Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:52 AM - Re: Elevating the fuse to put it up on it's gear (orchidman)
2. 08:44 AM - Re: Re: Elevating the fuse to put it up on it's gear (Vernon Smith)
3. 09:08 AM - Re: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork (John Cox)
4. 09:24 AM - Re: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork (John Cumins)
5. 09:51 AM - Re: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork (John Cox)
6. 10:03 AM - Re: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork (Rene Felker)
7. 10:03 AM - Re: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork (David McNeill)
8. 11:27 AM - Re: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork (John Cox)
9. 11:49 AM - Re: NavWorx Update (John Cox)
10. 12:43 PM - Re: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
11. 01:36 PM - Re: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork (David McNeill)
12. 01:53 PM - Holes in F1072 (Rob Hunter)
13. 01:58 PM - Re: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork (David McNeill)
14. 03:13 PM - Re: NavWorx Update (William Curtis)
15. 03:16 PM - Re: Holes in F1072 (Fred Williams, M.D.)
16. 03:27 PM - Re: NavWorx Update (Tim Olson)
17. 03:52 PM - Re: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork (Kelly McMullen)
18. 04:50 PM - Re: Re: Weight and Balance Questions (gary)
19. 06:59 PM - Purge Valves (Bob Leffler)
20. 07:26 PM - Re: NavWorx Update (Tim Olson)
21. 07:33 PM - cowl hinges (dogsbark@comcast.net)
22. 07:50 PM - Re: cowl hinges (McGANN, Ron)
23. 07:56 PM - Re: NavWorx Update (Tim Olson)
24. 08:04 PM - Re: cowl hinges (Tim Olson)
25. 08:24 PM - Re: cowl hinges (David McNeill)
26. 08:37 PM - Re: cowl hinges (pascal)
27. 09:07 PM - Re: cowl hinges (Don McDonald)
28. 10:34 PM - Re: cowl hinges (Robin Marks)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Elevating the fuse to put it up on it's gear |
planesmith(at)hotmail.com wrote:
> Just went through this two weeks ago. I didn't measure it at the time but in
measuring it now C the? center section between the two main gear needs to be about
30 to 32" above the ground.
>
> Vern Smith (#324 finishing?)
> do not archive?
>
Vern,
How did you support the fuselage while you were installing the 2 main gear. Right
now, I am supporting the center section at the wing mounting bolt holes with
a 2x4 both in front and aft of the mount point. It looks like the aft board
will be in the way.
Gary
--------
Gary Blankenbiller
RV10 - # 40674
Instrument Panel, Fiberglass - SB
(N2GB registered)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=210481#210481
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Elevating the fuse to put it up on it's gear |
Hi Gary=2C
I have some large dense foam blocks and placed them directly under the cent
er section carry through spar. This allowed the weigh to be distributed ove
r the the full width of the center section spar and structure. Vern
do not archive
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Elevating the fuse to put it up on it's gear> Fro
m: gary@wingscc.com> Date: Mon=2C 27 Oct 2008 04:52:03 -0700> To: rv10-list
c.com>> > > planesmith(at)hotmail.com wrote:> > Just went through this two
weeks ago. I didn't measure it at the time but in measuring it now C the? c
enter section between the two main gear needs to be about 30 to 32" above t
he ground.> > > > Vern Smith (#324 finishing?)> > do not archive? > > > > V
ern=2C> How did you support the fuselage while you were installing the 2 ma
in gear. Right now=2C I am supporting the center section at the wing mounti
ng bolt holes with a 2x4 both in front and aft of the mount point. It looks
like the aft board will be in the way.> Gary> > --------> Gary Blankenbill
er> RV10 - # 40674> Instrument Panel=2C Fiberglass - SB> (N2GB registered)
_________________________________________________________________
Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008
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: | Weighing prior to DAR paperwork |
I am assuming that your definition of "level" was with a digital level
(indicating to the 0.1 degree) and not a bubble level. Just like in
hand grenades and bombs.
Level both fore and aft and port to starboard. The hangar doors need to
be closed to wind effects as well, in a normal weight environment.
John Cox - RV10 N49CX =Dreaming of Living the Dream
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: NavWorx Update
Just FYI, I did get some photos posted. Nothing earth shattering,
but at least you can see some of it.
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20081025/index.html
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> For this test it was just the PADS600 portable. The ADS600
> will give you the same basic thing, but you'll install a
> blade style DME antenna, and it will accept external GPS
> feeds. The one today had built-in GPS and a small stick
> antenna. For most people who are building planes, we'll
> want the fixed unit, because it will give better signal
> and performance.
>
> No, this is not a "receive only" system....it's the whole
> works, transmit and receive. Cool stuff, that's for sure.
>
> I'll do a quick write-up with photos when I can sit down
> and put it together.
>
> One other thing.....since Garmin does all their stuff using
> proprietary interfaces, this ADS-B isn't going to be an
> option on some Garmin products....they shoot themselves
> in the foot by not wanting to use more "open" interface
> specs. So the experimental and non-garmin world has a
> lot of good cost savings benefit by a product like this.
> I do think that it will feed some of the radios like
> the 430/530/480 though...but we didn't talk much about that,
> so I'm not sure.
>
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> William Curtis wrote:
>> <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>>
>> Tim,
>>
>> Very cool! Are you using the portable PADS600 or the fixed ADS600?
>> IF the ADS600, what do you have for antenna placement and can you
>> confirm that this is a "receive only" system?
>>
>> William http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> I just wanted to follow up as I said I'd post more information after
>>> today. I worked with Bill from NavWorx today in getting the
>>> NavWorx ADS-B system hooked up to the Chelton system. I had
>>> prepared a harness in advance, that could take the place of one of
>>> my existing interfaces. As you know, ADS-B can provide both
>>> traffic and WX. The Chelton has a config screen for weather and
>>> traffic and currently my system was set up to receive traffic from
>>> the GTX-330 and Weather from WSI. I turned them both to ADS-B, we
>>> fired up the transceiver on at OSH, and went for a flight.
>>>
>>> I can now report that ADS-B weather displays, with VERY fast update
>>> rates, on the Chelton system, and does a great job. On the flight,
>>> we got to check out the traffic portion also, flying a loop around
>>> Appleton and down. Traffic was visible and it had a very fast
>>> update speed on the screens...you could watch the traffic slide
>>> across the Chelton's and it was updated faster than the GTX-330
>>> traffic.
>>>
>>> There was only 2 oddities in the whole thing, one of them done on
>>> purpose, and one of them something that NavWorx will now refine a
>>> little more. The first is that the unit that we were using was not
>>> programmed to filter traffic based on distance or altitude
>>> away...thus, we could actually receive traffic targets that were
>>> even 100nm away! This is a setting that they can program, so you
>>> have traffic available at whatever range or altitude difference
>>> that you want, and this one was left open to all traffic. The
oddity
>>> that we saw was that during turns, we detected our own
>>> airplane as traffic, which as I understand it is due to the
>>> inaccuracy of the radar station we were in. We would get a Mode-S
>>> traffic "hit" that would sometimes show up .25-.3 miles from our
>>> plane. Apparently this is an effect caused by my having a mode-S
>>> transponder, in that both the ADS-B and Mode-S target are in the
same
>>> spot, but with radar inaccuracies, they may not be identically
>>> placed. The receiver is supposed to have an algorithm that hides
>>> one of the hits if they're so close in position and altitude that
>>> they must be the same plane, so that algorithm needs to be modified
>>> slightly (just a simple software update for NavWorx) to hide them
>>> just a little further separated than it is now. I was very
>>> interested to see that for Wx, the single ground-based station
>>> basically covers way outside the entire state of Wisconsin, so with
>>> ADS-B weather, my entire home state would have coverage. That is
not
>>> to say I'd be able to receive the ground station, but I'd see
>>> the Nexrad for the whole state, plus more, when I am in ADS-B
>>> coverage. Now they just have to get the ADS-B system country wide
>>> to be deployed.
