Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:09 AM - Oshkosh '08 (Bob-tcw)
2. 04:13 AM - Re: Sb 08-6-1 (nukeflyboy)
3. 04:46 AM - Onsite at OSH 2008 - First 2 RV-10's arrive! (Tim Olson)
4. 05:23 AM - Re: Re: Sb 08-6-1 (Tim Olson)
5. 05:48 AM - Re: Sb 08-6-1: What's the equivalent of an AN470 rivet? (John Cox)
6. 05:52 AM - Re: Sb 08-6-1: What's the equivalent of an AN470 rivet? (John Cox)
7. 06:04 AM - Re: Sb 08-6-1 (John Cox)
8. 06:34 AM - Re: Sb 08-6-1: What's the equivalent of an AN470 rivet? (johngoodman)
9. 06:50 AM - Re: Sb 08-6-1 (bruce breckenridge)
10. 07:09 AM - Re: Strobe or becan on top of Virtical Stab (johngoodman)
11. 07:14 AM - Re: Onsite at OSH 2008 - First 2 RV-10's arrive! (Bob Leffler)
12. 07:23 AM - Re: Sb 08-6-1 (John Jessen)
13. 07:28 AM - Re: RV-10 OSH Picnic (Condrey, Bob (US SSA))
14. 07:48 AM - Re: Sunvisor installation (was Cabin Roof) (Vernon Smith)
15. 08:00 AM - Re: Re: Sb 08-6-1 (John Jessen)
16. 08:04 AM - Re: Cabin Roof (John Jessen)
17. 09:40 AM - Re: Sb 08-6-1 (William Curtis)
18. 10:04 AM - Re: Sunvisor installation (was Cabin Roof) (Dave Saylor)
19. 10:19 AM - Re: Sb 08-6-1 (John Jessen)
20. 10:49 AM - Re: Sunvisor installation (was Cabin Roof) (Vernon Smith)
21. 01:44 PM - oil choice (lbgjb10)
22. 02:06 PM - RV-10 doors (ddddsp1@juno.com)
23. 02:31 PM - Re: oil choice (Dave Saylor)
24. 03:33 PM - Re: oil choice (Marcus Cooper)
25. 03:39 PM - 40725 is Alive and Flying (lbgjb10)
26. 04:08 PM - Re: oil choice (Dave Saylor)
27. 04:08 PM - Re: 40725 is Alive and Flying (bruce breckenridge)
28. 04:13 PM - Re: 40725 is Alive and Flying (Phil White)
29. 04:33 PM - Re: oil choice (John Lenhardt)
30. 04:34 PM - Re: Sb 08-6-1 (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
31. 04:36 PM - Re: 40725 is Alive and Flying (n801bh@netzero.com)
32. 04:42 PM - Re: oil choice (Dave Lammers)
33. 04:50 PM - Re: 40725 is Alive and Flying (John Jessen)
34. 05:00 PM - Re: oil choice (n801bh@netzero.com)
35. 06:05 PM - Re: 40725 is Alive and Flying (David Hertner)
36. 06:07 PM - going to Osh with FSX (pascal)
37. 06:11 PM - Re: oil choice (lbgjb10)
38. 06:46 PM - Re: RV10-Bound for OSH (n801bh@netzero.com)
39. 09:04 PM - Wled on (Fred Williams, M.D.)
40. 09:18 PM - Re: Wled on (Rick Sked)
41. 09:40 PM - Re: Wled on (Marcus Cooper)
42. 10:16 PM - Re: RV-10 OSH Picnic (Dave Leikam)
43. 11:06 PM - Re: Wled on (Don McDonald)
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 |
|
Fellow RV builders,
We head out today to Oshkosh today and look forward to meeting
you all. We'll be camping with the RV-10 group this year and we'll be
exhibiting in the East Hall, Booth 5016.
Please stop by and see our new products. We will be
introducing two new products to the TCW Technologies offerings.
Come try out the working demos of "Intelligent Power Stabilizer" and
"Intelligent Lighting Controller". A preview of these new products
is now up on our web site. www.tcwtech.com
We also have our working demo of Safety-Trim and Intelligent
Flap Controller for your review.
Best regards,
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies, LLC.
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 |
|
Don,
Sorry buddy, but the added gussets on the longerons won't cut the mustard. The
gussets provide stiffening in the yaw axis, but does not help the compression
on the bulkhead. I would do the SB as stated.
The discussion has been interesting and sometimes makes me, an engineering director,
squirm a little. This thread has raised issues of structural integrity
of the 10 based on a lot of speculation and not too many facts. PJ Seipel said
it best: "every aircraft is a set of compromises". If you want a completely
bullet proof structure, it will never get off the ground. The goal of the designer
is to make the stucture strong enough, no more. To the non-engineer, the
results sometimes look questionable.
The beauty of experimentals is that we have a lot of license to personalize our
aircraft. Use caution, however, when you tinker with the structure. You may
be doing more harm than good.
Remember that airplanes are never safe, only relatively safe, and that most accidents
are pilot induced and not a result of structural failure. Also remember
that you guys out there flying RV-10s are experimenters and still working out
the bugs in the aircraft. You are doing a great service for the rest of us.
On a couple other points. The brake cylinder location has not been an issue on
my RV-6. I suspect that they are located aft because to relocate them forward
would require at least 4 inches more clearance to the FW. This means moving
the engine forward 4 inches or the front seats back. Another CG compromise.
The over sized hole while doing the SB - why not use an AN470AD6 (3/16) rivet?
--------
Dave
RV-6 flying
RV-10 QB building
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194850#194850
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: | Onsite at OSH 2008 - First 2 RV-10's arrive! |
Couldn't hold back...had to go early. So we're here!
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/flights/OSH2008/index.html
Will be trying to update that page daily, or close to.
--
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Amen to that! The -10 seems to be built very well in general.
Finding a potential crack point as they did, and for free, giving
the parts to fix it, is a great thing of them. Design wise there
is very little that is disappointing on the RV-10. I'm always
flabbergasted that people don't find things like the rudder
pedals acceptable. I get the feeling that people judge the plane
far too soon before they fly it. After 360 hours, there is just
so little that disappoints. The single case I can think of for
new pedals is if you are like me and have both a tall and short
person to satisfy...but even we make do just fine.
Structurally, I don't find much to worry about either. The SB
fixes one potential area, and yeah, it could be fixed even better,
but if the builder really wants it built with a double-bulkhead
they certainly can do that. I'm happy enough with the design and
doubt you'll see much problem in the fleet once the fix is done.
Certainly it's now strong enough that you will see the issues
during inspection rather than instant catastrophic failure.
Even the doors....if you build them well (mine aren't as nicely
fit as many), they will still serve you well and work fine.
Check the latch pins every flight. Doesn't matter what type
of plane and door design you fly....not checking them is
just plain stupid. If you check them, you should not have
any issues (considering you built them right). And for the
record, losing a door does not guarantee a damaged HS, as was
implied.....there have been what, 5 or 7 door departures so far
(proving sloppy pilots are the weak link) and there has only been
ONE instance of a door hitting the HS. No, this doesn't mean
it's a non-issue, but it's no guarantee of damage.
If you want a safe RV-10, you can have it BY following the plans,
or for those who don't like that idea, you can have it EVEN IF
you follow the plans. The catch is, you have to ensure it's
piloted by someone who does that job adequately.
On closing, you should also be happy about one other thing. We have
3 fatals so far in the RV-10. One was ignorance and stupidity.
Another sounds likely medical. The 3rd was piss-poor IFR piloting.
Like William mentioned....it sure doesn't sound like we have something
to be ashamed of for a quality track record when I read about Lancairs
(esp. the 4P it seems) going down almost monthly. I'm constantly
shocked when I log in and check mail and hear that they lost another.
For them, it seems to be a larger variety of issues, as well.
For us, we can be relatively comfortable knowing that our 3 total
fatals were very likely NOT a result of anything structural.
There are improvements that can be made to the kit, I've done some
of them myself, but the raw product just ain't that bad. You just
need to fly it for a while before you judge it.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
nukeflyboy wrote:
>
> Don, Sorry buddy, but the added gussets on the longerons won't cut
> the mustard. The gussets provide stiffening in the yaw axis, but
> does not help the compression on the bulkhead. I would do the SB as
> stated.
>
> The discussion has been interesting and sometimes makes me, an
> engineering director, squirm a little. This thread has raised issues
> of structural integrity of the 10 based on a lot of speculation and
> not too many facts. PJ Seipel said it best: "every aircraft is a set
> of compromises". If you want a completely bullet proof structure, it
> will never get off the ground. The goal of the designer is to make
> the stucture strong enough, no more. To the non-engineer, the
> results sometimes look questionable.
>
> The beauty of experimentals is that we have a lot of license to
> personalize our aircraft. Use caution, however, when you tinker with
> the structure. You may be doing more harm than good.
>
> Remember that airplanes are never safe, only relatively safe, and
> that most accidents are pilot induced and not a result of structural
> failure. Also remember that you guys out there flying RV-10s are
> experimenters and still working out the bugs in the aircraft. You
> are doing a great service for the rest of us.
>
> On a couple other points. The brake cylinder location has not been
> an issue on my RV-6. I suspect that they are located aft because to
> relocate them forward would require at least 4 inches more clearance
> to the FW. This means moving the engine forward 4 inches or the
> front seats back. Another CG compromise.
>
> The over sized hole while doing the SB - why not use an AN470AD6
> (3/16) rivet?
>
> -------- Dave RV-6 flying RV-10 QB building
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194850#194850
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Sb 08-6-1: What's the equivalent of an AN470 rivet? |
Laying here in the NoTell Motel in Miles City the revelation came to me
last night. NAS1097-x-x
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of John Cox
Sent: Thu 7/24/2008 8:29 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1: What's the equivalent of an AN470
rivet?
Pascal, when an AN470 universal or an AN426 countersink rivet hole is
enlarged or elongated, the next step is to drill for a OOPs rivet which
has an NAS designation. They are designed to hide the travesty. I have
trays of them at Paul Grimstad's (no reflection on his drilling
prowess). I cannot recall the ID number but Paul could fill you in. My
trays are -3, -4 and -5's.
The technique of drilling, removing and re-installing comes to all who
acquire the Repairman Certificate. Those who use Professional
Gunslingers won' know what they are missing.
John (over night in Miles City, Montana enroute to the BIG ONE or
Aviation Mecca '08.)
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of pascal
Sent: Thu 7/24/2008 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1: What's the equivalent of an AN470
rivet?
too large to fit the old rivet?
I would not recommend using the old rivet, regardless of how much
chewing
gum you use! ;-)
Do you mean the hole is too large for the head of a 470? if so 1 or 2
seem
fine if you mean the hole is smaller than the head but to big to fit the
same length in than simply go up one length of the rivet aka AD4704-4
to
AD4704-5, etc..
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jay Brinkmeyer" <jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:00 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1: What's the equivalent of an AN470 rivet?
<jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
>
> What an acceptable substitute for an AN470 rivet when a drilled out
hole
> gets too large to fit the old rivet? My best guess are #1 or #2. The
> others might be fun to try on someone else's project.
>
> Cheers,
> Jay
>
> 1) AN3 + washer/nut
> 2) #8 pan head screw + washer/nut
> 3) duct tape
> 4) chewing gum
> 5) proseal
> 6) bailing wire
> 7) more primer
> 8) a good place for an adel clamp
>
> Cheers,
> Jay
>
>
&ghref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matron
ic
&href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
nbsp; - List Contribution Web Site bsp; -Matt
Dralle, List
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 |
|
| Subject: | Sb 08-6-1: What's the equivalent of an AN470 rivet? |
Drilling rivets do not necessarily mandate going oversized after
removal. The need for a large bit is often the result of eyesight, hand
coordination and the possibility of multiple sheets of skin fastened
together. It is not uncommon using typical techniques to get up to
three removals before things begin to get questionable. Us older guys
use more OOPs and the younger tykes can often pull off miracles.
The OOPs can keep the head appearing to conform to a correctly driven
original rivet.
I keep lots of OOPs and seldom need them.
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of pascal
Sent: Thu 7/24/2008 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1: What's the equivalent of an AN470
rivet?
certainly good points and thanks to Tim's recommendation I have a draw
of Oops rivets myself. In the SB case however these are 470-4 rivets not
470-3 than require an Oops to repair. Jay is looking for an option for
his larger 470-4 rivet, I have used one size larger with -4 rivets. Done
slowly has shown good results.
Also as a reminder from the Section 5, Jay was right with his two
options- "One of the common calls we get is "I had to drill out a bad
rivet and now the hole is oversize. What do I do?". Sometimes this is
done multiple times in the same hole and now the hole is so large that
the builder has to use a bolt and nut instead of a rivet."
Additionally for us gunslingers, with the technique of drilling maybe
shouldn't be drilling to start with:
EXCERPT from Alcoa Aluminum Rivet Book, dated 1984.
