.
There have been a few aircraft brought down because the builder/
operators
have failed to safety wire the stop on the purge valve.
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7280/dsc00248yu1.jpg
This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences. In an
effort
to try to avoid one problem, an additional --more severe problem is
introduced.
Some related information:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=14998&
William
http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
-------- Original Message --------
> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>
>
> Have to disagree with you there. Yesterday when returning to KHAF in
> my
> RV-9 I had to pull up and shutdown after landing to pull a barrier
> across the taxiway to one side (it's the annual "Dream Machines" event
> where the county turns the field into an obstacle course for pilots).
> I could hear the fuel gurgling under the cowl. After about 10 minutes
> I jumped back in and cranked and cranked and cranked - nothing - the
> fuel had boiled off in the heat soaked cowl. AFP fuel purge to the
> rescue ! I pulled the purge valve and ran the boost pump for about 30
> seconds - ignition on, crank, close purge valve and she fired right
> up.
>
> As for complexity - I don't see the argument. There's one valve which
> is open from startup to shutdown - what's the failure mode ? If its
> going to fail it will be on the ground when you are operating the
> valve at startup or shutdown.
>
> I've flown the Bendix ignition and the AFP I currently have installed
> on my 9. My RV-10 will be fitted with the AFP return valve, that's
> for
sure.
>
> g
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
> McMullen
> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:21 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List:
>
>
> I alway wonder about the concerns for vapor lock and hot starts that
> apparently is the justification for return lines. I've been flying an
> IO-360 in my Mooney for 10 years now, and never had more than minor
> inconvenience on hot starts if I screw up a bit. It should be just as
> prone to those problems as any RV, with tight cowling and stock RSA
> Bendix/Precision fuel injection. That includes flying through the
> summer each of those years in Aridzona. I just can't see the benefit
> for adding that complexity and potential additional failure points.
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Rick Sked <ricksked@embarqmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>>
>> If you go with a purge valve there is a return line that can be run
>> in several different ways. Mine runs back into the fuselage and tees
>> off at the right tank oulet, no modificatin to the tank but do the
>> line while your plumbing the brakes. The line has a check valve
>> installed so the fuel can only go back to the tee and then into the
tank.
>> Procedure is to switch to the left tank, open the purge valve and
>> run the boost pump. Cool fuel runs from the left tank and into the
>> purge valve then into the right tank. Cools the spider to prevent
>> vapor lock. The purge valve is also used to shut down the engine
>> instead of pulling the mixture. It shuts the fule off the the
>> injector lines. I used a throttle control cable on mine and a return
>> spring on the control arm incase the cable fails it will hold the
>> arm in the closed position. I think the valve should be treated as a
>> critical control on the
> aircraft so no lawn mower pulls for me.
>>
>> Rick Sked
>>
>> 40185
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "William Britton" <william@gbta.net>
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>>
>> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 9:19:34 PM (GMT-0800)
>> America/Los_Angeles
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone know if the fuel tanks would have to have return lines
>> plumbed into them as on the egg subie??? I'm not to the engine part
>> yet and probably wont be for some time but the tanks are nearing and
>> if I would decide to go the auto-conversion route with an engine I
>> would prefer to not have to modify the tanks on an already built
>> wing!!!
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Jesse Saint
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List:
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>>
>> I don't know much about the LS1, but I did go to the forum that Bud
>> put on at Sun-N-Fun. I was just curious. Bud or some friend may be
>> on this list, so this is not meant to be offensive in any way.
>>
>>
>> My first impression is the man. He seems to know a fair bit about
>> engines, and since he is the one that makes the PSRU, he must be
>> very
> knowledgeable.
>> I don't care if he isn't an engineer. The thing that bothered me is
>> that he was making comments and borderline making fun of some of the
>> questions asked in the forum. If I'm trying to sell someone
>> something, I don't treat them like they are stupid when they ask a
>> question. The way I saw it, he did that a number of times during
>> the
> forum, which I did not like at all.