>>>
>>> So, not only does it appear that NavWorx has a great little system
>>> for WAY WAY less than Garmin, but it works fine with Cheltons
>>> already existing ADS-B interfacing. It should also work fine for
>>> others like GRT and Advanced Flight once they bring their
>>> programming for it to completion.
>>>
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Weighing prior to DAR paperwork |
Ok I have a max gross weight question. How are boilers able to change the
max gross weight for there 10. I thought the published max gross is
2700lbs, but I see here they range from 2700 to 2850.
How are they able to do that??
Van's RV-10 Ted French C-FXCS Lycoming IO-540 260
76" MT 3-blade Composite CS 49.58" 1557 2700 1143 60
783
Van's RV-10 Tim Olson N104CD Lycoming IO-540 260 80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.67" 1685 2700 1015 60
655 100% Complete right down to the ...
Van's RV-10 Gary Specketer N204GS Lycoming IO-540 260 78"
AeroComposites 2-blade Composite CS 0.06" 1699 2700 1001 60
641 Full IFR Upholstery, Dual Altena...
Van's RV-10 Chuck Stuhrenberg N300WC Lycoming O-540 300 72"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 106.98" 1615 2900 1285 60
925
Van's RV-10 Rene Felker N423CF Lycoming IO-540 260 80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 109.22" 1698 2800 1102 60
742 Full IFR, 2 Alt, full interior
Van's RV-10 Bob Condrey N442PM Lycoming IO-540 260 80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.2" 1632 2700 1068 60 708
All electric, dual batteries, du...
Van's RV-10 David McNeill N46007 Lycoming IO-540 260 80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 109.13" 1630 2700 1070 60
710
Van's RV-10 Anh Vu N591VU Lycoming IO-540 260 80" Hartzell
2-blade Aluminum CS 106.99" 1625 2700 1075 60 715
Datum is 99.44" forward of wing ...
Van's RV-10 vic Syracuse N64VC Lycoming IO-540 310 72"
MT 3-blade Composite CS 89.59" 1665 2850 1185 75 735
CG limits are aft of leading edg...
Van's RV-10 Russell Daves N710RV Lycoming IO-540 260 76"
MT 3-blade Composite CS 108.05" 1584 2700 1116 60
756
Van's RV-10 BARRY MARZ N789AB Lycoming IO-540 260 80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.73" 1648 2700 1052 60
692
Van's RV-10 Albert Gardner N991RV Lycoming IO-540 310 78"
AeroComposites 3-blade Composite CS 110.35" 1634 2800 1166
60 806
Van's RV-10 Dave Emond ZU - RVD Lycoming IO-540 260
80" Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.33" 1631 2700
John G. Cumins
President
JC'S Interactive Systems
2499 B1 Martin Rd
Fairfield Ca 94533
707-425-7100
707-425-7576 Fax
Your Total Technology Solution Provider
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 9:07 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork
I am assuming that your definition of "level" was with a digital level
(indicating to the 0.1 degree) and not a bubble level. Just like in
hand grenades and bombs.
Level both fore and aft and port to starboard. The hangar doors need to
be closed to wind effects as well, in a normal weight environment.
John Cox - RV10 N49CX =Dreaming of Living the Dream
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: NavWorx Update
Just FYI, I did get some photos posted. Nothing earth shattering,
but at least you can see some of it.
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20081025/index.html
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> For this test it was just the PADS600 portable. The ADS600
> will give you the same basic thing, but you'll install a
> blade style DME antenna, and it will accept external GPS
> feeds. The one today had built-in GPS and a small stick
> antenna. For most people who are building planes, we'll
> want the fixed unit, because it will give better signal
> and performance.
>
> No, this is not a "receive only" system....it's the whole
> works, transmit and receive. Cool stuff, that's for sure.
>
> I'll do a quick write-up with photos when I can sit down
> and put it together.
>
> One other thing.....since Garmin does all their stuff using
> proprietary interfaces, this ADS-B isn't going to be an
> option on some Garmin products....they shoot themselves
> in the foot by not wanting to use more "open" interface
> specs. So the experimental and non-garmin world has a
> lot of good cost savings benefit by a product like this.
> I do think that it will feed some of the radios like
> the 430/530/480 though...but we didn't talk much about that,
> so I'm not sure.
>
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> William Curtis wrote:
>> <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>>
>> Tim,
>>
>> Very cool! Are you using the portable PADS600 or the fixed ADS600?
>> IF the ADS600, what do you have for antenna placement and can you
>> confirm that this is a "receive only" system?
>>
>> William http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> I just wanted to follow up as I said I'd post more information after
>>> today. I worked with Bill from NavWorx today in getting the
>>> NavWorx ADS-B system hooked up to the Chelton system. I had
>>> prepared a harness in advance, that could take the place of one of
>>> my existing interfaces. As you know, ADS-B can provide both
>>> traffic and WX. The Chelton has a config screen for weather and
>>> traffic and currently my system was set up to receive traffic from
>>> the GTX-330 and Weather from WSI. I turned them both to ADS-B, we
>>> fired up the transceiver on at OSH, and went for a flight.
>>>
>>> I can now report that ADS-B weather displays, with VERY fast update
>>> rates, on the Chelton system, and does a great job. On the flight,
>>> we got to check out the traffic portion also, flying a loop around
>>> Appleton and down. Traffic was visible and it had a very fast
>>> update speed on the screens...you could watch the traffic slide
>>> across the Chelton's and it was updated faster than the GTX-330
>>> traffic.
>>>
>>> There was only 2 oddities in the whole thing, one of them done on
>>> purpose, and one of them something that NavWorx will now refine a
>>> little more. The first is that the unit that we were using was not
>>> programmed to filter traffic based on distance or altitude
>>> away...thus, we could actually receive traffic targets that were
>>> even 100nm away! This is a setting that they can program, so you
>>> have traffic available at whatever range or altitude difference
>>> that you want, and this one was left open to all traffic. The
oddity
>>> that we saw was that during turns, we detected our own
>>> airplane as traffic, which as I understand it is due to the
>>> inaccuracy of the radar station we were in. We would get a Mode-S
>>> traffic "hit" that would sometimes show up .25-.3 miles from our
>>> plane. Apparently this is an effect caused by my having a mode-S
>>> transponder, in that both the ADS-B and Mode-S target are in the
same
>>> spot, but with radar inaccuracies, they may not be identically
>>> placed. The receiver is supposed to have an algorithm that hides
>>> one of the hits if they're so close in position and altitude that
>>> they must be the same plane, so that algorithm needs to be modified
>>> slightly (just a simple software update for NavWorx) to hide them
>>> just a little further separated than it is now. I was very
>>> interested to see that for Wx, the single ground-based station
>>> basically covers way outside the entire state of Wisconsin, so with
>>> ADS-B weather, my entire home state would have coverage. That is
not
>>> to say I'd be able to receive the ground station, but I'd see
>>> the Nexrad for the whole state, plus more, when I am in ADS-B
>>> coverage. Now they just have to get the ADS-B system country wide
>>> to be deployed.
>>>
>>> So, not only does it appear that NavWorx has a great little system
>>> for WAY WAY less than Garmin, but it works fine with Cheltons
>>> already existing ADS-B interfacing. It should also work fine for
>>> others like GRT and Advanced Flight once they bring their
>>> programming for it to completion.
>>>
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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: | Weighing prior to DAR paperwork |
Ball point pen with the ink above 212 degrees F. DAR approval after
cool down. FAA acceptance upon receipt. "Cause it is - Experimental".
I will listen for those using more than VAN's tested and approved 2700
lbs. for the Static Load to Gross Weight Testing results. Maybe the
jettison Max Fuel Load for Landing back to 2700 prior to emergency
touchdown?