"The standards to which driven rivets should conform are frequently
uncertain. In addition to dimensions and perfection of shape,
inspection is concerned with whether the drive head is coaxial with the
shank (not "clinched") and whether there is excessive
cracking of the heads. It has been determined that even badly cracked
heads are satisfactory from the standpoint of static strength,
fatigue strength and resistance to corrosion. (Poorly set and cracked)
rivet heads were tested in tension to determine how well
formed a head has to be in order to develop full strength. The tensile
strengths of all the rivets were within five per cent of the
strongest. The test indicated that minor deviations from the
theoretically desired shape of head are not cause for concern or
replacement.
The second rivet that is driven in any one hole likely to be more
defective than the first because the hole is enlarged
and rivet will be more likely to buckle and form an imperfect head."
I stand by my using a larger rivet in this case because we HAD to drill
and rivet again. I did it and it worked just fine.
Pascal
From: John Cox <mailto:johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:29 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1: What's the equivalent of an AN470
rivet?
Pascal, when an AN470 universal or an AN426 countersink rivet hole is
enlarged or elongated, the next step is to drill for a OOPs rivet which
has an NAS designation. They are designed to hide the travesty. I have
trays of them at Paul Grimstad's (no reflection on his drilling
prowess). I cannot recall the ID number but Paul could fill you in. My
trays are -3, -4 and -5's.
The technique of drilling, removing and re-installing comes to all who
acquire the Repairman Certificate. Those who use Professional
Gunslingers won' know what they are missing.
John (over night in Miles City, Montana enroute to the BIG ONE or
Aviation Mecca '08.)
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of pascal
Sent: Thu 7/24/2008 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1: What's the equivalent of an AN470
rivet?
too large to fit the old rivet?
I would not recommend using the old rivet, regardless of how much
chewing
gum you use! ;-)
Do you mean the hole is too large for the head of a 470? if so 1 or 2
seem
fine if you mean the hole is smaller than the head but to big to fit the
same length in than simply go up one length of the rivet aka AD4704-4
to
AD4704-5, etc..
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jay Brinkmeyer" <jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:00 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1: What's the equivalent of an AN470 rivet?
<jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
>
> What an acceptable substitute for an AN470 rivet when a drilled out
hole
> gets too large to fit the old rivet? My best guess are #1 or #2. The
> others might be fun to try on someone else's project.
>
> Cheers,
> Jay
>
> 1) AN3 + washer/nut
> 2) #8 pan head screw + washer/nut
> 3) duct tape
> 4) chewing gum
> 5) proseal
> 6) bailing wire
> 7) more primer
> 8) a good place for an adel clamp
>
> Cheers,
> Jay
>
>
&ghref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matron
ic
&href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
nbsp; - List Contribution Web Site bsp; -Matt
Dralle, List
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
================
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 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 |
|
Your inflexibility to see the enhanced mission of Tim's (James) aircraft
product is most unfortunate.
I will reference Epic in the future as I will remain comfortable that
when it comes to the canopy mold, material and finish work, there is a
lot to be learned from builders who have gone before us. Few RVators
are master craftsmen at plastic fab work. They do excell at riveting
over the Brand X which caused you so much heartburn Some builders
thought that Glenn Curtis' addition of ailerons on a Wright Flyer was
blasphemy as well. I even remember when pilots bristled at the mandated
use of seat belts.
Yet I will acknowledge that some people will not consider anything other
than an RV as blasphemy. I think that is why Oshkosh is often
referenced as the Aviation Mecca.
Lets all get to the temple in one piece. Let the inflexible and
untolerant follow all those Limbaugh and Savage Islamofascists to there
own end.
John from the rugged Pacific NW
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of William Curtis
Sent: Thu 7/24/2008 8:38 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
John,
Sounds ominously like this should be coming from John C. John, who
while building an RV-10, really should be building a Lancair since he
has soooo many issues with the design decisions that Van's has made for
the RV-10. He has found fault with many of Van's design decisions and
holds the Lancair up as the model that Van's should emulate. Is this
such a good idea when comparable Lancairs are dropping out of the sky at
recent rate of ONE a month?
Let me try to put this as delicate as I can; adding a rollbar and bush
tires to an RV-10 is just about the dumbest thing I've heard come across
this forum. The purpose of a roll cage is to support a structure when
inverted if the normal material would otherwise collapse. Take a look
at the Second issue 2004 issue of the RVAtor page 7. There you will see
a picture of an RV-10 inverted with the aluminum buckling and the cabin
top FULLY in tact. I can see all type of unintended consequences with
that mod.
As to your list of criticisms, the door design is probably the only
valid one. They others are just opinions. And as we all know, opinions
without engineering data or facts to support those opinions, is just
noise.
>From my running tally, the following is just some of the things he has
issues with; Glue used on windows, Rudder pedals, Door handles, Plastic
Brake lines, Matco Brakes, 1100 tubing for fuel and brake lines, etc.
As he should be building a Lancair, I think maybe Tim James should be
building a Murphy Moose.
William
http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
-------- Original Message --------
> Dave actually has an interesting and worthy point. It's not so much
about
> the SB, I think, as about some of the engineering decisions. The
plane is a
> good airplane, and certainly every plane design has some unforeseen
issues
> that must be field addressed. That's no problem. It's also not about
how
> big or small the pieces are, since some very small pieces in this
plane
> serve very important functions...think cotter pins.
>
> However, there are more than a few design issues that leave one
scratching
> the bald spot. Doors that rip off when accidentally opening in flight
(it
> will happen many times within any fleet of planes, not just the RV-10,
and
> give the flex within the cabin and doors, should have been an
anticipated
> event leading to a more airworthy design), almost certainly causing HS
> damage in the process. Too few ribs in the HS to sustain bird (or
door
> strikes). An odd "discontinuity" in the trim tabs for some unknown
reason
> (at least to me, is this a means of addressing a problem in handling
at low,
> high power speeds?) not actually understood that might be contributing
to
> what stresses. Doors that do not have a second safety catch,
especially
> given their lack of aerodynamics when opened in flight. Brakes that
are not
> vented and of a mass that is correspondent to the size and possible
uses of
> the plane. A lack of a cage or simple roll bar to augment what is a
> questionable structural component of the fuselage, namely the
fiberglass
> top. Brake master cylinders that stick out so feet can hit them,
possibly
> causing some type of leak (I've never understood this in all of Van's
> planes) There are more, I'm sure.
>
> Tim James has a -10 with a roll bar, as well as a two-stop door catch,
both
> easy fixes to the current design. Paul Grimstad has developed a
sensible
> (and beautiful) rudder pedal and brake assembly replacement. We're
waiting
> for a truly structural cabin top, but a roll bar would suffice. The
> innovators are out there addressing the shortcomings, which will be
> identified as we move forward. Eventually they will be addressed, one
at a
> time, leading to a better platform, but being addressed by the builder
> community. Someone will come up with better doors, I'm sure. I hope.
> Maybe a whole replacement for cabin top and doors.
>
> Back to Dave's point. I think we need to evaluate each issue and
address
> them, one by one, as a flying community. We need to question each and
every
> one, which, by his question, Dave does. It's not an insurance issue.
His
> question was to shine a questioning light on a design issue. Is there
> something else going on here that we need to understand, and does this
> replacement part fix the inherent problem or is it a band-aid? Yes,
the
> fact that a piece was sent out to all registered users indicates a
serious
> problem, and we all are happy that the problem was caught and a quick
> response came forth. What about the others? I find the door issue
one of a
> nature that should not have to be addressed by each builder alone, nor
by
> the builder community, but by the engineers at Van's.
>
> My plea is that, if a builder finds something or knows of something,
that it
> be shared with all, especially if they have come up with a fix! I'll
try to
> get good pictures of Tim's roll bar and double catch door latch, and
perhaps
> whatever measurements are needed, along with a parts list for posting.
If
> you're using this list while building but do not contribute ideas and
> discussions, please think about starting to do so. There aren't that
many
> who take the time to post; we need everyone's help and good ideas.
>
> Thanks, Dave, for having the courage to open this thread. And, thanks
to
> all for their sincere, non-flammable replies. A great community.
>
> Have fun at OSH. Take lots of pictures! Share!
>
> John J
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Leikam
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:59 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
>
>
> With all due respect, I know I have to do the SB, and I will, but if
the
> empennage is that inclined to come off this airplane without those
two
> small pieces of aluminum installed, I wouldn't fly it after they were
> installed!
>
> Dave Leikam
> RV-10 #40496
> N89DA (Reserved)
> Muskego, WI
>
> do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: McGANN, Ron <mailto:ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:01 PM
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
>
>
> I prefer to remove the empennage myself, in the hangar - rather than
have it
> do so on its own, at 10000'.
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Leikam
> Sent: Thursday, 24 July 2008 8:22 AM
> To: RV-10 matronics
> Subject: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
>
>
> What if I never do the SB on the tailcone of my plane?
>
> Fire away!
>
> Dave Leikam
> RV-10 #40496
> N89DA (Reserved)
> Muskego, WI
>
>
> p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> ics.com
>
> .matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> "Warning:
>
> The information contained in this email and any attached files is
>
> confidential to BAE Systems Australia. If you are not the intended
>
> recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this email or any
>
> attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email
>
> in error, please notify us immediately. VIRUS: Every care has been
>
> taken to ensure this email and its attachments are virus free,
>
> however, any loss or damage incurred in using this email is not the
>
> sender's responsibility. It is your responsibility to ensure virus
>
> checks are completed before installing any data sent in this email to
>
> your computer."
>
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com <http://www.matronics.com/>
> /Navigator?RV10-List
>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
">http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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: Sb 08-6-1: What's the equivalent of an AN470 rivet? |
Jay,
I think the thread has drifted a little. The NAS1097 is an Oops rivet for an AN426,
and you were talking about a buggered hole for an AN470A4, right? My choices
would be:
AN470A5-x with a tensile strength of 16,000
AN470AD5-x with a tensile strength of 38,000
#8 screw with a tensile strength of 60,000
AN3-x with a tensile strength of 125,000
John
--------
#40572 QB Fuselage, wings finished
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194870#194870
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 |
|
Most of you will never meet Tim James nor witness the slow, unnerving
gracefullness of his RV-10 on base and final. Those VG's decreased his
stall by nearly 10mph, and it's VERY noticeable when watching. I found
myself yelling "get yer speed up!" If I recall correctly, his stall numbers
were equal to or slightly less than those of my 1978 Cessna 172n. He got
his '10 signed off just months after his Super Cub. He probably sold his
Glastar (at least, that's what I believe one of his other planes is) cuz
there can't be enough room in his hangar for 3 planes. Well, maybe. I
haven't seen him with a Murphy Moose, but something tells me he's probably
got a lot of other comparable back-country planes that he's built, sold, and
moved on from. He is a very nice and intelligent man, with whom I have a
great deal of respect. You'll know it's his plane when you see a bunch of
'10's parked together and one of them stands about 4" taller than all the
rest.
Bruce
40018 Wings, no VG's yet
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:00 AM, John Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
> Your inflexibility to see the enhanced mission of Tim's (James) aircraft
> product is most unfortunate.
>
> I will reference Epic in the future as I will remain comfortable that when
> it comes to the canopy mold, material and finish work, there is a lot to be
> learned from builders who have gone before us. Few RVators are master
> craftsmen at plastic fab work. They do excell at riveting over the Brand X
> which caused you so much heartburn Some builders thought that Glenn Curtis'
> addition of ailerons on a Wright Flyer was blasphemy as well. I even
> remember when pilots bristled at the mandated use of seat belts.
>
> Yet I will acknowledge that some people will not consider anything other
> than an RV as blasphemy. I think that is why Oshkosh is often referenced
> as the Aviation Mecca.
>
> Lets all get to the temple in one piece. Let the inflexible and untolerant
> follow all those Limbaugh and Savage Islamofascists to there own end.
>
> John from the rugged Pacific NW
> ------------------------------
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of William Curtis
> *Sent:* Thu 7/24/2008 8:38 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
>
> John,
>
> Sounds ominously like this should be coming from John C. John, who while
> building an RV-10, really should be building a Lancair since he has soooo
> many issues with the design decisions that Van's has made for the RV-10. He
> has found fault with many of Van's design decisions and holds the Lancair up
> as the model that Van's should emulate. Is this such a good idea when
> comparable Lancairs are dropping out of the sky at recent rate of ONE a
> month?
>
> Let me try to put this as delicate as I can; adding a rollbar and bush
> tires to an RV-10 is just about the dumbest thing I've heard come across
> this forum. The purpose of a roll cage is to support a structure when
> inverted if the normal material would otherwise collapse. Take a look at
> the Second issue 2004 issue of the RVAtor page 7. There you will see a
> picture of an RV-10 inverted with the aluminum buckling and the cabin top
> FULLY in tact. I can see all type of unintended consequences with that mod.