>>
>>
>> As far as performance, he said he has tested the engine up to 15,500
>> and then made a comment something like, "but nobody flies a normally
>> aspirated engine up that high," insinuating that it has been tested
>> as high as anybody will want to take it. It has been mentioned a
>> number of times on this list that people have gone well above 18,000
>> to either get over weather or to test the service ceiling. While I
>> don't recommend flying over 18,000 feet for a number of reasons, I
>> regularly recommend that people fly as high as 18,000 because of
>> economy. While the LS1 will likely handle that altitude well, is has
not been tested.
>>
>>
>> The next thing that didn't seem to add up much was that he kept
>> mentioning that it is a 350HP engine. As I asked further, I found
>> that it can make that HP at high RPM, while still below redline on
>> the engine, but they never turn it above 3900 rpm. In this case you
>> are never over something like 270HP if I remember correctly. Why
>> does he keep saying that it can make 350HP when they never take it
>> over
270?
>> I don't know, and 270HP is plenty of power for this plane. It is
>> likely that even though you don't take full power at takeoff and low
>> climb, you may be able to make more power at altitude since the
>> engine is capable of more, but I don't know, since you are still not
>> turning it faster. Someone a lot smarter than me will have to
>> address that. I'm
> just sharing observations.
>>
>>
>> After the forum I actually went by and saw the engine. It was
impressive.
>> It really looked good, and I was very impressed that their PSRU has
>> a prop governor pad so you can use a standard governor and constant
>> speed prop, and don't have to go with an electric prop. I really
>> did like that. The centrifugal clutch is an interesting concept,
>> engaging the prop at around 700rpm. When asked in the forum what
>> happens if it disengages in flight, he simply said that it wasn't
>> possible for that to
> happen.
>>
>>
>> It appeared to fit within what looked like a standard cowl, maybe
>> not needing the lower air intake hole, but it has not flown yet in a
>> -10, so there are no numbers. It will take a pioneer to actually
>> test it in that respect. The firewall forward is developed, so that
>> should take out a little of the guesswork, and Bud has taken the
>> time to make it fit and to get the nose gear system incorporated, so
>> it seems like it is further along than the Subaru was when Dan
>> started working with Jan
> years ago.
>>
>>
>> So, this is just my impression based on going to the forum and
>> seeing the engine run at idle. I don't know anything else about
>> it or
about Bud.
>>
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>
>>
>> On Apr 26, 2008, at 2:24 PM, mark vultaggio wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I posted a question to the wrong list yesterday regarding the Geared
>> Drive system being offered with a corvette LS 1 engine by Bud Warren.
>> It was on display at Sun n Fun and seems interesting. Interested in
>> any comments by those with any experience. Look at the product at
>> http://www.geareddrives.com/
>>
>> Markhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.co
>> m/
>> contribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matro
>> ni
>> cs.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.co
>> m/
>> c
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> 4/25/2008 2:31 PM
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Section 40 Question - Flaps |
Mine were very tight also. Since they did move I just kept building. Once
I got the flap motor in and they worked, I figured they were ok. Working
fine after 30 hours.
Rene'
N423CF RV10 Flying
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 5:38 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Section 40 Question - Flaps
Hi
I thought I'd throw a building question into the mix.
I have just installed the flap tubes per the plans. My question is how
freely should they rotate? They seem a bit stiff and I can hear a bit of a
rubbing sound as they move in the nylon blocks. It may also be that the
center horn is rubbing a bit on the center tunnel walls.
Any comments form those who have gone before?
Inquiring minds need to know
Les
#40643
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Jim,
Excellent approach to your testing and write-up, I for one am very glad
you posted it. I haven't attempted spins in the -10 (and probably won't,
especially with this solid report) but have spun a LOT of other airplanes
(including the T-37 but that was a LONG time ago). From stall testing I
certainly had the impression the -10 was not going to enter a spin without
some serious effort or buffoonery and it's good to see a confirmation of
that.
Thanks,
Marcus
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JSMcGrew@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Spins in a -10?
I'm a bit reluctant to post this, but I think it may be a useful data point
for the group.