As more of the Van's fleet sustained collapsed nose gear incidents (not
with the RV-10 Fleet), my attention became perked.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cumins
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork
Ok I have a max gross weight question. How are boilers able to change
the
max gross weight for there 10. I thought the published max gross is
2700lbs, but I see here they range from 2700 to 2850.
How are they able to do that??
Van's RV-10 Ted French C-FXCS Lycoming IO-540
260
76" MT 3-blade Composite CS 49.58" 1557 2700 1143
60
783
Van's RV-10 Tim Olson N104CD Lycoming IO-540 260
80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.67" 1685 2700 1015
60
655 100% Complete right down to the ...
Van's RV-10 Gary Specketer N204GS Lycoming IO-540 260
78"
AeroComposites 2-blade Composite CS 0.06" 1699 2700 1001
60
641 Full IFR Upholstery, Dual Altena...
Van's RV-10 Chuck Stuhrenberg N300WC Lycoming O-540 300
72"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 106.98" 1615 2900 1285
60
925
Van's RV-10 Rene Felker N423CF Lycoming IO-540 260
80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 109.22" 1698 2800 1102
60
742 Full IFR, 2 Alt, full interior
Van's RV-10 Bob Condrey N442PM Lycoming IO-540 260
80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.2" 1632 2700 1068 60
708
All electric, dual batteries, du...
Van's RV-10 David McNeill N46007 Lycoming IO-540 260
80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 109.13" 1630 2700 1070
60
710
Van's RV-10 Anh Vu N591VU Lycoming IO-540 260 80"
Hartzell
2-blade Aluminum CS 106.99" 1625 2700 1075 60
715
Datum is 99.44" forward of wing ...
Van's RV-10 vic Syracuse N64VC Lycoming IO-540 310
72"
MT 3-blade Composite CS 89.59" 1665 2850 1185 75
735
CG limits are aft of leading edg...
Van's RV-10 Russell Daves N710RV Lycoming IO-540 260
76"
MT 3-blade Composite CS 108.05" 1584 2700 1116
60
756
Van's RV-10 BARRY MARZ N789AB Lycoming IO-540 260
80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.73" 1648 2700 1052
60
692
Van's RV-10 Albert Gardner N991RV Lycoming IO-540 310
78"
AeroComposites 3-blade Composite CS 110.35" 1634 2800
1166
60 806
Van's RV-10 Dave Emond ZU - RVD Lycoming IO-540
260
80" Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.33" 1631 2700
John G. Cumins
President
JC'S Interactive Systems
2499 B1 Martin Rd
Fairfield Ca 94533
707-425-7100
707-425-7576 Fax
Your Total Technology Solution Provider
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 9:07 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork
I am assuming that your definition of "level" was with a digital level
(indicating to the 0.1 degree) and not a bubble level. Just like in
hand grenades and bombs.
Level both fore and aft and port to starboard. The hangar doors need to
be closed to wind effects as well, in a normal weight environment.
John Cox - RV10 N49CX =Dreaming of Living the Dream
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: | Weighing prior to DAR paperwork |
At the risk of being flamed. Adjusted g limits of my airplane based on a
set of assumptions derived from the Vans number. In other words, my
airplane is not rated for 3.8g at its max gross weight of 2800. Now, in
reality, I will have trouble getting my airplane up to 2800 pounds. During
testing, I loaded it out at 2780 putting it at the aft CG. I just could not
fit any more sand bags in the front seat... :).
Now, with the 2800 lbs I will not get caught being overweight during ramp
check or accident investigation, but like I said, I will have trouble
getting there anyway......and still staying within the aft CG.
Rene' Felker
RV-10 N423CF Flying
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cumins
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:24 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork
Ok I have a max gross weight question. How are boilers able to change the
max gross weight for there 10. I thought the published max gross is
2700lbs, but I see here they range from 2700 to 2850.
How are they able to do that??
Van's RV-10 Ted French C-FXCS Lycoming IO-540 260
76" MT 3-blade Composite CS 49.58" 1557 2700 1143 60
783
Van's RV-10 Tim Olson N104CD Lycoming IO-540 260 80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.67" 1685 2700 1015 60
655 100% Complete right down to the ...
Van's RV-10 Gary Specketer N204GS Lycoming IO-540 260 78"
AeroComposites 2-blade Composite CS 0.06" 1699 2700 1001 60
641 Full IFR Upholstery, Dual Altena...
Van's RV-10 Chuck Stuhrenberg N300WC Lycoming O-540 300 72"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 106.98" 1615 2900 1285 60
925
Van's RV-10 Rene Felker N423CF Lycoming IO-540 260 80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 109.22" 1698 2800 1102 60
742 Full IFR, 2 Alt, full interior
Van's RV-10 Bob Condrey N442PM Lycoming IO-540 260 80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.2" 1632 2700 1068 60 708
All electric, dual batteries, du...
Van's RV-10 David McNeill N46007 Lycoming IO-540 260 80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 109.13" 1630 2700 1070 60
710
Van's RV-10 Anh Vu N591VU Lycoming IO-540 260 80" Hartzell
2-blade Aluminum CS 106.99" 1625 2700 1075 60 715
Datum is 99.44" forward of wing ...
Van's RV-10 vic Syracuse N64VC Lycoming IO-540 310 72"
MT 3-blade Composite CS 89.59" 1665 2850 1185 75 735
CG limits are aft of leading edg...
Van's RV-10 Russell Daves N710RV Lycoming IO-540 260 76"
MT 3-blade Composite CS 108.05" 1584 2700 1116 60
756
Van's RV-10 BARRY MARZ N789AB Lycoming IO-540 260 80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.73" 1648 2700 1052 60
692
Van's RV-10 Albert Gardner N991RV Lycoming IO-540 310 78"
AeroComposites 3-blade Composite CS 110.35" 1634 2800 1166
60 806
Van's RV-10 Dave Emond ZU - RVD Lycoming IO-540 260
80" Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.33" 1631 2700
John G. Cumins
President
JC'S Interactive Systems
2499 B1 Martin Rd
Fairfield Ca 94533
707-425-7100
707-425-7576 Fax
Your Total Technology Solution Provider
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 9:07 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork
I am assuming that your definition of "level" was with a digital level
(indicating to the 0.1 degree) and not a bubble level. Just like in
hand grenades and bombs.
Level both fore and aft and port to starboard. The hangar doors need to
be closed to wind effects as well, in a normal weight environment.
John Cox - RV10 N49CX =Dreaming of Living the Dream
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: NavWorx Update
Just FYI, I did get some photos posted. Nothing earth shattering,
but at least you can see some of it.
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20081025/index.html
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> For this test it was just the PADS600 portable. The ADS600
> will give you the same basic thing, but you'll install a
> blade style DME antenna, and it will accept external GPS
> feeds. The one today had built-in GPS and a small stick
> antenna. For most people who are building planes, we'll
> want the fixed unit, because it will give better signal
> and performance.
>
> No, this is not a "receive only" system....it's the whole
> works, transmit and receive. Cool stuff, that's for sure.
>
> I'll do a quick write-up with photos when I can sit down
> and put it together.
>
> One other thing.....since Garmin does all their stuff using
> proprietary interfaces, this ADS-B isn't going to be an
> option on some Garmin products....they shoot themselves
> in the foot by not wanting to use more "open" interface
> specs. So the experimental and non-garmin world has a
> lot of good cost savings benefit by a product like this.
> I do think that it will feed some of the radios like
> the 430/530/480 though...but we didn't talk much about that,
> so I'm not sure.
>
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> William Curtis wrote:
>> <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>>
>> Tim,
>>
>> Very cool! Are you using the portable PADS600 or the fixed ADS600?
>> IF the ADS600, what do you have for antenna placement and can you
>> confirm that this is a "receive only" system?