>
> As to your list of criticisms, the door design is probably the only valid
> one. They others are just opinions. And as we all know, opinions without
> engineering data or facts to support those opinions, is just noise.
>
> From my running tally, the following is just some of the things he has
> issues with; Glue used on windows, Rudder pedals, Door handles, Plastic
> Brake lines, Matco Brakes, 1100 tubing for fuel and brake lines, etc. As he
> should be building a Lancair, I think maybe Tim James should be building a
> Murphy Moose.
>
>
> William
> http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> > Dave actually has an interesting and worthy point. It's not so much
> about
> > the SB, I think, as about some of the engineering decisions. The plane
> is a
> > good airplane, and certainly every plane design has some unforeseen
> issues
> > that must be field addressed. That's no problem. It's also not about
> how
> > big or small the pieces are, since some very small pieces in this plane
> > serve very important functions...think cotter pins.
> >
> > However, there are more than a few design issues that leave one
> scratching
> > the bald spot. Doors that rip off when accidentally opening in flight
> (it
> > will happen many times within any fleet of planes, not just the RV-10,
> and
> > give the flex within the cabin and doors, should have been an anticipated
> > event leading to a more airworthy design), almost certainly causing HS
> > damage in the process. Too few ribs in the HS to sustain bird (or door
> > strikes). An odd "discontinuity" in the trim tabs for some unknown
> reason
> > (at least to me, is this a means of addressing a problem in handling at
> low,
> > high power speeds?) not actually understood that might be contributing to
> > what stresses. Doors that do not have a second safety catch, especially
> > given their lack of aerodynamics when opened in flight. Brakes that are
> not
> > vented and of a mass that is correspondent to the size and possible uses
> of
> > the plane. A lack of a cage or simple roll bar to augment what is a
> > questionable structural component of the fuselage, namely the fiberglass
> > top. Brake master cylinders that stick out so feet can hit them,
> possibly
> > causing some type of leak (I've never understood this in all of Van's
> > planes) There are more, I'm sure.
> >
> > Tim James has a -10 with a roll bar, as well as a two-stop door catch,
> both
> > easy fixes to the current design. Paul Grimstad has developed a sensible
> > (and beautiful) rudder pedal and brake assembly replacement. We're
> waiting
> > for a truly structural cabin top, but a roll bar would suffice. The
> > innovators are out there addressing the shortcomings, which will be
> > identified as we move forward. Eventually they will be addressed, one at
> a
> > time, leading to a better platform, but being addressed by the builder
> > community. Someone will come up with better doors, I'm sure. I hope.
> > Maybe a whole replacement for cabin top and doors.
> >
> > Back to Dave's point. I think we need to evaluate each issue and address
> > them, one by one, as a flying community. We need to question each and
> every
> > one, which, by his question, Dave does. It's not an insurance issue.
> His
> > question was to shine a questioning light on a design issue. Is there
> > something else going on here that we need to understand, and does this
> > replacement part fix the inherent problem or is it a band-aid? Yes, the
> > fact that a piece was sent out to all registered users indicates a
> serious
> > problem, and we all are happy that the problem was caught and a quick
> > response came forth. What about the others? I find the door issue one
> of a
> > nature that should not have to be addressed by each builder alone, nor by
> > the builder community, but by the engineers at Van's.
> >
> > My plea is that, if a builder finds something or knows of something, that
> it
> > be shared with all, especially if they have come up with a fix! I'll try
> to
> > get good pictures of Tim's roll bar and double catch door latch, and
> perhaps
> > whatever measurements are needed, along with a parts list for posting.
> If
> > you're using this list while building but do not contribute ideas and
> > discussions, please think about starting to do so. There aren't that
> many
> > who take the time to post; we need everyone's help and good ideas.
> >
> > Thanks, Dave, for having the courage to open this thread. And, thanks to
> > all for their sincere, non-flammable replies. A great community.
> >
> > Have fun at OSH. Take lots of pictures! Share!
> >
> > John J
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com<owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>]
> On Behalf Of Dave Leikam
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:59 PM
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
> >
> >
> > With all due respect, I know I have to do the SB, and I will, but if the
> > empennage is that inclined to come off this airplane without those two
> > small pieces of aluminum installed, I wouldn't fly it after they were
> > installed!
> >
> > Dave Leikam
> > RV-10 #40496
> > N89DA (Reserved)
> > Muskego, WI
> >
> > do not archive
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: McGANN, Ron <mailto:ron.mcgann@baesystems.com<ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
> >
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:01 PM
> > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
> >
> >
> > I prefer to remove the empennage myself, in the hangar - rather than have
> it
> > do so on its own, at 10000'.
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com<owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>]
> On Behalf Of Dave Leikam
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 July 2008 8:22 AM
> > To: RV-10 matronics
> > Subject: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
> >
> >
> > What if I never do the SB on the tailcone of my plane?
> >
> > Fire away!
> >
> > Dave Leikam
> > RV-10 #40496
> > N89DA (Reserved)
> > Muskego, WI
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> >
> > ics.com
> >
> > .matronics.com/contribution
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Warning:
> >
> > The information contained in this email and any attached files is
> >
> > confidential to BAE Systems Australia. If you are not the intended
> >
> > recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this email or any
> >
> > attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email
> >
> > in error, please notify us immediately. VIRUS: Every care has been
> >
> > taken to ensure this email and its attachments are virus free,
> >
> > however, any loss or damage incurred in using this email is not the
> >
> > sender's responsibility. It is your responsibility to ensure virus
> >
> > checks are completed before installing any data sent in this email to
> >
> > your computer."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/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 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: Strobe or becan on top of Virtical Stab |
Pascal,
If you only need a streamline cover, check out this page at Kuntzleman lighting:
http://www.kestrobes.com/heads.htm#NEW_ITEM!
scroll down a little - only $10.
John
--------
#40572 QB Fuselage, wings finished
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194876#194876
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: | Onsite at OSH 2008 - First 2 RV-10's arrive! |
I just finished packing the SUV and we'll be heading out in a couple hours.
Now that's motivation to get the RV-10 quicker. We are looking for to
seeing everyone in the morning!
bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 7:43 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Onsite at OSH 2008 - First 2 RV-10's arrive!
Couldn't hold back...had to go early. So we're here!
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/flights/OSH2008/index.html
Will be trying to update that page daily, or close to.
--
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
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 |
|
William,
No need for delicacy. Yes, some of the observations are from discussions
with John C, but not all and certainly not ominously. John's perspective is
widespread and quite well informed. What he does so often is point to
something that needs more thought and thus more input and research by us
all. His observations are something that you can accept or discount, as you
will, but at least they are there.
The point of the original post by Dave was to start a thread of enquiry,
mine was to expand it a little. There are others out there who know vastly
more than I do about such things and who might even have some data, but none
of this is noise. These are questions and points of observation which worry
me. If you have evidence that can allay my worries, as you presented below,
I thank you, otherwise your response lacks as much substantives data as my
questions.
Tim James, did not add bush tires to an RV-10, period, nor did I say such.
His use of the C206 gear and larger tires, as well as GlaStar type winglets,
VG's, etc. was to purposefully enhance the -10 for short, rough field use.
Those mods are for Tim something that makes the already good plane more
useful for his needs. Not dumb at all; in fact, just the opposite. The
roll cage goes along with his needs, and, according to Dave Saylor and you,
probably not that necessary. An interesting addition, however, and one
worth some consideration. What unintended consequences did you have in your
mind's eye?
Improvements to a good design are what makes the experimental community so
valuable. Dialog, that which raises a question and the subsequent answers,
negative and positive, are what's needed to hash out good or not so good
ideas, to move forward, to innovate. Many, besides John C, have taken issue
with the window install and tried different alternatives. The innovative
new rudder pedals from Paul are the type of product that makes the plane
that much more refined. The original door design must have come about due
to some compromise or another, otherwise why would any aeronautical engineer
purposefully put a flexing door on a flexing cabin top, all conducive to
unwanted opening, without the addition of a double security point and the
ability of the relative wind to hold the door closed? I do not reject the
RV-10 because of this, it is just a flag for me to watch and pay attention
for other compromises. There should be no need to worry about a door coming
open in flight, no need to have to double check if the passenger door pin is
engaged. We can certainly do so and move on, but the original design will
continue to remain unsound until others come along with better door latches
and other mods to help alleviate the potential and very real problem.
But enough. No wonder there is a tendency towards the center.
Anyway, all those at OSH, have fun! Keep the pictures coming!
William, thanks for your input.
John J
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:39 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
John,
Sounds ominously like this should be coming from John C. John, who while
building an RV-10, really should be building a Lancair since he has soooo
many issues with the design decisions that Van's has made for the RV-10. He
has found fault with many of Van's design decisions and holds the Lancair up
as the model that Van's should emulate. Is this such a good idea when
comparable Lancairs are dropping out of the sky at recent rate of ONE a
month?
Let me try to put this as delicate as I can; adding a rollbar and bush
tires to an RV-10 is just about the dumbest thing I've heard come across
this forum. The purpose of a roll cage is to support a structure when
inverted if the normal material would otherwise collapse. Take a look at
the Second issue 2004 issue of the RVAtor page 7. There you will see a
picture of an RV-10 inverted with the aluminum buckling and the cabin top
FULLY in tact. I can see all type of unintended consequences with that mod.
As to your list of criticisms, the door design is probably the only valid
one. They others are just opinions. And as we all know, opinions without
engineering data or facts to support those opinions, is just noise.
>From my running tally, the following is just some of the things he has
issues with; Glue used on windows, Rudder pedals, Door handles, Plastic
Brake lines, Matco Brakes, 1100 tubing for fuel and brake lines, etc. As he
should be building a Lancair, I think maybe Tim James should be building a
Murphy Moose.
William
http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
-------- Original Message --------
> Dave actually has an interesting and worthy point. It's not so much
> about the SB, I think, as about some of the engineering decisions.
> The plane is a good airplane, and certainly every plane design has
> some unforeseen issues that must be field addressed. That's no
> problem. It's also not about how big or small the pieces are, since
> some very small pieces in this plane serve very important
functions...think cotter pins.
>
> However, there are more than a few design issues that leave one
> scratching the bald spot. Doors that rip off when accidentally
> opening in flight (it will happen many times within any fleet of
> planes, not just the RV-10, and give the flex within the cabin and
> doors, should have been an anticipated event leading to a more
> airworthy design), almost certainly causing HS damage in the process.
> Too few ribs in the HS to sustain bird (or door strikes). An odd
> "discontinuity" in the trim tabs for some unknown reason (at least to
> me, is this a means of addressing a problem in handling at low, high
> power speeds?) not actually understood that might be contributing to
> what stresses. Doors that do not have a second safety catch,
> especially given their lack of aerodynamics when opened in flight.
> Brakes that are not vented and of a mass that is correspondent to the
> size and possible uses of the plane. A lack of a cage or simple roll
> bar to augment what is a questionable structural component of the
> fuselage, namely the fiberglass top. Brake master cylinders that
> stick out so feet can hit them, possibly causing some type of leak
> (I've never understood this in all of Van's
> planes) There are more, I'm sure.
>
> Tim James has a -10 with a roll bar, as well as a two-stop door catch,
> both easy fixes to the current design. Paul Grimstad has developed a
> sensible (and beautiful) rudder pedal and brake assembly replacement.
> We're waiting for a truly structural cabin top, but a roll bar would
> suffice. The innovators are out there addressing the shortcomings,
> which will be identified as we move forward. Eventually they will be
> addressed, one at a time, leading to a better platform, but being
> addressed by the builder community. Someone will come up with better
doors, I'm sure. I hope.
> Maybe a whole replacement for cabin top and doors.
>
> Back to Dave's point. I think we need to evaluate each issue and
> address them, one by one, as a flying community. We need to question
> each and every one, which, by his question, Dave does. It's not an
> insurance issue. His question was to shine a questioning light on a
> design issue. Is there something else going on here that we need to
> understand, and does this replacement part fix the inherent problem or
> is it a band-aid? Yes, the fact that a piece was sent out to all
> registered users indicates a serious problem, and we all are happy
> that the problem was caught and a quick response came forth. What
> about the others? I find the door issue one of a nature that should
> not have to be addressed by each builder alone, nor by the builder
community, but by the engineers at Van's.
>
> My plea is that, if a builder finds something or knows of something,
> that it be shared with all, especially if they have come up with a
> fix! I'll try to get good pictures of Tim's roll bar and double catch
> door latch, and perhaps whatever measurements are needed, along with a
> parts list for posting. If you're using this list while building but
> do not contribute ideas and discussions, please think about starting
> to do so. There aren't that many who take the time to post; we need
everyone's help and good ideas.
>
> Thanks, Dave, for having the courage to open this thread. And, thanks
> to all for their sincere, non-flammable replies. A great community.
>
> Have fun at OSH. Take lots of pictures! Share!