During my fly-off phase I tested the spin characteristics of my RV-10. I
will mention that I was wearing a chute, and I've had spin training in both
the T-3A Firefly and T-37. Also, a little CYA, I am not recommending this as
something to go out and try.
I tested it at a gross weight of 2195# with CG at 110.33" aft of datum. I
tested it in both left and right spins entered from a power-off stall. With
pro-spin controls (you really need to be ham-fisting it to get it to enter),
the aircraft was quick to enter a spin. Once the controls are neutralized,
the spin immediately stopped, requiring a recovery from the subsequent nose
low attitude. While the stall characteristics of the RV-10 are quite docile
in my opinion, the spin happens fairly quickly. The biggest issue I found
was the short time from stall to extreme nose low attitudes in the initial
development of the spin; the RV-10 is quick to gain speed in this attitude
and the possibility of an overspeed and/or an over-G is large during the
recovery. I believe a spin in IFR would be quickly disorienting. My overall
assessment is that while you can make the aircraft spin, you either have to
want to do it or are really screwing things up to make it happen. If it does
happen, it appears that neutralizing the controls stops it.
I'll add another disclaimer that this assessment was in MY airplane, at ONE
particular weight and ONE particular CG location with ONE particular type of
entry. It was not at all a comprehensive spin test, but, it gives me some
further understanding of the flight characteristics of my plane.
-Jim
#40134
In a message dated 4/27/2008 12:21:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
me@chadcarlson.com writes:
Hi All,
I read and watch this list with interest and envy. I am not a builder (yet),
but I do have a plan in motion and intend to building an RV-10 in the summer
or fall of 2009. I thank you all for the informative thoughts and ideas I
have had the pleasure of observing!!! My "to-do," "wish," and "check
this/that/the other thing" lists are getting quite lengthy. :-)
In all of my reading and research, I have not been able to determine if:
a.) the RV-10 is safely spinnable
b.) anyone has compiled details of its spin characteristics (providing the
answer to a. is yes)
I know the -10, along with the -9(A) are not intended or designed for
aerobatics, but this does not address the spin question to my satisfaction.
For example, Cessna 1[578]2 aircraft are not built for aerobatics (15[02]
Aerobat being the exception), but they are certified to spin.
The ability / inability to spin has absolutely no bearing on my decision to
build a -10; in fact, I am asking out of little more than morbid curiosity.
Thank you in advance for any additional info and/or thoughts on the subject.
Chad E. Carlson
Eastern Daylight Time ( UTC -4 )
"Pilots may be temporarily uncertain of their position, but they are never
lost."
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Perry, <mailto:Phil.Perry@netapp.com> Phil
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:55 PM
Subject: RV10-List: RE: LS1
Hi Mark,
I'm not a big fan of alternative engines, but the LS1 (combined with fuel
prices) has opened my eyes.
I'm still not sure if I'll put the LS1 in there or not, but I do know I'll
at least consider it.
Bud and I are members of the same EAA chapter (302). He's a great resource.
Like I said, I'm still undecided. But there is a lot to like about the LS1
price, packaging, and options.
Phil
_____
From: mark vultaggio [mailto:mvultaggio@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 1:25 PM
Subject: RV10-List:
I posted a question to the wrong list yesterday regarding the Geared Drive
system being offered with a corvette LS 1 engine by Bud Warren. It was on
display at Sun n Fun and seems interesting. Interested in any comments by
those with any experience. Look at the product at
http://www.geareddrives.com/
Mark
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/c
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/c
="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Nav
igator?RV10-List
.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
_____
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at
AOL Autos <http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851> .