>>
>> William http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> I just wanted to follow up as I said I'd post more information after
>>> today. I worked with Bill from NavWorx today in getting the
>>> NavWorx ADS-B system hooked up to the Chelton system. I had
>>> prepared a harness in advance, that could take the place of one of
>>> my existing interfaces. As you know, ADS-B can provide both
>>> traffic and WX. The Chelton has a config screen for weather and
>>> traffic and currently my system was set up to receive traffic from
>>> the GTX-330 and Weather from WSI. I turned them both to ADS-B, we
>>> fired up the transceiver on at OSH, and went for a flight.
>>>
>>> I can now report that ADS-B weather displays, with VERY fast update
>>> rates, on the Chelton system, and does a great job. On the flight,
>>> we got to check out the traffic portion also, flying a loop around
>>> Appleton and down. Traffic was visible and it had a very fast
>>> update speed on the screens...you could watch the traffic slide
>>> across the Chelton's and it was updated faster than the GTX-330
>>> traffic.
>>>
>>> There was only 2 oddities in the whole thing, one of them done on
>>> purpose, and one of them something that NavWorx will now refine a
>>> little more. The first is that the unit that we were using was not
>>> programmed to filter traffic based on distance or altitude
>>> away...thus, we could actually receive traffic targets that were
>>> even 100nm away! This is a setting that they can program, so you
>>> have traffic available at whatever range or altitude difference
>>> that you want, and this one was left open to all traffic. The
oddity
>>> that we saw was that during turns, we detected our own
>>> airplane as traffic, which as I understand it is due to the
>>> inaccuracy of the radar station we were in. We would get a Mode-S
>>> traffic "hit" that would sometimes show up .25-.3 miles from our
>>> plane. Apparently this is an effect caused by my having a mode-S
>>> transponder, in that both the ADS-B and Mode-S target are in the
same
>>> spot, but with radar inaccuracies, they may not be identically
>>> placed. The receiver is supposed to have an algorithm that hides
>>> one of the hits if they're so close in position and altitude that
>>> they must be the same plane, so that algorithm needs to be modified
>>> slightly (just a simple software update for NavWorx) to hide them
>>> just a little further separated than it is now. I was very
>>> interested to see that for Wx, the single ground-based station
>>> basically covers way outside the entire state of Wisconsin, so with
>>> ADS-B weather, my entire home state would have coverage. That is
not
>>> to say I'd be able to receive the ground station, but I'd see
>>> the Nexrad for the whole state, plus more, when I am in ADS-B
>>> coverage. Now they just have to get the ADS-B system country wide
>>> to be deployed.
>>>
>>> So, not only does it appear that NavWorx has a great little system
>>> for WAY WAY less than Garmin, but it works fine with Cheltons
>>> already existing ADS-B interfacing. It should also work fine for
>>> others like GRT and Advanced Flight once they bring their
>>> programming for it to completion.
>>>
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Weighing prior to DAR paperwork |
Max gross weight is established by the manufacturer; you are the
manufacturer, not Vans. That said it is good judgment to keep your stated
gross close to Vans since they have done the structural testing on the
airframe. Because I did not ever want to have Pssin match with an insurance
company over whether I was at 2700 or 2710 or 2723, I set mine for the
record to 2800.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cumins
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork
Ok I have a max gross weight question. How are boilers able to change the
max gross weight for there 10. I thought the published max gross is
2700lbs, but I see here they range from 2700 to 2850.
How are they able to do that??
Van's RV-10 Ted French C-FXCS Lycoming IO-540 260
76" MT 3-blade Composite CS 49.58" 1557 2700 1143 60
783
Van's RV-10 Tim Olson N104CD Lycoming IO-540 260 80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.67" 1685 2700 1015 60
655 100% Complete right down to the ...
Van's RV-10 Gary Specketer N204GS Lycoming IO-540 260 78"
AeroComposites 2-blade Composite CS 0.06" 1699 2700 1001 60
641 Full IFR Upholstery, Dual Altena...
Van's RV-10 Chuck Stuhrenberg N300WC Lycoming O-540 300 72"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 106.98" 1615 2900 1285 60
925
Van's RV-10 Rene Felker N423CF Lycoming IO-540 260 80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 109.22" 1698 2800 1102 60
742 Full IFR, 2 Alt, full interior
Van's RV-10 Bob Condrey N442PM Lycoming IO-540 260 80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.2" 1632 2700 1068 60 708
All electric, dual batteries, du...
Van's RV-10 David McNeill N46007 Lycoming IO-540 260 80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 109.13" 1630 2700 1070 60
710
Van's RV-10 Anh Vu N591VU Lycoming IO-540 260 80" Hartzell
2-blade Aluminum CS 106.99" 1625 2700 1075 60 715
Datum is 99.44" forward of wing ...
Van's RV-10 vic Syracuse N64VC Lycoming IO-540 310 72"
MT 3-blade Composite CS 89.59" 1665 2850 1185 75 735
CG limits are aft of leading edg...
Van's RV-10 Russell Daves N710RV Lycoming IO-540 260 76"
MT 3-blade Composite CS 108.05" 1584 2700 1116 60
756
Van's RV-10 BARRY MARZ N789AB Lycoming IO-540 260 80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.73" 1648 2700 1052 60
692
Van's RV-10 Albert Gardner N991RV Lycoming IO-540 310 78"
AeroComposites 3-blade Composite CS 110.35" 1634 2800 1166
60 806
Van's RV-10 Dave Emond ZU - RVD Lycoming IO-540 260
80" Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.33" 1631 2700
John G. Cumins
President
JC'S Interactive Systems
2499 B1 Martin Rd
Fairfield Ca 94533
707-425-7100
707-425-7576 Fax
Your Total Technology Solution Provider
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 9:07 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork
I am assuming that your definition of "level" was with a digital level
(indicating to the 0.1 degree) and not a bubble level. Just like in hand
grenades and bombs.
Level both fore and aft and port to starboard. The hangar doors need to be
closed to wind effects as well, in a normal weight environment.
John Cox - RV10 N49CX =Dreaming of Living the Dream
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: NavWorx Update
Just FYI, I did get some photos posted. Nothing earth shattering, but at
least you can see some of it.
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20081025/index.html
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> For this test it was just the PADS600 portable. The ADS600 will give
> you the same basic thing, but you'll install a blade style DME
> antenna, and it will accept external GPS feeds. The one today had
> built-in GPS and a small stick antenna. For most people who are
> building planes, we'll want the fixed unit, because it will give
> better signal and performance.
>
> No, this is not a "receive only" system....it's the whole works,
> transmit and receive. Cool stuff, that's for sure.
>
> I'll do a quick write-up with photos when I can sit down and put it
> together.
>
> One other thing.....since Garmin does all their stuff using
> proprietary interfaces, this ADS-B isn't going to be an option on some
> Garmin products....they shoot themselves in the foot by not wanting to
> use more "open" interface specs. So the experimental and non-garmin
> world has a lot of good cost savings benefit by a product like this.
> I do think that it will feed some of the radios like the 430/530/480
> though...but we didn't talk much about that, so I'm not sure.
>
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> William Curtis wrote:
>> <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>>
>> Tim,
>>
>> Very cool! Are you using the portable PADS600 or the fixed ADS600?
>> IF the ADS600, what do you have for antenna placement and can you
>> confirm that this is a "receive only" system?
>>
>> William http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> I just wanted to follow up as I said I'd post more information after
>>> today. I worked with Bill from NavWorx today in getting the NavWorx
>>> ADS-B system hooked up to the Chelton system. I had prepared a
>>> harness in advance, that could take the place of one of my existing
>>> interfaces. As you know, ADS-B can provide both traffic and WX.
>>> The Chelton has a config screen for weather and traffic and
>>> currently my system was set up to receive traffic from the GTX-330
>>> and Weather from WSI. I turned them both to ADS-B, we fired up the
>>> transceiver on at OSH, and went for a flight.