>
> John J
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Leikam
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:59 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
>
>
> With all due respect, I know I have to do the SB, and I will, but if
> the empennage is that inclined to come off this airplane without
> those two small pieces of aluminum installed, I wouldn't fly it after
> they were installed!
>
> Dave Leikam
> RV-10 #40496
> N89DA (Reserved)
> Muskego, WI
>
> do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: McGANN, Ron <mailto:ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:01 PM
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
>
>
> I prefer to remove the empennage myself, in the hangar - rather than
> have it do so on its own, at 10000'.
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Leikam
> Sent: Thursday, 24 July 2008 8:22 AM
> To: RV-10 matronics
> Subject: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
>
>
> What if I never do the SB on the tailcone of my plane?
>
> Fire away!
>
> Dave Leikam
> RV-10 #40496
> N89DA (Reserved)
> Muskego, WI
>
>
>
>
>
> p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> ics.com
>
> .matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
> "Warning:
>
> The information contained in this email and any attached files is
>
> confidential to BAE Systems Australia. If you are not the intended
>
> recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this email or any
>
> attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email
>
> in error, please notify us immediately. VIRUS: Every care has been
>
> taken to ensure this email and its attachments are virus free,
>
> however, any loss or damage incurred in using this email is not the
>
> sender's responsibility. It is your responsibility to ensure virus
>
> checks are completed before installing any data sent in this email to
>
> your computer."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/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
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: RV-10 OSH Picnic |
Just give me a call on my cell: 402 651 0402.
Bob
--------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com <owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>
Sent: Thu Jul 24 21:03:37 2008
Subject: RE: RV10-List: RV-10 OSH Picnic
Hi Bob
There is a 50/50 chance my daughter and I will be at KOSH in time for some
BBQ. If we make it, is there a number we can call in advance?
Cheers
Les Kearney
& Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bcondrey
Sent: July-23-08 8:00 PM
Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 OSH Picnic
Time to spend some of generous donation from Steve DiNieri and Bob Leffler!
We've decided to kick off the week with a BBQ Saturday evening for the every
arrival crowd. RV-10 builders, flyers and families are all invited. If
you're a serious wannbe we won't turn you away :)
Let's plan on about 6:00 at RV-10 HQ located at 55th and Lindbergh in Camp
Scholler.
Please let us know if you'll be able to stop by so we can insure we don't
run short of food & drink.
Bob, Susan, Gary and Brenda
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194646#194646
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Sunvisor installation (was Cabin Roof) |
Dave=2C
I have been wondering about drilling the holes in the rain channel for the
Rosen visors and have held off because of this concern. Did you come up wit
h a different approach for mounting them?
Vern Smith (#324 finishing)
From: Dave@aircraftersllc.comTo: rv10-list@matronics.comSubject: RV10-List:
Cabin RoofDate: Thu=2C 24 Jul 2008 17:29:28 -0700
My sense is that the top is very strong.
I had a discussion with the factory=2C the upshot of which was that Enginee
ring was concerned about (prohibited) drilling the 2 #10 holes in the rain
channel for the visor mounts. Rather than thinking "jeez=2C it won't even
take a couple little holes"=2C the proper thought should be that some parts
are critical and should not be casually modified. Those channels were des
igned from the beginning to be strong enough to protect the occupants.
I know the upper roof section is VERY thick for a fiberglass piece. Again
=2C that is for a reason (added strength)=2C not because it was easy or che
ap. The core is pretty dense too=2C adding to the strength.
The cage formed by the door frames and roof looks pretty strong. Everythin
g has a limit=2C but the roof doesn't seem to me at all like a weak point.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville=2C CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
_________________________________________________________________
Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM
_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008
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 |
|
Tim,
It's a good airplane. I even said that in my post, I even acknowledged that
it was great that Van's responded with the fix to the problem, but I guess
that was ignored by all those who have responded. And, yes, I'm not yet
flying an RV-10. So, I should not judge?
Do you really think that having 5 or 7 door departures for 150 planes is an
acceptable statistic? There is a problem with the door design. Can it be
lived with? Sure. But, as a retired airline pilot who flies aerobatics in
his T-34 said to me just yesterday, "I do the dumbest things (when flying),
even after all these years." So, one can and will be "stupid." We will
have more doors depart until this problem is adequately addressed.
My post was a call for discussion, not a call for squashing discussion. We
certainly do not need to fly it before we judge it. In fact, as a builder
community, we need to be asking questions, getting one's concerns out, and
engaging in constructive dialog.
Enjoy OSH. Keep those pictures coming.
John J
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 5:20 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Sb 08-6-1
Amen to that! The -10 seems to be built very well in general.
Finding a potential crack point as they did, and for free, giving the parts
to fix it, is a great thing of them. Design wise there is very little that
is disappointing on the RV-10. I'm always flabbergasted that people don't
find things like the rudder pedals acceptable. I get the feeling that people
judge the plane far too soon before they fly it. After 360 hours, there is
just so little that disappoints. The single case I can think of for new
pedals is if you are like me and have both a tall and short person to
satisfy...but even we make do just fine.
Structurally, I don't find much to worry about either. The SB fixes one
potential area, and yeah, it could be fixed even better, but if the builder
really wants it built with a double-bulkhead they certainly can do that.
I'm happy enough with the design and doubt you'll see much problem in the
fleet once the fix is done.
Certainly it's now strong enough that you will see the issues during
inspection rather than instant catastrophic failure.
Even the doors....if you build them well (mine aren't as nicely fit as
many), they will still serve you well and work fine.
Check the latch pins every flight. Doesn't matter what type of plane and
door design you fly....not checking them is just plain stupid. If you check
them, you should not have any issues (considering you built them right).
And for the record, losing a door does not guarantee a damaged HS, as was
implied.....there have been what, 5 or 7 door departures so far (proving
sloppy pilots are the weak link) and there has only been ONE instance of a
door hitting the HS. No, this doesn't mean it's a non-issue, but it's no
guarantee of damage.
If you want a safe RV-10, you can have it BY following the plans, or for
those who don't like that idea, you can have it EVEN IF you follow the
plans. The catch is, you have to ensure it's piloted by someone who does
that job adequately.
On closing, you should also be happy about one other thing. We have
3 fatals so far in the RV-10. One was ignorance and stupidity.
Another sounds likely medical. The 3rd was piss-poor IFR piloting.
Like William mentioned....it sure doesn't sound like we have something to be
ashamed of for a quality track record when I read about Lancairs (esp. the
4P it seems) going down almost monthly. I'm constantly shocked when I log
in and check mail and hear that they lost another.
For them, it seems to be a larger variety of issues, as well.
For us, we can be relatively comfortable knowing that our 3 total fatals
were very likely NOT a result of anything structural.
There are improvements that can be made to the kit, I've done some of them
myself, but the raw product just ain't that bad. You just need to fly it
for a while before you judge it.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
nukeflyboy wrote:
>
> Don, Sorry buddy, but the added gussets on the longerons won't cut the
> mustard. The gussets provide stiffening in the yaw axis, but does not
> help the compression on the bulkhead. I would do the SB as stated.
>
> The discussion has been interesting and sometimes makes me, an
> engineering director, squirm a little. This thread has raised issues
> of structural integrity of the 10 based on a lot of speculation and
> not too many facts. PJ Seipel said it best: "every aircraft is a set
> of compromises". If you want a completely bullet proof structure, it
> will never get off the ground. The goal of the designer is to make
> the stucture strong enough, no more. To the non-engineer, the results
> sometimes look questionable.
>
> The beauty of experimentals is that we have a lot of license to
> personalize our aircraft. Use caution, however, when you tinker with
> the structure. You may be doing more harm than good.
>
> Remember that airplanes are never safe, only relatively safe, and that
> most accidents are pilot induced and not a result of structural
> failure. Also remember that you guys out there flying RV-10s are
> experimenters and still working out the bugs in the aircraft. You are
> doing a great service for the rest of us.
>
> On a couple other points. The brake cylinder location has not been an
> issue on my RV-6. I suspect that they are located aft because to
> relocate them forward would require at least 4 inches more clearance
> to the FW. This means moving the engine forward 4 inches or the front
> seats back. Another CG compromise.
>
> The over sized hole while doing the SB - why not use an AN470AD6
> (3/16) rivet?
>
> -------- Dave RV-6 flying RV-10 QB building
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194850#194850
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
>
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 |
|
Thanks, Ben and Dave, good responses. Makes me feel much better.
John
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 5:29 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Cabin Roof
My sense is that the top is very strong.
I had a discussion with the factory, the upshot of which was that
Engineering was concerned about (prohibited) drilling the 2 #10 holes in the
rain channel for the visor mounts. Rather than thinking "jeez, it won't
even take a couple little holes", the proper thought should be that some
parts are critical and should not be casually modified. Those channels were
designed from the beginning to be strong enough to protect the occupants.
I know the upper roof section is VERY thick for a fiberglass piece. Again,
that is for a reason (added strength), not because it was easy or cheap.
The core is pretty dense too, adding to the strength.
The cage formed by the door frames and roof looks pretty strong. Everything
has a limit, but the roof doesn't seem to me at all like a weak point.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Westfall
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 2:00 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
John,
I asked Van about the cabin top strength directly. He said that they drop
tested a fuselage and the top help up. I did not ask him any more specifics
as to the drop test except that I asked if the windows blew out or cracked
but he didn't remember.
I myself don't know a single thing about fiberglass strengths so I don't
even have an opinion as to the cabin top strength. I'm curios why the
impression is that the top is a "questionable structural component". Does
anyone know for certain its strengths/weaknesses or are we all just aluminum
bigots and we think fiberglass is weak? I'm not picking on anyone I just
want to know why the consensus seems to be that the top is not strong
enough. It looks thicker and stronger than any glass plane I've looked at.
-Ben W
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 7:45 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
Dave actually has an interesting and worthy point. It's not so much about
the SB, I think, as about some of the engineering decisions. The plane is a
good airplane, and certainly every plane design has some unforeseen issues
that must be field addressed. That's no problem. It's also not about how
big or small the pieces are, since some very small pieces in this plane
serve very important functions...think cotter pins.
However, there are more than a few design issues that leave one scratching
the bald spot. Doors that rip off when accidentally opening in flight (it
will happen many times within any fleet of planes, not just the RV-10, and
give the flex within the cabin and doors, should have been an anticipated
event leading to a more airworthy design), almost certainly causing HS
damage in the process. Too few ribs in the HS to sustain bird (or door
strikes). An odd "discontinuity" in the trim tabs for some unknown reason
(at least to me, is this a means of addressing a problem in handling at low,
high power speeds?) not actually understood that might be contributing to
what stresses. Doors that do not have a second safety catch, especially
given their lack of aerodynamics when opened in flight. Brakes that are not
vented and of a mass that is correspondent to the size and possible uses of
the plane. A lack of a cage or simple roll bar to augment what is a
questionable structural component of the fuselage, namely the fiberglass
top. Brake master cylinders that stick out so feet can hit them, possibly
causing some type of leak (I've never understood this in all of Van's
planes) There are more, I'm sure.
Tim James has a -10 with a roll bar, as well as a two-stop door catch, both
easy fixes to the current design. Paul Grimstad has developed a sensible
(and beautiful) rudder pedal and brake assembly replacement. We're waiting
for a truly structural cabin top, but a roll bar would suffice. The
innovators are out there addressing the shortcomings, which will be
identified as we move forward. Eventually they will be addressed, one at a
time, leading to a better platform, but being addressed by the builder
community. Someone will come up with better doors, I'm sure. I hope.
Maybe a whole replacement for cabin top and doors.
Back to Dave's point. I think we need to evaluate each issue and address
them, one by one, as a flying community. We need to question each and every
one, which, by his question, Dave does. It's not an insurance issue. His
question was to shine a questioning light on a design issue. Is there
something else going on here that we need to understand, and does this
replacement part fix the inherent problem or is it a band-aid? Yes, the
fact that a piece was sent out to all registered users indicates a serious
problem, and we all are happy that the problem was caught and a quick
response came forth. What about the others? I find the door issue one of a
nature that should not have to be addressed by each builder alone, nor by
the builder community, but by the engineers at Van's.
My plea is that, if a builder finds something or knows of something, that it
be shared with all, especially if they have come up with a fix! I'll try to
get good pictures of Tim's roll bar and double catch door latch, and perhaps
whatever measurements are needed, along with a parts list for posting. If
you're using this list while building but do not contribute ideas and
discussions, please think about starting to do so. There aren't that many
who take the time to post; we need everyone's help and good ideas.
Thanks, Dave, for having the courage to open this thread. And, thanks to
all for their sincere, non-flammable replies. A great community.
Have fun at OSH. Take lots of pictures! Share!
John J
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Leikam
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
With all due respect, I know I have to do the SB, and I will, but if the
empennage is that inclined to come off this airplane without those two
small pieces of aluminum installed, I wouldn't fly it after they were
installed!