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Spins in a -10? |
I have heard of one other -10 pilot who did a couple of spins during
his Phase 1 and he said they were not surprising (hard to get into and
easy to get out of). Note that this is 3rd hand, but it was in a -10
and done by a 30,000+ hour pilot in more different planes that months
I've lived.
do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Apr 27, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Chad E. Carlson wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I read and watch this list with interest and envy. I am not a
> builder (yet), but I do have a plan in motion and intend to building
> an RV-10 in the summer or fall of 2009. I thank you all for the
> informative thoughts and ideas I have had the pleasure of
> observing!!! My "to-do," "wish," and "check this/that/the other
> thing" lists are getting quite lengthy. :-)
>
> In all of my reading and research, I have not been able to determine
> if:
>
> a.) the RV-10 is safely spinnable
> b.) anyone has compiled details of its spin characteristics
> (providing the answer to a. is yes)
>
> I know the -10, along with the -9(A) are not intended or designed
> for aerobatics, but this does not address the spin question to my
> satisfaction. For example, Cessna 1[578]2 aircraft are not built for
> aerobatics (15[02] Aerobat being the exception), but they are
> certified to spin.
>
> The ability / inability to spin has absolutely no bearing on my
> decision to build a -10; in fact, I am asking out of little more
> than morbid curiosity.
>
> Thank you in advance for any additional info and/or thoughts on the
> subject.
>
>
> Chad E. Carlson
> Eastern Daylight Time ( UTC -4 )
>
> "Pilots may be temporarily uncertain of their position, but they are
> never lost."
>
> Do Not Archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Perry, Phil
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:55 PM
> Subject: RV10-List: RE: LS1
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I'm not a big fan of alternative engines, but the LS1 (combined with
> fuel prices) has opened my eyes.
>
> I'm still not sure if I'll put the LS1 in there or not, but I do
> know I'll at least consider it.
>
> Bud and I are members of the same EAA chapter (302). He's a great
> resource.
>
> Like I said, I'm still undecided. But there is a lot to like about
> the LS1 price, packaging, and options.
>
> Phil
>
>
> From: mark vultaggio [mailto:mvultaggio@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 1:25 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List:
>
> I posted a question to the wrong list yesterday regarding the Geared
> Drive system being offered with a corvette LS 1 engine by Bud
> Warren. It was on display at Sun n Fun and seems interesting.
> Interested in any comments by those with any experience. Look at
> the product at http://www.geareddrives.com/
>
> Mark
> 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/c
> 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/c
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: : RV10-List: |
That is the way I do it. Probably what worked for your old Cardinal as well.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 8:49 AM, David McNeill <dlm46007@cox.net> wrote:
>
> So far hot starts have not been a problem. I have just cracked the throttle,
> prop forward and mixture at idle cutoff. Start crankning and advance the
> mixture and it starts instantly.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:21 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List:
>
>
>
> I alway wonder about the concerns for vapor lock and hot starts that
> apparently is the justification for return lines. I've been flying an IO-360
> in my Mooney for 10 years now, and never had more than minor inconvenience
> on hot starts if I screw up a bit. It should be just as prone to those
> problems as any RV, with tight cowling and stock RSA Bendix/Precision fuel
> injection. That includes flying through the summer each of those years in
> Aridzona. I just can't see the benefit for adding that complexity and
> potential additional failure points.
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Rick Sked <ricksked@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > If you go with a purge valve there is a return line that can be run in
> > several different ways. Mine runs back into the fuselage and tees off
> > at the right tank oulet, no modificatin to the tank but do the line
> > while your plumbing the brakes. The line has a check valve installed
> > so the fuel can only go back to the tee and then into the tank.
> > Procedure is to switch to the left tank, open the purge valve and run
> > the boost pump. Cool fuel runs from the left tank and into the purge
> > valve then into the right tank. Cools the spider to prevent vapor
> > lock. The purge valve is also used to shut down the engine instead of
> > pulling the mixture. It shuts the fule off the the injector lines. I
> > used a throttle control cable on mine and a return spring on the
> > control arm incase the cable fails it will hold the arm in the closed
> > position. I think the valve should be treated as a critical control on the
> aircraft so no lawn mower pulls for me.
> >
> > Rick Sked
> >
> > 40185
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "William Britton" <william@gbta.net>
>
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> >
>
> > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 9:19:34 PM (GMT-0800)
> > America/Los_Angeles
>
>
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Does anyone know if the fuel tanks would have to have return lines
> > plumbed into them as on the egg subie??? I'm not to the engine part
> > yet and probably wont be for some time but the tanks are nearing and
> > if I would decide to go the auto-conversion route with an engine I
> > would prefer to not have to modify the tanks on an already built wing!!!