>>>
>>> I can now report that ADS-B weather displays, with VERY fast update
>>> rates, on the Chelton system, and does a great job. On the flight,
>>> we got to check out the traffic portion also, flying a loop around
>>> Appleton and down. Traffic was visible and it had a very fast
>>> update speed on the screens...you could watch the traffic slide
>>> across the Chelton's and it was updated faster than the GTX-330
>>> traffic.
>>>
>>> There was only 2 oddities in the whole thing, one of them done on
>>> purpose, and one of them something that NavWorx will now refine a
>>> little more. The first is that the unit that we were using was not
>>> programmed to filter traffic based on distance or altitude
>>> away...thus, we could actually receive traffic targets that were
>>> even 100nm away! This is a setting that they can program, so you
>>> have traffic available at whatever range or altitude difference that
>>> you want, and this one was left open to all traffic. The
oddity
>>> that we saw was that during turns, we detected our own airplane as
>>> traffic, which as I understand it is due to the inaccuracy of the
>>> radar station we were in. We would get a Mode-S traffic "hit" that
>>> would sometimes show up .25-.3 miles from our plane. Apparently
>>> this is an effect caused by my having a mode-S transponder, in that
>>> both the ADS-B and Mode-S target are in the
same
>>> spot, but with radar inaccuracies, they may not be identically
>>> placed. The receiver is supposed to have an algorithm that hides one
>>> of the hits if they're so close in position and altitude that they
>>> must be the same plane, so that algorithm needs to be modified
>>> slightly (just a simple software update for NavWorx) to hide them
>>> just a little further separated than it is now. I was very
>>> interested to see that for Wx, the single ground-based station
>>> basically covers way outside the entire state of Wisconsin, so with
>>> ADS-B weather, my entire home state would have coverage. That is
not
>>> to say I'd be able to receive the ground station, but I'd see the
>>> Nexrad for the whole state, plus more, when I am in ADS-B coverage.
>>> Now they just have to get the ADS-B system country wide to be
>>> deployed.
>>>
>>> So, not only does it appear that NavWorx has a great little system
>>> for WAY WAY less than Garmin, but it works fine with Cheltons
>>> already existing ADS-B interfacing. It should also work fine for
>>> others like GRT and Advanced Flight once they bring their
>>> programming for it to completion.
>>>
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: | Weighing prior to DAR paperwork |
This is some good stuff!
Now, can I conclude from David's post that insurance underwriters may
actually accept an "Approval of Claim" rather than the more typical
"Denial of Claim" when the VANs factory, a large number of builders and
Dick V placed the hard gross weight at =<2700 lbs max for the RV-10
insurance pool and then the builder/claimant uses a higher arbitrary
number? Can I conclude from Rene, that use of sandbags above 2700lbs is
not to demonstrate the wing spars will take the static weight "In
Flight" but is a rather a ground load test on the fuselage construction,
the leg attachment and the wheels/tires? Can a builder disregard the
3.8 Positive and the negative G factors when submitting to DAR
paperwork? At 3.8G that requires 5130 pounds of sand "Per Wing" or
10,260 GW for Wing Loading of the total Aircraft if exceeding the
factory recommendation.
Are the planes signed by the DAR to Normal, Utility, Aerobatic or a new
category - based on specific Positive/Negative G forces? What can we do
to make an RV-10 capable of legal aerobatic maneuvers? What fuel load
reduction is required for a 3.8 Normal to go to Utility Flight or
Aerobatic Flight? Does Maneuvering Speed change with higher Gross
Weight entries into the POH?
Is there more than Pen & Ink involvement?
What is the Testing Practice (prior to DAR) when going "off the
reservation"?
No flame intended. This remains Good Stuff. John Cumin is to be
commended for extracting Dan Checkoway's data. And Thanks to those
honest enough to post on this important subject. Michael, I am missing
your wit here.
John Cox
Aurora State
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rene Felker
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:00 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork
At the risk of being flamed. Adjusted g limits of my airplane based on
a
set of assumptions derived from the Vans number. In other words, my
airplane is not rated for 3.8g at its max gross weight of 2800. Now, in
reality, I will have trouble getting my airplane up to 2800 pounds.
During
testing, I loaded it out at 2780 putting it at the aft CG. I just could
not
fit any more sand bags in the front seat... :).
Now, with the 2800 lbs I will not get caught being overweight during
ramp
check or accident investigation, but like I said, I will have trouble
getting there anyway......and still staying within the aft CG.
Rene' Felker
RV-10 N423CF Flying
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cumins
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:24 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork
Ok I have a max gross weight question. How are boilers able to change
the
max gross weight for their 10. I thought the published max gross is
2700lbs, but I see here they range from 2700 to 2850.
How are they able to do that??
Van's RV-10 Ted French C-FXCS Lycoming IO-540
260
76" MT 3-blade Composite CS 49.58" 1557 2700 1143
60
783
Van's RV-10 Tim Olson N104CD Lycoming IO-540 260
80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.67" 1685 2700 1015
60
655 100% Complete right down to the ...
Van's RV-10 Gary Specketer N204GS Lycoming IO-540 260
78"
AeroComposites 2-blade Composite CS 0.06" 1699 2700 1001
60
641 Full IFR Upholstery, Dual Altena...
Van's RV-10 Chuck Stuhrenberg N300WC Lycoming O-540 300
72"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 106.98" 1615 2900 1285
60
925
Van's RV-10 Rene Felker N423CF Lycoming IO-540 260
80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 109.22" 1698 2800 1102
60
742 Full IFR, 2 Alt, full interior
Van's RV-10 Bob Condrey N442PM Lycoming IO-540 260
80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.2" 1632 2700 1068 60
708
All electric, dual batteries, du...
Van's RV-10 David McNeill N46007 Lycoming IO-540 260
80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 109.13" 1630 2700 1070
60
710
Van's RV-10 Anh Vu N591VU Lycoming IO-540 260 80"
Hartzell
2-blade Aluminum CS 106.99" 1625 2700 1075 60
715
Datum is 99.44" forward of wing ...
Van's RV-10 vic Syracuse N64VC Lycoming IO-540 310
72"
MT 3-blade Composite CS 89.59" 1665 2850 1185 75
735
CG limits are aft of leading edg...
Van's RV-10 Russell Daves N710RV Lycoming IO-540 260
76"
MT 3-blade Composite CS 108.05" 1584 2700 1116
60
756
Van's RV-10 BARRY MARZ N789AB Lycoming IO-540 260
80"
Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.73" 1648 2700 1052
60
692
Van's RV-10 Albert Gardner N991RV Lycoming IO-540 310
78"
AeroComposites 3-blade Composite CS 110.35" 1634 2800
1166
60 806
Van's RV-10 Dave Emond ZU - RVD Lycoming IO-540
260
80" Hartzell 2-blade Aluminum CS 108.33" 1631 2700
John G. Cumins
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 |
|
Tim, your post is excellent on ADS-B. The marketplace needs some viable
competition.
One area not addressed is the 1090ES standard. My sources at Garmin are
giving only a cursory tease on the need for builders to consider antenna
placement, antenna selection and need for the Garmin 330ES which is not
yet released. You have a good footnote on the 1090mHz ES but it leaves
a gap in the sources for Extended Squitter (ES).
Oregon was one of the ADS-B pioneers and home of Garmin's transponder
and EFIS divisions. No one wants to feed the gorilla.
Could you keep your ears open and fill us in when appropriate?
Alternative selections and extended life of competitive avionics
components is valued input.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: NavWorx Update
Just FYI, I did get some photos posted. Nothing earth shattering,
but at least you can see some of it.
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20081025/index.html
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> For this test it was just the PADS600 portable. The ADS600
> will give you the same basic thing, but you'll install a
> blade style DME antenna, and it will accept external GPS
> feeds. The one today had built-in GPS and a small stick
> antenna. For most people who are building planes, we'll
> want the fixed unit, because it will give better signal
> and performance.