Dave Leikam
RV-10 #40496
N89DA (Reserved)
Muskego, WI
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: McGANN, Ron <mailto:ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:01 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
I prefer to remove the empennage myself, in the hangar - rather than have it
do so on its own, at 10000'.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Leikam
Sent: Thursday, 24 July 2008 8:22 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
What if I never do the SB on the tailcone of my plane?
Fire away!
Dave Leikam
RV-10 #40496
N89DA (Reserved)
Muskego, WI
p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
ics.com
.matronics.com/contribution
"Warning:
The information contained in this email and any attached files is
confidential to BAE Systems Australia. If you are not the intended
recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this email or any
attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email
in error, please notify us immediately. VIRUS: Every care has been
taken to ensure this email and its attachments are virus free,
however, any loss or damage incurred in using this email is not the
sender's responsibility. It is your responsibility to ensure virus
checks are completed before installing any data sent in this email to
your computer."
href="http://www.matronics.com/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/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
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 |
|
John,
Thanks for your response and I agree with you that these things should be discussed.
But there is a difference between a question by an outside observer about
a system in an inquiring way, and a question in a criticizing way with no facts
or data to support that criticism. There is a non pilot who hangs out at
our airport that does this all the time, speaking and criticizing authoritatively
on piloting issues, and it infuriates me to no end. Just as I would not
put much stock on this guy's opinion on crosswind landing techniques, I would
also have to consider the source of any modification.
Your list of issues came across as criticizing the design decisions that Van's
made without fully taking into consideration the engineering and economic dynamics
of the kit. Sure Van's could have added a more "refined" rudder pedal system
to the kit, but this would have increased the kit cost by another $1,500,
increased parts count, increased complexity-all only for additional refinement.
Addition of such refinements here and there would quickly raise the kit cost
from $40,000 to $60-80K for no gain in safety. This is just one example but
this is the "noise" to which I referred. Maybe all did not follow it but I
though Van's did a very good job of explaining many of the design decision in
the RVAtor during the development of the RV-10. A review of this would have answered
many of these "questions."
There is a reason Van's kits and flying planes outnumber other kit manufacturers
easily by at least factor of 10. They design a good, efficient kit at a reasonable
cost. As a builder you can choose to "upgrade" those items that are important
to you, however changing the basic design criteria, modifying structure
without having the engineering expertise or fully understanding the original
designers intent may do more harm than good. The roll bar idea is what initially
raised my eyebrow because without having an idea of what crumple zones (if
any) were designed in the lower structure for drop testing, adding a roll bar
to "shore up" cabin top when it is not needed, may be undoing what the designer
intended in other areas of the cabin structure. This to me is the "dumb"
part. Dumb in thinking additional reinforcement is needed when Van's published
the roll over testing and dumb in doing it without understand the cabin structure
dynamics.
Improvements to a good design is one thing, outright design modifications on "gut
feel" is quite another. There is NO WAY that roll bar mod is more than "gut
feel" engineering. Keep the discussion going and forgive my "delicacies."
William
http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
-------- Original Message --------
> William,
>
> No need for delicacy. Yes, some of the observations are from discussions
> with John C, but not all and certainly not ominously. John's perspective is
> widespread and quite well informed. What he does so often is point to
> something that needs more thought and thus more input and research by us
> all. His observations are something that you can accept or discount, as you
> will, but at least they are there.
>
> The point of the original post by Dave was to start a thread of enquiry,
> mine was to expand it a little. There are others out there who know vastly
> more than I do about such things and who might even have some data, but none
> of this is noise. These are questions and points of observation which worry
> me. If you have evidence that can allay my worries, as you presented below,
> I thank you, otherwise your response lacks as much substantives data as my
> questions.
>
> Tim James, did not add bush tires to an RV-10, period, nor did I say such.
> His use of the C206 gear and larger tires, as well as GlaStar type winglets,
> VG's, etc. was to purposefully enhance the -10 for short, rough field use.
> Those mods are for Tim something that makes the already good plane more
> useful for his needs. Not dumb at all; in fact, just the opposite. The
> roll cage goes along with his needs, and, according to Dave Saylor and you,
> probably not that necessary. An interesting addition, however, and one
> worth some consideration. What unintended consequences did you have in your
> mind's eye?
>
> Improvements to a good design are what makes the experimental community so
> valuable. Dialog, that which raises a question and the subsequent answers,
> negative and positive, are what's needed to hash out good or not so good
> ideas, to move forward, to innovate. Many, besides John C, have taken issue
> with the window install and tried different alternatives. The innovative
> new rudder pedals from Paul are the type of product that makes the plane
> that much more refined. The original door design must have come about due
> to some compromise or another, otherwise why would any aeronautical engineer
> purposefully put a flexing door on a flexing cabin top, all conducive to
> unwanted opening, without the addition of a double security point and the
> ability of the relative wind to hold the door closed? I do not reject the
> RV-10 because of this, it is just a flag for me to watch and pay attention
> for other compromises. There should be no need to worry about a door coming
> open in flight, no need to have to double check if the passenger door pin is
> engaged. We can certainly do so and move on, but the original design will
> continue to remain unsound until others come along with better door latches
> and other mods to help alleviate the potential and very real problem.
>
> But enough. No wonder there is a tendency towards the center.
>
> Anyway, all those at OSH, have fun! Keep the pictures coming!
>
> William, thanks for your input.
>
> John J
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:39 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
>
> John,
>
> Sounds ominously like this should be coming from John C. John, who while
> building an RV-10, really should be building a Lancair since he has soooo
> many issues with the design decisions that Van's has made for the RV-10. He
> has found fault with many of Van's design decisions and holds the Lancair up
> as the model that Van's should emulate. Is this such a good idea when
> comparable Lancairs are dropping out of the sky at recent rate of ONE a
> month?
>
> Let me try to put this as delicate as I can; adding a rollbar and bush
> tires to an RV-10 is just about the dumbest thing I've heard come across
> this forum. The purpose of a roll cage is to support a structure when
> inverted if the normal material would otherwise collapse. Take a look at
> the Second issue 2004 issue of the RVAtor page 7. There you will see a
> picture of an RV-10 inverted with the aluminum buckling and the cabin top
> FULLY in tact. I can see all type of unintended consequences with that mod.
>
> As to your list of criticisms, the door design is probably the only valid
> one. They others are just opinions. And as we all know, opinions without
> engineering data or facts to support those opinions, is just noise.
>
> >From my running tally, the following is just some of the things he has
> issues with; Glue used on windows, Rudder pedals, Door handles, Plastic
> Brake lines, Matco Brakes, 1100 tubing for fuel and brake lines, etc. As he
> should be building a Lancair, I think maybe Tim James should be building a
> Murphy Moose.
>
>
> William
> http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> > Dave actually has an interesting and worthy point. It's not so much
> > about the SB, I think, as about some of the engineering decisions.
> > The plane is a good airplane, and certainly every plane design has
> > some unforeseen issues that must be field addressed. That's no
> > problem. It's also not about how big or small the pieces are, since
> > some very small pieces in this plane serve very important
> functions...think cotter pins.
> >
> > However, there are more than a few design issues that leave one
> > scratching the bald spot. Doors that rip off when accidentally
> > opening in flight (it will happen many times within any fleet of
> > planes, not just the RV-10, and give the flex within the cabin and
> > doors, should have been an anticipated event leading to a more
> > airworthy design), almost certainly causing HS damage in the process.
> > Too few ribs in the HS to sustain bird (or door strikes). An odd
> > "discontinuity" in the trim tabs for some unknown reason (at least to
> > me, is this a means of addressing a problem in handling at low, high
> > power speeds?) not actually understood that might be contributing to
> > what stresses. Doors that do not have a second safety catch,
> > especially given their lack of aerodynamics when opened in flight.
> > Brakes that are not vented and of a mass that is correspondent to the
> > size and possible uses of the plane. A lack of a cage or simple roll
> > bar to augment what is a questionable structural component of the
> > fuselage, namely the fiberglass top. Brake master cylinders that
> > stick out so feet can hit them, possibly causing some type of leak
> > (I've never understood this in all of Van's
> > planes) There are more, I'm sure.
> >
> > Tim James has a -10 with a roll bar, as well as a two-stop door catch,
> > both easy fixes to the current design. Paul Grimstad has developed a
> > sensible (and beautiful) rudder pedal and brake assembly replacement.
> > We're waiting for a truly structural cabin top, but a roll bar would
> > suffice. The innovators are out there addressing the shortcomings,
> > which will be identified as we move forward. Eventually they will be
> > addressed, one at a time, leading to a better platform, but being
> > addressed by the builder community. Someone will come up with better
> doors, I'm sure. I hope.
> > Maybe a whole replacement for cabin top and doors.
> >
> > Back to Dave's point. I think we need to evaluate each issue and
> > address them, one by one, as a flying community. We need to question
> > each and every one, which, by his question, Dave does. It's not an
> > insurance issue. His question was to shine a questioning light on a
> > design issue. Is there something else going on here that we need to
> > understand, and does this replacement part fix the inherent problem or
> > is it a band-aid? Yes, the fact that a piece was sent out to all
> > registered users indicates a serious problem, and we all are happy
> > that the problem was caught and a quick response came forth. What
> > about the others? I find the door issue one of a nature that should
> > not have to be addressed by each builder alone, nor by the builder
> community, but by the engineers at Van's.
> >
> > My plea is that, if a builder finds something or knows of something,
> > that it be shared with all, especially if they have come up with a
> > fix! I'll try to get good pictures of Tim's roll bar and double catch
> > door latch, and perhaps whatever measurements are needed, along with a
> > parts list for posting. If you're using this list while building but
> > do not contribute ideas and discussions, please think about starting
> > to do so. There aren't that many who take the time to post; we need
> everyone's help and good ideas.
> >
> > Thanks, Dave, for having the courage to open this thread. And, thanks
> > to all for their sincere, non-flammable replies. A great community.
> >
> > Have fun at OSH. Take lots of pictures! Share!
> >
> > John J
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Leikam
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:59 PM
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
> >
> >
> > With all due respect, I know I have to do the SB, and I will, but if
> > the empennage is that inclined to come off this airplane without
> > those two small pieces of aluminum installed, I wouldn't fly it after
> > they were installed!
> >
> > Dave Leikam
> > RV-10 #40496
> > N89DA (Reserved)
> > Muskego, WI
> >
> > do not archive
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: McGANN, Ron <mailto:ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:01 PM
> > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
> >
> >
> > I prefer to remove the empennage myself, in the hangar - rather than
> > have it do so on its own, at 10000'.
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Leikam
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 July 2008 8:22 AM
> > To: RV-10 matronics
> > Subject: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
> >
> >
> > What if I never do the SB on the tailcone of my plane?
> >
> > Fire away!
> >
> > Dave Leikam
> > RV-10 #40496
> > N89DA (Reserved)
> > Muskego, WI
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> >
> > ics.com
> >
> > .matronics.com/contribution
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Warning:
> >
> > The information contained in this email and any attached files is
> >
> > confidential to BAE Systems Australia. If you are not the intended
> >
> > recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this email or any
> >
> > attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email
> >
> > in error, please notify us immediately. VIRUS: Every care has been
> >
> > taken to ensure this email and its attachments are virus free,
> >
> > however, any loss or damage incurred in using this email is not the
> >
> > sender's responsibility. It is your responsibility to ensure virus
> >
> > checks are completed before installing any data sent in this email to
> >
> > your computer."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/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
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: | Sunvisor installation (was Cabin Roof) |
Vern,
Mine were in and working great before I heard the news. I guess my point is
that a lot of thinking went into the design of the structure, with the
intention of having it remain intact in a crash. I do believe that drilling
the holes in the structure makes is weaker, but I HOPE not too much. That's
all I can go on. I don't have any numbers.
If you were really concerned about it, you could lay up some additional BID
inside or outside the channel, as long as it didn't interfere with the fit
of the doors. Again, no numbers, but 4 layers of 7781 3" above and below
the holes should do it. This assumes there isn't some really elegant
engineering involved that takes compression rates and failure modes into
account. An extra stiff area would change all that. I'm just talking about
a big doubler to beef up the weakened part.
Now that I'm thinking about it, that would give you an oppurtunity to bond
in the screws and create a flat pad for the base. You could do it all in
one step. Mine ended up with a gap fore and aft that I had to fill after
the fact.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vernon Smith
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 7:45 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Sunvisor installation (was Cabin Roof)
Dave,
I have been wondering about drilling the holes in the rain channel for the
Rosen visors and have held off because of this concern. Did you come up with
a different approach for mounting them?
Vern Smith (#324 finishing)
_____
From: Dave@aircraftersllc.com
Subject: RV10-List: Cabin Roof
My sense is that the top is very strong.
I had a discussion with the factory, the upshot of which was that
Engineering was concerned about (prohibited) drilling the 2 #10 holes in the
rain channel for the visor mounts. Rather than thinking "jeez, it won't
even take a couple little holes", the proper thought should be that some
parts are critical and should not be casually modified. Those channels were
designed from the beginning to be strong enough to protect the occupants.