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jesse Saint
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List:
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> >
> > I don't know much about the LS1, but I did go to the forum that Bud
> > put on at Sun-N-Fun. I was just curious. Bud or some friend may be
> > on this list, so this is not meant to be offensive in any way.
> >
> >
> > My first impression is the man. He seems to know a fair bit about
> > engines, and since he is the one that makes the PSRU, he must be very
> knowledgeable.
> > I don't care if he isn't an engineer. The thing that bothered me is
> > that he was making comments and borderline making fun of some of the
> > questions asked in the forum. If I'm trying to sell someone
> > something, I don't treat them like they are stupid when they ask a
> > question. The way I saw it, he did that a number of times during the
> forum, which I did not like at all.
> >
> >
> > As far as performance, he said he has tested the engine up to 15,500
> > and then made a comment something like, "but nobody flies a normally
> > aspirated engine up that high," insinuating that it has been tested as
> > high as anybody will want to take it. It has been mentioned a number
> > of times on this list that people have gone well above 18,000 to
> > either get over weather or to test the service ceiling. While I don't
> > recommend flying over 18,000 feet for a number of reasons, I regularly
> > recommend that people fly as high as 18,000 because of economy. While
> > the LS1 will likely handle that altitude well, is has not been tested.
> >
> >
> > The next thing that didn't seem to add up much was that he kept
> > mentioning that it is a 350HP engine. As I asked further, I found
> > that it can make that HP at high RPM, while still below redline on the
> > engine, but they never turn it above 3900 rpm. In this case you are
> > never over something like 270HP if I remember correctly. Why does he
> > keep saying that it can make 350HP when they never take it over 270?
> > I don't know, and 270HP is plenty of power for this plane. It is
> > likely that even though you don't take full power at takeoff and low
> > climb, you may be able to make more power at altitude since the engine
> > is capable of more, but I don't know, since you are still not turning
> > it faster. Someone a lot smarter than me will have to address that. I'm
> just sharing observations.
> >
> >
> > After the forum I actually went by and saw the engine. It was impressive.
> > It really looked good, and I was very impressed that their PSRU has a
> > prop governor pad so you can use a standard governor and constant
> > speed prop, and don't have to go with an electric prop. I really did
> > like that. The centrifugal clutch is an interesting concept, engaging
> > the prop at around 700rpm. When asked in the forum what happens if it
> > disengages in flight, he simply said that it wasn't possible for that to
> happen.
> >
> >
> > It appeared to fit within what looked like a standard cowl, maybe not
> > needing the lower air intake hole, but it has not flown yet in a -10,
> > so there are no numbers. It will take a pioneer to actually test it
> > in that respect. The firewall forward is developed, so that should
> > take out a little of the guesswork, and Bud has taken the time to make
> > it fit and to get the nose gear system incorporated, so it seems like
> > it is further along than the Subaru was when Dan started working with Jan
> years ago.
> >
> >
> > So, this is just my impression based on going to the forum and seeing
> > the engine run at idle. I don't know anything else about it or about Bud.
> >
> >
> > do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jesse Saint
> > Saint Aviation, Inc.
> > jesse@saintaviation.com
> > Cell: 352-427-0285
> > Fax: 815-377-3694
> >
> >
> > On Apr 26, 2008, at 2:24 PM, mark vultaggio wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I posted a question to the wrong list yesterday regarding the Geared
> > Drive system being offered with a corvette LS 1 engine by Bud Warren.
> > It was on display at Sun n Fun and seems interesting. Interested in
> > any comments by those with any experience. Look at the product at
> > http://www.geareddrives.com/
> >
> > Markhttp://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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matroni
> > cs.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
> > c
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > 4/25/2008 2:31 PM
> >
> >
>
> > get=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> > p://forums.matronics.com
> > blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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! --
|