>
> No, this is not a "receive only" system....it's the whole
> works, transmit and receive. Cool stuff, that's for sure.
>
> I'll do a quick write-up with photos when I can sit down
> and put it together.
>
> One other thing.....since Garmin does all their stuff using
> proprietary interfaces, this ADS-B isn't going to be an
> option on some Garmin products....they shoot themselves
> in the foot by not wanting to use more "open" interface
> specs. So the experimental and non-garmin world has a
> lot of good cost savings benefit by a product like this.
> I do think that it will feed some of the radios like
> the 430/530/480 though...but we didn't talk much about that,
> so I'm not sure.
>
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> William Curtis wrote:
>> <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>>
>> Tim,
>>
>> Very cool! Are you using the portable PADS600 or the fixed ADS600?
>> IF the ADS600, what do you have for antenna placement and can you
>> confirm that this is a "receive only" system?
>>
>> William http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> I just wanted to follow up as I said I'd post more information after
>>> today. I worked with Bill from NavWorx today in getting the
>>> NavWorx ADS-B system hooked up to the Chelton system. I had
>>> prepared a harness in advance, that could take the place of one of
>>> my existing interfaces. As you know, ADS-B can provide both
>>> traffic and WX. The Chelton has a config screen for weather and
>>> traffic and currently my system was set up to receive traffic from
>>> the GTX-330 and Weather from WSI. I turned them both to ADS-B, we
>>> fired up the transceiver on at OSH, and went for a flight.
>>>
>>> I can now report that ADS-B weather displays, with VERY fast update
>>> rates, on the Chelton system, and does a great job. On the flight,
>>> we got to check out the traffic portion also, flying a loop around
>>> Appleton and down. Traffic was visible and it had a very fast
>>> update speed on the screens...you could watch the traffic slide
>>> across the Chelton's and it was updated faster than the GTX-330
>>> traffic.
>>>
>>> There was only 2 oddities in the whole thing, one of them done on
>>> purpose, and one of them something that NavWorx will now refine a
>>> little more. The first is that the unit that we were using was not
>>> programmed to filter traffic based on distance or altitude
>>> away...thus, we could actually receive traffic targets that were
>>> even 100nm away! This is a setting that they can program, so you
>>> have traffic available at whatever range or altitude difference
>>> that you want, and this one was left open to all traffic. The
oddity
>>> that we saw was that during turns, we detected our own
>>> airplane as traffic, which as I understand it is due to the
>>> inaccuracy of the radar station we were in. We would get a Mode-S
>>> traffic "hit" that would sometimes show up .25-.3 miles from our
>>> plane. Apparently this is an effect caused by my having a mode-S
>>> transponder, in that both the ADS-B and Mode-S target are in the
same
>>> spot, but with radar inaccuracies, they may not be identically
>>> placed. The receiver is supposed to have an algorithm that hides
>>> one of the hits if they're so close in position and altitude that
>>> they must be the same plane, so that algorithm needs to be modified
>>> slightly (just a simple software update for NavWorx) to hide them
>>> just a little further separated than it is now. I was very
>>> interested to see that for Wx, the single ground-based station
>>> basically covers way outside the entire state of Wisconsin, so with
>>> ADS-B weather, my entire home state would have coverage. That is
not
>>> to say I'd be able to receive the ground station, but I'd see
>>> the Nexrad for the whole state, plus more, when I am in ADS-B
>>> coverage. Now they just have to get the ADS-B system country wide
>>> to be deployed.
>>>
>>> So, not only does it appear that NavWorx has a great little system
>>> for WAY WAY less than Garmin, but it works fine with Cheltons
>>> already existing ADS-B interfacing. It should also work fine for
>>> others like GRT and Advanced Flight once they bring their
>>> programming for it to completion.
>>>
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: | Weighing prior to DAR paperwork |
I'm pretty much witless here. This is one of those subjects much like politics,
everyone is very passionate about their opinion but many don't actually have
any real data behind their choices.
It's of course very true that we are all the manufacturers and as such we can
make any changes or set any limits that we deem applicable (and I hope safe)
without having to produce the data to backup what we do. The Fed or DAR is there
to make sure we haven't done anything stupid in a big way but unfortunately
it's all the stupid little things that usually stack up on each other to bite
us in the arse at the worst possible time.
As to increasing your gross weight I can understand the argument of what if you
are ramp checked and happen to be at 2701#. Then there is also always the
liability issue with a higher than normal gross and selling the aircraft. Even
if you never plan on going over 2700# it doesn't mean the guy that buys it won't
if you published higher. I guarantee that's one you won't win when you are
asked to produce the data for the increase by the prosecution. Setting your
gross at something higher would protect you from being violated for a minor
oversight but how much is too much? Sure you could be like the big boys and set
a max landing weight of say 2700# and a max takeoff of 2800# and 1.5g's but
that still leaves you with a big grey area on performance of the actual aircraft
and every component unless you have tested it to failure.
As to beating out the insurance should you need to collect, I think that is pretty
easy to sum up. Insurance companies and the FAA prefer to interpret things
how they see fit without much concern for what is written. Even if your policy
says you are covered, I'll bet you a doughnut and coffee that if you put
in your gross as more than 2700# and you still call it an RV-10, they won't pay
out if you show up at the site of the incident over 2700#. If you really want
to jack up your gross, call it something else and make sure you fly it at
gross and at your various CG and G limits during your testing phase to be sure
you don't crack a spar or do a tail slide when you are out showing your QB buddy
how great this thing stalls with his center and offensive line buddy in back.
:)
Anyway to each his own. It is an Experimental after all isn't it. And as such
you are in this for your own education and entertainment aren't you. Right?!?
Just make sure you complete the experiment part before you load up with your
family or sell it on down the road.
Michael
State of Delusion
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 1:25 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork
This is some good stuff!
Now, can I conclude from David's post that insurance underwriters may
actually accept an "Approval of Claim" rather than the more typical
"Denial of Claim" when the VANs factory, a large number of builders and
Dick V placed the hard gross weight at =<2700 lbs max for the RV-10
insurance pool and then the builder/claimant uses a higher arbitrary
number? Can I conclude from Rene, that use of sandbags above 2700lbs is
not to demonstrate the wing spars will take the static weight "In
Flight" but is a rather a ground load test on the fuselage construction,
the leg attachment and the wheels/tires? Can a builder disregard the
3.8 Positive and the negative G factors when submitting to DAR
paperwork? At 3.8G that requires 5130 pounds of sand "Per Wing" or
10,260 GW for Wing Loading of the total Aircraft if exceeding the
factory recommendation.
Are the planes signed by the DAR to Normal, Utility, Aerobatic or a new
category - based on specific Positive/Negative G forces? What can we do
to make an RV-10 capable of legal aerobatic maneuvers? What fuel load
reduction is required for a 3.8 Normal to go to Utility Flight or
Aerobatic Flight? Does Maneuvering Speed change with higher Gross
Weight entries into the POH?
Is there more than Pen & Ink involvement?
What is the Testing Practice (prior to DAR) when going "off the
reservation"?
No flame intended. This remains Good Stuff. John Cumin is to be
commended for extracting Dan Checkoway's data. And Thanks to those
honest enough to post on this important subject. Michael, I am missing
your wit here.
John Cox
Aurora State
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: | Weighing prior to DAR paperwork |
My DC10 gas a gross of 2800.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 12:42 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork
--> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
I'm pretty much witless here. This is one of those subjects much like
politics, everyone is very passionate about their opinion but many don't
actually have any real data behind their choices.
It's of course very true that we are all the manufacturers and as such we
can make any changes or set any limits that we deem applicable (and I hope
safe) without having to produce the data to backup what we do. The Fed or
DAR is there to make sure we haven't done anything stupid in a big way but
unfortunately it's all the stupid little things that usually stack up on
each other to bite us in the arse at the worst possible time.