I know the upper roof section is VERY thick for a fiberglass piece. Again,
that is for a reason (added strength), not because it was easy or cheap.
The core is pretty dense too, adding to the strength.
The cage formed by the door frames and roof looks pretty strong. Everything
has a limit, but the roof doesn't seem to me at all like a weak point.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
_____
Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. Get
started.
<http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_W
L_Refresh_messenger_video_072008>
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 |
|
Tim is a very conservative engineer, very thoughtful, knows what he is
doing. I do not know if he discussed the roll bar with Van; they have
certainly had opportunities, given Tim hangers at Aurora. Both Van and Tim
were building their -10's at the same time, each plane shown above parked
next to one another at the last NW RV-10 Builders and Flyers Dinner. I
would not characterize his mod as "gut feel." Maybe overbuild, but a mod
that satisfies his engineering acumen, and one some might consider worth
knowing about.
I agree that the Van model of engineering and manufacturing is highly
successful, and with good reason. Never, however, do I consider that an
argument against questioning and innovation relative to their products. The
only criticism I really have about the -10 are the doors. The rest are
questions and "worries." Too bad they were written in such a way to be
interpreted as critical.
John J
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:51 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
John,
Thanks for your response and I agree with you that these things should be
discussed. But there is a difference between a question by an outside
observer about a system in an inquiring way, and a question in a criticizing
way with no facts or data to support that criticism. There is a non pilot
who hangs out at our airport that does this all the time, speaking and
criticizing authoritatively on piloting issues, and it infuriates me to no
end. Just as I would not put much stock on this guy's opinion on crosswind
landing techniques, I would also have to consider the source of any
modification.
Your list of issues came across as criticizing the design decisions that
Van's made without fully taking into consideration the engineering and
economic dynamics of the kit. Sure Van's could have added a more "refined"
rudder pedal system to the kit, but this would have increased the kit cost
by another $1,500, increased parts count, increased complexity-all only for
additional refinement. Addition of such refinements here and there would
quickly raise the kit cost from $40,000 to $60-80K for no gain in safety.
This is just one example but this is the "noise" to which I referred. Maybe
all did not follow it but I though Van's did a very good job of explaining
many of the design decision in the RVAtor during the development of the
RV-10. A review of this would have answered many of these "questions."
There is a reason Van's kits and flying planes outnumber other kit
manufacturers easily by at least factor of 10. They design a good, efficient
kit at a reasonable cost. As a builder you can choose to "upgrade" those
items that are important to you, however changing the basic design criteria,
modifying structure without having the engineering expertise or fully
understanding the original designers intent may do more harm than good. The
roll bar idea is what initially raised my eyebrow because without having an
idea of what crumple zones (if any) were designed in the lower structure for
drop testing, adding a roll bar to "shore up" cabin top when it is not
needed, may be undoing what the designer intended in other areas of the
cabin structure. This to me is the "dumb" part. Dumb in thinking
additional reinforcement is needed when Van's published the roll over
testing and dumb in doing it without understand the cabin structure
dynamics.
Improvements to a good design is one thing, outright design modifications on
"gut feel" is quite another. There is NO WAY that roll bar mod is more than
"gut feel" engineering. Keep the discussion going and forgive my
"delicacies."
William
http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
-------- Original Message --------
> William,
>
> No need for delicacy. Yes, some of the observations are from
> discussions with John C, but not all and certainly not ominously.
> John's perspective is widespread and quite well informed. What he
> does so often is point to something that needs more thought and thus
> more input and research by us all. His observations are something
> that you can accept or discount, as you will, but at least they are there.
>
> The point of the original post by Dave was to start a thread of
> enquiry, mine was to expand it a little. There are others out there
> who know vastly more than I do about such things and who might even
> have some data, but none of this is noise. These are questions and
> points of observation which worry me. If you have evidence that can
> allay my worries, as you presented below, I thank you, otherwise your
response lacks as much substantives data as my
> questions.
>
> Tim James, did not add bush tires to an RV-10, period, nor did I say such.
> His use of the C206 gear and larger tires, as well as GlaStar type
> winglets, VG's, etc. was to purposefully enhance the -10 for short, rough
field use.
> Those mods are for Tim something that makes the already good plane
> more useful for his needs. Not dumb at all; in fact, just the
> opposite. The roll cage goes along with his needs, and, according to
> Dave Saylor and you, probably not that necessary. An interesting
> addition, however, and one worth some consideration. What unintended
> consequences did you have in your mind's eye?
>
> Improvements to a good design are what makes the experimental
> community so valuable. Dialog, that which raises a question and the
> subsequent answers, negative and positive, are what's needed to hash
> out good or not so good ideas, to move forward, to innovate. Many,
> besides John C, have taken issue with the window install and tried
> different alternatives. The innovative new rudder pedals from Paul
> are the type of product that makes the plane that much more refined.
> The original door design must have come about due to some compromise
> or another, otherwise why would any aeronautical engineer purposefully
> put a flexing door on a flexing cabin top, all conducive to unwanted
> opening, without the addition of a double security point and the
> ability of the relative wind to hold the door closed? I do not reject
> the RV-10 because of this, it is just a flag for me to watch and pay
> attention for other compromises. There should be no need to worry
> about a door coming open in flight, no need to have to double check if
> the passenger door pin is engaged. We can certainly do so and move
> on, but the original design will continue to remain unsound until others
come along with better door latches and other mods to help alleviate the
potential and very real problem.
>
> But enough. No wonder there is a tendency towards the center.
>
> Anyway, all those at OSH, have fun! Keep the pictures coming!
>
> William, thanks for your input.
>
> John J
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
> Curtis
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:39 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
>
> John,
>
> Sounds ominously like this should be coming from John C. John, who
> while building an RV-10, really should be building a Lancair since he
> has soooo many issues with the design decisions that Van's has made
> for the RV-10. He has found fault with many of Van's design decisions
> and holds the Lancair up as the model that Van's should emulate. Is
> this such a good idea when comparable Lancairs are dropping out of the
> sky at recent rate of ONE a month?
>
> Let me try to put this as delicate as I can; adding a rollbar and
> bush tires to an RV-10 is just about the dumbest thing I've heard come
> across this forum. The purpose of a roll cage is to support a
> structure when inverted if the normal material would otherwise
> collapse. Take a look at the Second issue 2004 issue of the RVAtor
> page 7. There you will see a picture of an RV-10 inverted with the
> aluminum buckling and the cabin top FULLY in tact. I can see all type of
unintended consequences with that mod.
>
> As to your list of criticisms, the door design is probably the only
> valid one. They others are just opinions. And as we all know,
> opinions without engineering data or facts to support those opinions, is
just noise.
>
> >From my running tally, the following is just some of the things he
> >has
> issues with; Glue used on windows, Rudder pedals, Door handles,
> Plastic Brake lines, Matco Brakes, 1100 tubing for fuel and brake
> lines, etc. As he should be building a Lancair, I think maybe Tim
> James should be building a Murphy Moose.
>
>
> William
> http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> > Dave actually has an interesting and worthy point. It's not so much
> > about the SB, I think, as about some of the engineering decisions.
> > The plane is a good airplane, and certainly every plane design has
> > some unforeseen issues that must be field addressed. That's no
> > problem. It's also not about how big or small the pieces are, since
> > some very small pieces in this plane serve very important
> functions...think cotter pins.
> >
> > However, there are more than a few design issues that leave one
> > scratching the bald spot. Doors that rip off when accidentally
> > opening in flight (it will happen many times within any fleet of
> > planes, not just the RV-10, and give the flex within the cabin and
> > doors, should have been an anticipated event leading to a more
> > airworthy design), almost certainly causing HS damage in the process.
> > Too few ribs in the HS to sustain bird (or door strikes). An odd
> > "discontinuity" in the trim tabs for some unknown reason (at least
> > to me, is this a means of addressing a problem in handling at low,
> > high power speeds?) not actually understood that might be
> > contributing to what stresses. Doors that do not have a second
> > safety catch, especially given their lack of aerodynamics when opened in
flight.
> > Brakes that are not vented and of a mass that is correspondent to
> > the size and possible uses of the plane. A lack of a cage or simple
> > roll bar to augment what is a questionable structural component of
> > the fuselage, namely the fiberglass top. Brake master cylinders
> > that stick out so feet can hit them, possibly causing some type of
> > leak (I've never understood this in all of Van's
> > planes) There are more, I'm sure.
> >
> > Tim James has a -10 with a roll bar, as well as a two-stop door
> > catch, both easy fixes to the current design. Paul Grimstad has
> > developed a sensible (and beautiful) rudder pedal and brake assembly
replacement.
> > We're waiting for a truly structural cabin top, but a roll bar would
> > suffice. The innovators are out there addressing the shortcomings,
> > which will be identified as we move forward. Eventually they will
> > be addressed, one at a time, leading to a better platform, but being
> > addressed by the builder community. Someone will come up with
> > better
> doors, I'm sure. I hope.
> > Maybe a whole replacement for cabin top and doors.
> >
> > Back to Dave's point. I think we need to evaluate each issue and
> > address them, one by one, as a flying community. We need to
> > question each and every one, which, by his question, Dave does.
> > It's not an insurance issue. His question was to shine a
> > questioning light on a design issue. Is there something else going
> > on here that we need to understand, and does this replacement part
> > fix the inherent problem or is it a band-aid? Yes, the fact that a
> > piece was sent out to all registered users indicates a serious
> > problem, and we all are happy that the problem was caught and a
> > quick response came forth. What about the others? I find the door
> > issue one of a nature that should not have to be addressed by each
> > builder alone, nor by the builder
> community, but by the engineers at Van's.
> >
> > My plea is that, if a builder finds something or knows of something,
> > that it be shared with all, especially if they have come up with a
> > fix! I'll try to get good pictures of Tim's roll bar and double
> > catch door latch, and perhaps whatever measurements are needed,
> > along with a parts list for posting. If you're using this list
> > while building but do not contribute ideas and discussions, please
> > think about starting to do so. There aren't that many who take the
> > time to post; we need
> everyone's help and good ideas.
> >
> > Thanks, Dave, for having the courage to open this thread. And,
> > thanks to all for their sincere, non-flammable replies. A great
community.
> >
> > Have fun at OSH. Take lots of pictures! Share!
> >
> > John J
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
> > Leikam
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:59 PM
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
> >
> >
> > With all due respect, I know I have to do the SB, and I will, but if
> > the empennage is that inclined to come off this airplane without
> > those two small pieces of aluminum installed, I wouldn't fly it
> > after they were installed!
> >
> > Dave Leikam
> > RV-10 #40496
> > N89DA (Reserved)
> > Muskego, WI
> >
> > do not archive
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: McGANN, Ron <mailto:ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:01 PM
> > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
> >
> >
> > I prefer to remove the empennage myself, in the hangar - rather than
> > have it do so on its own, at 10000'.
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
> > Leikam
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 July 2008 8:22 AM
> > To: RV-10 matronics
> > Subject: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
> >
> >
> > What if I never do the SB on the tailcone of my plane?
> >
> > Fire away!
> >
> > Dave Leikam
> > RV-10 #40496
> > N89DA (Reserved)
> > Muskego, WI
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> >
> > ics.com
> >
> > .matronics.com/contribution
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Warning:
> >
> > The information contained in this email and any attached files is
> >
> > confidential to BAE Systems Australia. If you are not the intended
> >
> > recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this email or any
> >
> > attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this
> > email
> >
> > in error, please notify us immediately. VIRUS: Every care has been
> >
> > taken to ensure this email and its attachments are virus free,
> >
> > however, any loss or damage incurred in using this email is not the
> >
> > sender's responsibility. It is your responsibility to ensure virus
> >
> > checks are completed before installing any data sent in this email
> > to
> >
> > your computer."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/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
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: | Sunvisor installation (was Cabin Roof) |
Hmmm=2C good information to chew on. Maybe I'll make a small mounting brack
et/pad and epoxy it to the inside of the window post. This would eliminate
the need for the holes in the rain channel.
Of course there shouldn't be a problem if I keep the plane shiny side up an
d the dirt side down=3B)
Thanks=2C
Vern
From: Dave@AirCraftersLLC.comTo: rv10-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: RV10-L
ist: Sunvisor installation (was Cabin Roof)Date: Fri=2C 25 Jul 2008 10:00:2
1 -0700
Vern=2C
Mine were in and working great before I heard the news. I guess my point i
s that a lot of thinking went into the design of the structure=2C with the
intention of having it remain intact in a crash. I do believe that drillin
g the holes in the structure makes is weaker=2C but I HOPE not too much. T
hat's all I can go on. I don't have any numbers.