As to increasing your gross weight I can understand the argument of what
if you are ramp checked and happen to be at 2701#. Then there is also
always the liability issue with a higher than normal gross and selling the
aircraft. Even if you never plan on going over 2700# it doesn't mean the
guy that buys it won't if you published higher. I guarantee that's one you
won't win when you are asked to produce the data for the increase by the
prosecution. Setting your gross at something higher would protect you from
being violated for a minor oversight but how much is too much? Sure you
could be like the big boys and set a max landing weight of say 2700# and a
max takeoff of 2800# and 1.5g's but that still leaves you with a big grey
area on performance of the actual aircraft and every component unless you
have tested it to failure.
As to beating out the insurance should you need to collect, I think that
is pretty easy to sum up. Insurance companies and the FAA prefer to
interpret things how they see fit without much concern for what is written.
Even if your policy says you are covered, I'll bet you a doughnut and coffee
that if you put in your gross as more than 2700# and you still call it an
RV-10, they won't pay out if you show up at the site of the incident over
2700#. If you really want to jack up your gross, call it something else and
make sure you fly it at gross and at your various CG and G limits during
your testing phase to be sure you don't crack a spar or do a tail slide when
you are out showing your QB buddy how great this thing stalls with his
center and offensive line buddy in back. :)
Anyway to each his own. It is an Experimental after all isn't it. And as
such you are in this for your own education and entertainment aren't you.
Right?!? Just make sure you complete the experiment part before you load up
with your family or sell it on down the road.
Michael
State of Delusion
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 1:25 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork
This is some good stuff!
Now, can I conclude from David's post that insurance underwriters may
actually accept an "Approval of Claim" rather than the more typical "Denial
of Claim" when the VANs factory, a large number of builders and Dick V
placed the hard gross weight at =<2700 lbs max for the RV-10 insurance pool
and then the builder/claimant uses a higher arbitrary number? Can I
conclude from Rene, that use of sandbags above 2700lbs is not to demonstrate
the wing spars will take the static weight "In Flight" but is a rather a
ground load test on the fuselage construction, the leg attachment and the
wheels/tires? Can a builder disregard the
3.8 Positive and the negative G factors when submitting to DAR paperwork?
At 3.8G that requires 5130 pounds of sand "Per Wing" or 10,260 GW for Wing
Loading of the total Aircraft if exceeding the factory recommendation.
Are the planes signed by the DAR to Normal, Utility, Aerobatic or a new
category - based on specific Positive/Negative G forces? What can we do to
make an RV-10 capable of legal aerobatic maneuvers? What fuel load
reduction is required for a 3.8 Normal to go to Utility Flight or Aerobatic
Flight? Does Maneuvering Speed change with higher Gross Weight entries into
the POH?
Is there more than Pen & Ink involvement?
What is the Testing Practice (prior to DAR) when going "off the
reservation"?
No flame intended. This remains Good Stuff. John Cumin is to be commended
for extracting Dan Checkoway's data. And Thanks to those honest enough to
post on this important subject. Michael, I am missing your wit here.
John Cox
Aurora State
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 |
|
The two large holes in the F 1072 Fwd fuselage bottom skin have
scalloped edges. I presume they will need to be deburred smooth. I just
want to make sure that this is correct.
Rob Hunter
Fuselage
40432
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: | Weighing prior to DAR paperwork |
Just a note from the Vans site.
"Part 23 requires that the wing support 1.5 times the limit load of 3.8G
(i.e.: 5.7G) for 3 seconds in all conditions. It allows the use of a
different test article for each condition. We used the same test article to
test for all conditions. Ours is a more severe test, because the wing could
be weakened by one test before the next is run. As full load is reached, the
wing creaks and groans and wrinkles run like heavy seas across the top
skins. Engineers start using some strange body English and holding their
lips all funny. When the last few shot bags are loaded, the atmosphere can
be pretty tense. We were very pleased to find that our calculations had been
correct and the wing passed all the requirements of Part 23."
The wing passed all three tests use the same fixture. Manufacturers are
allowed to use a new wing for each test. Likewise the FAA permits certified
aircraft less than 12500# to operate at 115% of certificated weight in
Alaska. I believe this is due to engine power availability rather than
structural strength of the airframe. So I am not worried that a 4% increase
in gross weight will compromise safety.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 12:42 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork
--> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
I'm pretty much witless here. This is one of those subjects much like
politics, everyone is very passionate about their opinion but many don't
actually have any real data behind their choices.
It's of course very true that we are all the manufacturers and as such we
can make any changes or set any limits that we deem applicable (and I hope
safe) without having to produce the data to backup what we do. The Fed or
DAR is there to make sure we haven't done anything stupid in a big way but
unfortunately it's all the stupid little things that usually stack up on
each other to bite us in the arse at the worst possible time.
As to increasing your gross weight I can understand the argument of what
if you are ramp checked and happen to be at 2701#. Then there is also
always the liability issue with a higher than normal gross and selling the
aircraft. Even if you never plan on going over 2700# it doesn't mean the
guy that buys it won't if you published higher. I guarantee that's one you
won't win when you are asked to produce the data for the increase by the
prosecution. Setting your gross at something higher would protect you from
being violated for a minor oversight but how much is too much? Sure you
could be like the big boys and set a max landing weight of say 2700# and a
max takeoff of 2800# and 1.5g's but that still leaves you with a big grey
area on performance of the actual aircraft and every component unless you
have tested it to failure.
As to beating out the insurance should you need to collect, I think that
is pretty easy to sum up. Insurance companies and the FAA prefer to
interpret things how they see fit without much concern for what is written.
Even if your policy says you are covered, I'll bet you a doughnut and coffee
that if you put in your gross as more than 2700# and you still call it an
RV-10, they won't pay out if you show up at the site of the incident over
2700#. If you really want to jack up your gross, call it something else and
make sure you fly it at gross and at your various CG and G limits during
your testing phase to be sure you don't crack a spar or do a tail slide when
you are out showing your QB buddy how great this thing stalls with his
center and offensive line buddy in back. :)
Anyway to each his own. It is an Experimental after all isn't it. And as
such you are in this for your own education and entertainment aren't you.
Right?!? Just make sure you complete the experiment part before you load up
with your family or sell it on down the road.
Michael
State of Delusion
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 1:25 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork
This is some good stuff!
Now, can I conclude from David's post that insurance underwriters may
actually accept an "Approval of Claim" rather than the more typical "Denial
of Claim" when the VANs factory, a large number of builders and Dick V
placed the hard gross weight at =<2700 lbs max for the RV-10 insurance pool
and then the builder/claimant uses a higher arbitrary number? Can I
conclude from Rene, that use of sandbags above 2700lbs is not to demonstrate
the wing spars will take the static weight "In Flight" but is a rather a
ground load test on the fuselage construction, the leg attachment and the
wheels/tires? Can a builder disregard the
3.8 Positive and the negative G factors when submitting to DAR paperwork?
At 3.8G that requires 5130 pounds of sand "Per Wing" or 10,260 GW for Wing
Loading of the total Aircraft if exceeding the factory recommendation.
Are the planes signed by the DAR to Normal, Utility, Aerobatic or a new
category - based on specific Positive/Negative G forces? What can we do to
make an RV-10 capable of legal aerobatic maneuvers? What fuel load
reduction is required for a 3.8 Normal to go to Utility Flight or Aerobatic
Flight? Does Maneuvering Speed change with higher Gross Weight entries into
the POH?
Is there more than Pen & Ink involvement?
What is the Testing Practice (prior to DAR) when going "off the
reservation"?
No flame intended. This remains Good Stuff. John Cumin is to be commended
for extracting Dan Checkoway's data. And Thanks to those honest enough to
post on this important subject. Michael, I am missing your wit here.