If you were really concerned about it=2C you could lay up some additional B
ID inside or outside the channel=2C as long as it didn't interfere with the
fit of the doors. Again=2C no numbers=2C but 4 layers of 7781 3" above an
d below the holes should do it. This assumes there isn't some really elega
nt engineering involved that takes compression rates and failure modes into
account. An extra stiff area would change all that. I'm just talking abo
ut a big doubler to beef up the weakened part.
Now that I'm thinking about it=2C that would give you an oppurtunity to bon
d in the screws and create a flat pad for the base. You could do it all in
one step. Mine ended up with a gap fore and aft that I had to fill after
the fact.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville=2C CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Vernon SmithSent: Friday=2C July 25=2C 2008 7:45
AMTo: rv10-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: RV10-List: Sunvisor installation
(was Cabin Roof)
Dave=2C I have been wondering about drilling the holes in the rain channel
for the Rosen visors and have held off because of this concern. Did you co
me up with a different approach for mounting them? Vern Smith (#324 finish
ing)
From: Dave@aircraftersllc.comTo: rv10-list@matronics.comSubject: RV10-List:
Cabin RoofDate: Thu=2C 24 Jul 2008 17:29:28 -0700
My sense is that the top is very strong.
I had a discussion with the factory=2C the upshot of which was that Enginee
ring was concerned about (prohibited) drilling the 2 #10 holes in the rain
channel for the visor mounts. Rather than thinking "jeez=2C it won't even
take a couple little holes"=2C the proper thought should be that some parts
are critical and should not be casually modified. Those channels were des
igned from the beginning to be strong enough to protect the occupants.
I know the upper roof section is VERY thick for a fiberglass piece. Again
=2C that is for a reason (added strength)=2C not because it was easy or che
ap. The core is pretty dense too=2C adding to the strength.
The cage formed by the door frames and roof looks pretty strong. Everythin
g has a limit=2C but the roof doesn't seem to me at all like a weak point.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville=2C CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. Ge
t started.
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
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_mess
enger2_072008
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 |
|
any consensus on oil choices--exxon elite 15w50 aeroshell?? larry
--------
Larry and Gayle N104LG
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194944#194944
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 |
|
I just wanted to post a few observations and comments about the RV 10 do
ors and maybe start a thread on it again as NEW builders may not look ba
ck at the archives. First, I seldom post on here anymore as I would rat
her help people via the phone then trying to argue a point in this forum
. But, when I feel new builders are being led down a path they need not
go I wanna balance out the discussion.
Several posts have been made implying or stating the doors on the RV 10
are unsafe or poorly designed. I disagree. If someone can show me an R
V 10 with the doors built per Van's specs and it is unsafe I would love
to see it. Can It be improved some.........sure...but what part on the
plane can you look at and say it cannot be improved?
I feel after seeing several doors over the past few years that more peop
le could benefit from learning how to fit/build these doors then dreamin
g up a fix to make them "safer". The doors are NOT an easy part to buil
d and fit on the RV10. Hire someone to do it if you are not qualified..
......this will save you time and money in the long run versus chasing d
own building a "new" design that has not been engineered and tested.
Comments were made earlier about how DUMB a person would be to not do th
e SB on the tail ASAP. My question is.......How dumb is it to modify AN
Y part of the RV 10 plans........rudder pedals, elevator trim, wing tank
s, etc.? If you think you may be at RISK with your insurance company by
NOT doing the SB,,,,,,,,,,how much at RISK are you when you do/did 25 m
ods or more to the plans and NONE of them have been approved by Van's or
any other authorized agency? Does that mean one should not do any mods
to the RV10? No. There is a big difference between WANTED mods versu
s NEEDED mods. But if it is not per Vans plans, it is considered a mod
and differs from how the plane was originally designed and flown.
If you are a new builder, look around at several RV 10's to see the doo
rs in person. Ask questions HOW they got them to fit so well. Take a c
lass on fiberglass. But do not waste time and money worrying these door
s are not safe and will function properly when constructed properly.
If anyone wants to discuss this topic in person see me at OSH Sunday til
l Thursday. Call me if you want.
Have a great time building this wonderful plane. Fly safe!
Dean 850HL
402-560-9755
____________________________________________________________
Click to make millions by owning your own franchise.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/Ioyw6iifWGNh1Jv63y8pJyDyCW0x
dEnIDb9ALbMajLAQY7qD1ZBj2E/
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 |
|
I've been using Aeroshell 15W-50 in just about everything lately. In the
planes I'm familiar with, I've seen a solid 10-15 degree drop in oil temp.
And it has all the additives that Lycoming wants mixed in so you don't need
anything else.
What I really want someone else to do is run some automotive oil in an
airplane engine to see how well it works. But I'm not man enough for that
test.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of lbgjb10
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 1:42 PM
Subject: RV10-List: oil choice
any consensus on oil choices--exxon elite 15w50 aeroshell?? larry
--------
Larry and Gayle N104LG
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194944#194944
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 |
|
I'd love to see some success with automotive oil as well. However, I heard
many years ago that auto oil had a tendency to not flow properly through the
ports in an aviation engine (smaller holes). Anyone have any support for
that or is it just an old wives tale? It would be curious if the newer
technologies on oil, especially synthetic, would change the answer as well.
As you said, I won't be trying it myself for sure.
Marcus
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 4:29 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: oil choice
I've been using Aeroshell 15W-50 in just about everything lately. In the
planes I'm familiar with, I've seen a solid 10-15 degree drop in oil temp.
And it has all the additives that Lycoming wants mixed in so you don't need
anything else.
What I really want someone else to do is run some automotive oil in an
airplane engine to see how well it works. But I'm not man enough for that
test.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of lbgjb10
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 1:42 PM
Subject: RV10-List: oil choice
any consensus on oil choices--exxon elite 15w50 aeroshell?? larry
--------
Larry and Gayle N104LG
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194944#194944
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: | 40725 is Alive and Flying |
#40725 flies!!!! First flight 24 July after DAR on previous day. No major problems--full
throttle and no fairings getting about 157+kts @ 5500 with CHT's 390's
to 420s depending on fuel flows. Oil temp almost 200 on 90+ kt climb out
to 7500 ft in warm/hot Florida afternoon, settled down to 187 at full throttle
and 2450. Tunnel cool. TMX IO-540 with Hartzell prop. Flew straight and
level. Great plane!!
--------
Larry and Gayle N104LG
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194960#194960
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I remember when Mobil introduced their full synthetic for aviation a few
years back, it flopped because it did something bad to Lycs and Conts. I
don't remember what it did, but Mobil basically whimpered away from the
market with tail between legs.
Dave
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 3:30 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: oil choice
I'd love to see some success with automotive oil as well. However, I heard
many years ago that auto oil had a tendency to not flow properly through the
ports in an aviation engine (smaller holes). Anyone have any support for
that or is it just an old wives tale? It would be curious if the newer
technologies on oil, especially synthetic, would change the answer as well.
As you said, I won't be trying it myself for sure.
Marcus
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 4:29 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: oil choice
I've been using Aeroshell 15W-50 in just about everything lately. In the
planes I'm familiar with, I've seen a solid 10-15 degree drop in oil temp.
And it has all the additives that Lycoming wants mixed in so you don't need
anything else.
What I really want someone else to do is run some automotive oil in an
airplane engine to see how well it works. But I'm not man enough for that
test.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of lbgjb10
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 1:42 PM
Subject: RV10-List: oil choice
any consensus on oil choices--exxon elite 15w50 aeroshell?? larry
--------
Larry and Gayle N104LG
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194944#194944
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 40725 is Alive and Flying |
Awesome! Great News. Now, if you could just relax those facial muscles
from smiling so much...! We need the RV Grin Pic!
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 3:36 PM, lbgjb10 <lbgjb@gnt.net> wrote:
>
> #40725 flies!!!! First flight 24 July after DAR on previous day. No major
> problems--full throttle and no fairings getting about 157+kts @ 5500 with
> CHT's 390's to 420s depending on fuel flows. Oil temp almost 200 on 90+ kt
> climb out to 7500 ft in warm/hot Florida afternoon, settled down to 187 at
> full throttle and 2450. Tunnel cool. TMX IO-540 with Hartzell prop. Flew
> straight and level. Great plane!!
>
> --------
> Larry and Gayle N104LG
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194960#194960
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 40725 is Alive and Flying |
Congratulations, Larry!
Wish I were that far. Engine away for rebuild. Airframe finished. Off to OSH
Wed to reqain my motivation.
Phil White 20B rotary to be installed.
--------
RV-10 #40220 in Downers Grove, IL
(windows+doors)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194968#194968
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Aviation and automotive oils are two different animals altogether. There
was an article in one of the avaition magazines either this month or a month
ago about oils. I'll try to find the article and post, but basicly, unless
you are using a automotive engine (VW) or auto oil is the recommended oil by
the engine manufacturer, aviation oil is the only type to use.
Sorry I can't be more specific. After I read the article, I had a "well
duh" type of reaction and I didn't save it.
John
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I'm with Bill, all these modifications are crazy talk. This is as crazy as talking
about modifying a Stits Playboy. Wait...........
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:39 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
John,
Sounds ominously like this should be coming from John C. John, who while building
an RV-10, really should be building a Lancair since he has soooo many issues
with the design decisions that Van's has made for the RV-10. He has found
fault with many of Van's design decisions and holds the Lancair up as the model
that Van's should emulate. Is this such a good idea when comparable Lancairs
are dropping out of the sky at recent rate of ONE a month?
Let me try to put this as delicate as I can; adding a rollbar and bush tires to
an RV-10 is just about the dumbest thing I've heard come across this forum.
The purpose of a roll cage is to support a structure when inverted if the normal
material would otherwise collapse. Take a look at the Second issue 2004 issue
of the RVAtor page 7. There you will see a picture of an RV-10 inverted
with the aluminum buckling and the cabin top FULLY in tact. I can see all type
of unintended consequences with that mod.
As to your list of criticisms, the door design is probably the only valid one.
They others are just opinions. And as we all know, opinions without engineering
data or facts to support those opinions, is just noise.
>From my running tally, the following is just some of the things he has issues
with; Glue used on windows, Rudder pedals, Door handles, Plastic Brake lines,
Matco Brakes, 1100 tubing for fuel and brake lines, etc. As he should be building
a Lancair, I think maybe Tim James should be building a Murphy Moose.
William
http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
-------- Original Message --------
> Dave actually has an interesting and worthy point. It's not so much
> about the SB, I think, as about some of the engineering decisions.
> The plane is a good airplane, and certainly every plane design has
> some unforeseen issues that must be field addressed. That's no
> problem. It's also not about how big or small the pieces are, since
> some very small pieces in this plane serve very important functions...think cotter
pins.
>
> However, there are more than a few design issues that leave one
> scratching the bald spot. Doors that rip off when accidentally
> opening in flight (it will happen many times within any fleet of
> planes, not just the RV-10, and give the flex within the cabin and
> doors, should have been an anticipated event leading to a more
> airworthy design), almost certainly causing HS damage in the process.
> Too few ribs in the HS to sustain bird (or door strikes). An odd
> "discontinuity" in the trim tabs for some unknown reason (at least to
> me, is this a means of addressing a problem in handling at low, high
> power speeds?) not actually understood that might be contributing to
> what stresses. Doors that do not have a second safety catch,
> especially given their lack of aerodynamics when opened in flight.
> Brakes that are not vented and of a mass that is correspondent to the
> size and possible uses of the plane. A lack of a cage or simple roll
> bar to augment what is a questionable structural component of the
> fuselage, namely the fiberglass top. Brake master cylinders that
> stick out so feet can hit them, possibly causing some type of leak
> (I've never understood this in all of Van's
> planes) There are more, I'm sure.
>
> Tim James has a -10 with a roll bar, as well as a two-stop door catch,
> both easy fixes to the current design. Paul Grimstad has developed a
> sensible (and beautiful) rudder pedal and brake assembly replacement.
> We're waiting for a truly structural cabin top, but a roll bar would
> suffice. The innovators are out there addressing the shortcomings,
> which will be identified as we move forward. Eventually they will be
> addressed, one at a time, leading to a better platform, but being
> addressed by the builder community. Someone will come up with better doors,
I'm sure. I hope.
> Maybe a whole replacement for cabin top and doors.
>
> Back to Dave's point. I think we need to evaluate each issue and
> address them, one by one, as a flying community. We need to question
> each and every one, which, by his question, Dave does. It's not an
> insurance issue. His question was to shine a questioning light on a
> design issue. Is there something else going on here that we need to
> understand, and does this replacement part fix the inherent problem or
> is it a band-aid? Yes, the fact that a piece was sent out to all
> registered users indicates a serious problem, and we all are happy
> that the problem was caught and a quick response came forth. What
> about the others? I find the door issue one of a nature that should
> not have to be addressed by each builder alone, nor by the builder community,
but by the engineers at Van's.
>
> My plea is that, if a builder finds something or knows of something,
> that it be shared with all, especially if they have come up with a
> fix! I'll try to get good pictures of Tim's roll bar and double catch
> door latch, and perhaps whatever measurements are needed, along with a
> parts list for posting. If you're using this list while building but
> do not contribute ideas and discussions, please think about starting
> to do so. There aren't that many who take the time to post; we need everyone's
help and good ideas.
>
> Thanks, Dave, for having the courage to open this thread. And, thanks
> to all for their sincere, non-flammable replies. A great community.
>
> Have fun at OSH. Take lots of pictures! Share!
>
> John J
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Leikam
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:59 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
>
>
> With all due respect, I know I have to do the SB, and I will, but if
> the empennage is that inclined to come off this airplane without
> those two small pieces of aluminum installed, I wouldn't fly it after
> they were installed!
>
> Dave Leikam
> RV-10 #40496
> N89DA (Reserved)
> Muskego, WI
>
> do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: McGANN, Ron <mailto:ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:01 PM
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
>
>
> I prefer to remove the empennage myself, in the hangar - rather than
> have it do so on its own, at 10000'.
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Leikam
> Sent: Thursday, 24 July 2008 8:22 AM
> To: RV-10 matronics
> Subject: RV10-List: Sb 08-6-1
>
>
> What if I never do the SB on the tailcone of my plane?
>
> Fire away!
>
> Dave Leikam
> RV-10 #40496
> N89DA (Reserved)
> Muskego, WI
>
>
> p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> ics.com
>
> .matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> "Warning:
>
> The information contained in this email and any attached files is
>
> confidential to BAE Systems Australia. If you are not the intended
>
> recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this email or any
>
> attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email
>
> in error, please notify us immediately. VIRUS: Every care has been
>
> taken to ensure this email and its attachments are virus free,
>
> however, any loss or damage incurred in using this email is not the
>
> sender's responsibility. It is your responsibility to ensure virus
>
> checks are completed before installing any data sent in this email to
>
> your computer."
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/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
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 40725 is Alive and Flying |
Congrats to you.....
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "lbgjb10" <lbgjb@gnt.net> wrote:
#40725 flies!!!! First flight 24 July after DAR on previous day. No ma
jor problems--full throttle and no fairings getting about 157+kts @ 5500
with CHT's 390's to 420s depending on fuel flows. Oil temp almost 200
on 90+ kt climb out to 7500 ft in warm/hot Florida afternoon, settled d
own to 187 at full throttle and 2450. Tunnel cool. TMX IO-540 with Hart
zell prop. Flew straight and level. Great plane!!
--------
Larry and Gayle N104LG
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194960#194960
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
____________________________________________________________
Click for free information on obtaining a second mortgage.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4tzQ0Vu3risBCdE2R2v
ZdSVVh5Ng2Y1JfP8TvNNGIv3L83HO/
Message 32
| 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 |
|
There is a great article in the July 08 Sport Aviation magazine about
aviation oils.
The short answer to these several posts about oil is that a base stock
of pure synthetic oil will not put in suspension the products of
combustion (ash) which are produced in an aircraft engine.
These products are far more prevalent in aircraft (than auto) engines
because of the much greater (looser) tolerances.
Modern auto engines are much tighter and therefore see far fewer
products of combustion blowing by the rings and therefore can go for
lots of hours on pure synthetic.
Not so with aircraft engines.
Dave Lammers
forever finishing
Dave Saylor wrote:
>
>I remember when Mobil introduced their full synthetic for aviation a few
>years back, it flopped because it did something bad to Lycs and Conts. I
>don't remember what it did, but Mobil basically whimpered away from the
>market with tail between legs.
>
>Dave
>
>Do Not Archive
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper
>Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 3:30 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: oil choice
>
>
>I'd love to see some success with automotive oil as well. However, I heard
>many years ago that auto oil had a tendency to not flow properly through the
>ports in an aviation engine (smaller holes). Anyone have any support for
>that or is it just an old wives tale? It would be curious if the newer
>technologies on oil, especially synthetic, would change the answer as well.
>
>As you said, I won't be trying it myself for sure.
>
>Marcus
>Do not archive
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
>Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 4:29 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: oil choice
>
>
>I've been using Aeroshell 15W-50 in just about everything lately. In the
>planes I'm familiar with, I've seen a solid 10-15 degree drop in oil temp.
>And it has all the additives that Lycoming wants mixed in so you don't need
>anything else.
>
>What I really want someone else to do is run some automotive oil in an
>airplane engine to see how well it works. But I'm not man enough for that
>test.
>
>Dave Saylor
>AirCrafters LLC
>140 Aviation Way
>Watsonville, CA
>831-722-9141
>831-750-0284 CL
>www.AirCraftersLLC.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of lbgjb10
>Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 1:42 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: oil choice
>
>
>any consensus on oil choices--exxon elite 15w50 aeroshell?? larry
>
>--------
>Larry and Gayle N104LG
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194944#194944
>
>
>
>
Message 33
| 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: | 40725 is Alive and Flying |
Congratulations on the new born! Enjoy!
John J
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of lbgjb10
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 3:37 PM
Subject: RV10-List: 40725 is Alive and Flying
#40725 flies!!!! First flight 24 July after DAR on previous day. No major
problems--full throttle and no fairings getting about 157+kts @ 5500 with
CHT's 390's to 420s depending on fuel flows. Oil temp almost 200 on 90+ kt
climb out to 7500 ft in warm/hot Florida afternoon, settled down to 187 at
full throttle and 2450. Tunnel cool. TMX IO-540 with Hartzell prop. Flew
straight and level. Great plane!!
--------
Larry and Gayle N104LG
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194960#194960
Message 34
| 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 |
|
I have tested both oils in several motors over the years. In a Lyc or Co
nt you need an ashless dispersent oil because of the elevated temps. An
aircooled engine has CHT's of 400 f and the oil needs to be able to not
coke over. My liquid cooled plane loves the Amzoil 20-50 racing stuff.
The problem is full sythentic oil will not carry away the lead found in
100LL and it leaves the innards a little dirty instead of keeping the l
ead in suspension. Petroleum oil works ok but oil temps consistantly run
15 degrees hotter. YMMV
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@cableone.net> wrote:
I'd love to see some success with automotive oil as well. However, I he
ard
many years ago that auto oil had a tendency to not flow properly through
the
ports in an aviation engine (smaller holes). Anyone have any support fo
r
that or is it just an old wives tale? It would be curious if the newer
technologies on oil, especially synthetic, would change the answer as we
ll.
As you said, I won't be trying it myself for sure.
Marcus
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 4:29 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: oil choice
I've been using Aeroshell 15W-50 in just about everything lately. In th
e
planes I'm familiar with, I've seen a solid 10-15 degree drop in oil tem
p.
And it has all the additives that Lycoming wants mixed in so you don't n
eed
anything else.
What I really want someone else to do is run some automotive oil in an
airplane engine to see how well it works. But I'm not man enough for th
at
test.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of lbgjb10
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 1:42 PM
Subject: RV10-List: oil choice
any consensus on oil choices--exxon elite 15w50 aeroshell?? larry
--------
Larry and Gayle N104LG
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194944#194944
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
____________________________________________________________
Visit New England and experience Old World charm. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4uGF4OhYVzBx7nTTWnA
g7oihxN8mfPG6OoUJ8cvXmK6hUPu8/
Message 35
| 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: 40725 is Alive and Flying |
Congratulations Larry and Gayle,
Fly Safe, Fly Far and Fly Often. Share that '10 with as many people as
you can. We need others to see and appreciate these wonderful planes as
well.
Dave and Lucy Hertner
Do not archive
lbgjb10 wrote:
>
> #40725 flies!!!! First flight 24 July after DAR on previous day. No major problems--full
throttle and no fairings getting about 157+kts @ 5500 with CHT's
390's to 420s depending on fuel flows. Oil temp almost 200 on 90+ kt climb
out to 7500 ft in warm/hot Florida afternoon, settled down to 187 at full throttle
and 2450. Tunnel cool. TMX IO-540 with Hartzell prop. Flew straight and
level. Great plane!!
>
> --------
> Larry and Gayle N104LG
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194960#194960
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 36
| 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: | going to Osh with FSX |
for those of us not really going here is a substitute if you have FSX.
http://www.fs-mp.com/oshkosh/
Message 37
| 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 if you want to use multigrade does it make difference between exxon elite or
aeroshell??? what did sport aviation say??
--------
Larry and Gayle N104LG
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194988#194988
Message 38
| 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-Bound for OSH |
I just went to check on my bird at KJAC and saw a very nice -10, N8850E
parked on the ramp... Nice build, be safe guys...
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com> wrote:
I have tested both oils in several motors over the years. In a Lyc or Co
nt you need an ashless dispersent oil because of the elevated temps. An
aircooled engine has CHT's of 400 f and the oil needs to be able to not
coke over. My liquid cooled plane loves the Amzoil 20-50 racing stuff.
The problem is full sythentic oil will not carry away the lead found in
100LL and it leaves the innards a little dirty instead of keeping the l
ead in suspension. Petroleum oil works ok but oil temps consistantly run
15 degrees hotter. YMMV
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Marcus Cooper" <coop85@cableone.net> wrote:
I'd love to see some success with automotive oil as well. However, I he
ard
many years ago that auto oil had a tendency to not flow properly through
the
ports in an aviation engine (smaller holes). Anyone have any support fo
r
that or is it just an old wives tale? It would be curious if the newer
technologies on oil, especially synthetic, would change the answer as we
ll.
As you said, I won't be trying it myself for sure.
Marcus
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 4:29 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: oil choice
I've been using Aeroshell 15W-50 in just about everything lately. In th
e
planes I'm familiar with, I've seen a solid 10-15 degree drop in oil tem
p.
And it has all the additives that Lycoming wants mixed in so you don't n
eed
anything else.
What I really want someone else to do is run some automotive oil in an
airplane engine to see how well it works. But I'm not man enough for th
at
test.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of lbgjb10
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 1:42 PM
Subject: RV10-List: oil choice
any consensus on oil choices--exxon elite 15w50 aeroshell?? larry
--------
Larry and Gayle N104LG
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194944#194944
========================
========================
========================
========================
bsp; - MATRONICS WEB FORU==============
========================
==========sp; &nb=====
========================
=================
____________________________________________________________
Visit New England and experience Old World charm. Click now!
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
=
____________________________________________________________
Click to become a master chef, own a restaurant and make millions.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4t0DWN04sepiFdB9dwP
Nzi3rvFEvJvqZ73ocIGl7iIUrxTqs/
Message 39
| 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 |
|
What can one use to tint white weld on black??
Dr Fred.
Message 40
| 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 |
|
A Sharpie!!...sorry Fred... :)
Rick Sked
40185
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Williams, M.D." <drfred@suddenlinkmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:00:25 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles
Subject: RV10-List: Wled on
What can one use to tint white weld on black??
Dr Fred.
Message 41
| 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 |
|
LASER printer toner was recommended (and worked well for me) for fiberglass
resin, it MIGHT work on the weld on as well.
Marcus
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fred Williams,
M.D.
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:00 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Wled on
<drfred@suddenlinkmail.com>
What can one use to tint white weld on black??
Dr Fred.
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 OSH Picnic |
My wife Angie, my friend Randy and myself will be there. Can we bring
anything?
Dave Leikam
RV-10 #40496
N89DA (Reserved)
Muskego, WI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 OSH Picnic
> <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
>
> Just give me a call on my cell: 402 651 0402.
>
> Bob
> --------------------------
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> <owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thu Jul 24 21:03:37 2008
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: RV-10 OSH Picnic
>
>
> Hi Bob
>
> There is a 50/50 chance my daughter and I will be at KOSH in time for some
> BBQ. If we make it, is there a number we can call in advance?
>
> Cheers
>
> Les Kearney
> & Alex
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bcondrey
> Sent: July-23-08 8:00 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 OSH Picnic
>
>
> Time to spend some of generous donation from Steve DiNieri and Bob
> Leffler!
>
> We've decided to kick off the week with a BBQ Saturday evening for the
> every
> arrival crowd. RV-10 builders, flyers and families are all invited. If
> you're a serious wannbe we won't turn you away :)
>
> Let's plan on about 6:00 at RV-10 HQ located at 55th and Lindbergh in Camp
> Scholler.
>
> Please let us know if you'll be able to stop by so we can insure we don't
> run short of food & drink.
>
> Bob, Susan, Gary and Brenda
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194646#194646
>
>
>
Message 43
| 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 |
|
Copier toner, it doesn't take much.
--- On Fri, 7/25/08, Rick Sked <ricksked@embarqmail.com> wrote:
From: Rick Sked <ricksked@embarqmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Wled on
A Sharpie!!...sorry Fred... :)
Rick Sked
40185
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Williams, M.D." <drfred@suddenlinkmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:00:25 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles
Subject: RV10-List: Wled on
<drfred@suddenlinkmail.com>
What can one use to tint white weld on black??
Dr Fred.
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! --
|