John Cox
Aurora State
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 |
|
My understanding is that the navworx box is UAT only. In the US, the FAA will
support both 1090ES and UAT. 1090ES will be primarily for 24,000 feet and above
while UAT will be below 24,000. UAT has a number of advantages and my guess
is that easily outdistance 1090ES.
http://navworx.com/docs/ADSBSlides.pdf
William
http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
-------- Original Message --------
> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>
>
> Tim, your post is excellent on ADS-B. The marketplace needs some viable
> competition.
>
> One area not addressed is the 1090ES standard. My sources at Garmin are
> giving only a cursory tease on the need for builders to consider antenna
> placement, antenna selection and need for the Garmin 330ES which is not
> yet released. You have a good footnote on the 1090mHz ES but it leaves
> a gap in the sources for Extended Squitter (ES).
>
> Oregon was one of the ADS-B pioneers and home of Garmin's transponder
> and EFIS divisions. No one wants to feed the gorilla.
>
> Could you keep your ears open and fill us in when appropriate?
> Alternative selections and extended life of competitive avionics
> components is valued input.
>
> John Cox
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 7:09 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: NavWorx Update
>
>
> Just FYI, I did get some photos posted. Nothing earth shattering,
> but at least you can see some of it.
> http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20081025/index.html
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
> >
> > For this test it was just the PADS600 portable. The ADS600
> > will give you the same basic thing, but you'll install a
> > blade style DME antenna, and it will accept external GPS
> > feeds. The one today had built-in GPS and a small stick
> > antenna. For most people who are building planes, we'll
> > want the fixed unit, because it will give better signal
> > and performance.
> >
> > No, this is not a "receive only" system....it's the whole
> > works, transmit and receive. Cool stuff, that's for sure.
> >
> > I'll do a quick write-up with photos when I can sit down
> > and put it together.
> >
> > One other thing.....since Garmin does all their stuff using
> > proprietary interfaces, this ADS-B isn't going to be an
> > option on some Garmin products....they shoot themselves
> > in the foot by not wanting to use more "open" interface
> > specs. So the experimental and non-garmin world has a
> > lot of good cost savings benefit by a product like this.
> > I do think that it will feed some of the radios like
> > the 430/530/480 though...but we didn't talk much about that,
> > so I'm not sure.
> >
> >
> > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> > do not archive
> >
> >
> > William Curtis wrote:
> >> <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
> >>
> >> Tim,
> >>
> >> Very cool! Are you using the portable PADS600 or the fixed ADS600?
> >> IF the ADS600, what do you have for antenna placement and can you
> >> confirm that this is a "receive only" system?
> >>
> >> William http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
> >>
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >>> I just wanted to follow up as I said I'd post more information after
>
> >>> today. I worked with Bill from NavWorx today in getting the
> >>> NavWorx ADS-B system hooked up to the Chelton system. I had
> >>> prepared a harness in advance, that could take the place of one of
> >>> my existing interfaces. As you know, ADS-B can provide both
> >>> traffic and WX. The Chelton has a config screen for weather and
> >>> traffic and currently my system was set up to receive traffic from
> >>> the GTX-330 and Weather from WSI. I turned them both to ADS-B, we
> >>> fired up the transceiver on at OSH, and went for a flight.
> >>>
> >>> I can now report that ADS-B weather displays, with VERY fast update
> >>> rates, on the Chelton system, and does a great job. On the flight,
> >>> we got to check out the traffic portion also, flying a loop around
> >>> Appleton and down. Traffic was visible and it had a very fast
> >>> update speed on the screens...you could watch the traffic slide
> >>> across the Chelton's and it was updated faster than the GTX-330
> >>> traffic.
> >>>
> >>> There was only 2 oddities in the whole thing, one of them done on
> >>> purpose, and one of them something that NavWorx will now refine a
> >>> little more. The first is that the unit that we were using was not
> >>> programmed to filter traffic based on distance or altitude
> >>> away...thus, we could actually receive traffic targets that were
> >>> even 100nm away! This is a setting that they can program, so you
> >>> have traffic available at whatever range or altitude difference
> >>> that you want, and this one was left open to all traffic. The
> oddity
> >>> that we saw was that during turns, we detected our own
> >>> airplane as traffic, which as I understand it is due to the
> >>> inaccuracy of the radar station we were in. We would get a Mode-S
> >>> traffic "hit" that would sometimes show up .25-.3 miles from our
> >>> plane. Apparently this is an effect caused by my having a mode-S
> >>> transponder, in that both the ADS-B and Mode-S target are in the
> same
> >>> spot, but with radar inaccuracies, they may not be identically
> >>> placed. The receiver is supposed to have an algorithm that hides
> >>> one of the hits if they're so close in position and altitude that
> >>> they must be the same plane, so that algorithm needs to be modified
> >>> slightly (just a simple software update for NavWorx) to hide them
> >>> just a little further separated than it is now. I was very
> >>> interested to see that for Wx, the single ground-based station
> >>> basically covers way outside the entire state of Wisconsin, so with
> >>> ADS-B weather, my entire home state would have coverage. That is
> not
> >>> to say I'd be able to receive the ground station, but I'd see
> >>> the Nexrad for the whole state, plus more, when I am in ADS-B
> >>> coverage. Now they just have to get the ADS-B system country wide
> >>> to be deployed.
> >>>
> >>> So, not only does it appear that NavWorx has a great little system
> >>> for WAY WAY less than Garmin, but it works fine with Cheltons
> >>> already existing ADS-B interfacing. It should also work fine for
> >>> others like GRT and Advanced Flight once they bring their
> >>> programming for it to completion.
> >>>
> >>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Holes in F1072 |
Rob:
I think what you are talking about are the gear leg holes. File the
edges smooth and deburr.
Fred
40515.
Rob Hunter wrote:
>
> The two large holes in the F 1072 Fwd fuselage bottom skin have
> scalloped edges. I presume they will need to be deburred smooth. I just
> want to make sure that this is correct.
>
> Rob Hunter
> Fuselage
> 40432
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NavWorx Update |
I agree, I don't think there is any intention to go the
1090ES route on their products. And personally,
I've heard the same about it being high-altitude primarily,
so I really didn't care that it wasn't. The bandwidth is
much lower I believe, anyway.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
William Curtis wrote:
> <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>
> My understanding is that the navworx box is UAT only. In the US, the
> FAA will support both 1090ES and UAT. 1090ES will be primarily for
> 24,000 feet and above while UAT will be below 24,000. UAT has a
> number of advantages and my guess is that easily outdistance 1090ES.
>
> http://navworx.com/docs/ADSBSlides.pdf
>
> William http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>> X-Rcpt-To: <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>>
>> <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>>
>> Tim, your post is excellent on ADS-B. The marketplace needs some
>> viable competition.
>>
>> One area not addressed is the 1090ES standard. My sources at
>> Garmin are giving only a cursory tease on the need for builders to
>> consider antenna placement, antenna selection and need for the
>> Garmin 330ES which is not yet released. You have a good footnote
>> on the 1090mHz ES but it leaves a gap in the sources for Extended
>> Squitter (ES).
>>
>> Oregon was one of the ADS-B pioneers and home of Garmin's
>> transponder and EFIS divisions. No one wants to feed the gorilla.
>>
>> Could you keep your ears open and fill us in when appropriate?
>> Alternative selections and extended life of competitive avionics
>> components is valued input.
>>
>> John Cox
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From:
>> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
>> Olson Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 7:09 PM To:
>> rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: RV10-List: NavWorx Update
>>
>>
>> Just FYI, I did get some photos posted. Nothing earth shattering,
>> but at least you can see some of it.
>> http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20081025/index.html
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive
>>
>>
>> Tim Olson wrote:
>>>
>>> For this test it was just the PADS600 portable. The ADS600 will
>>> give you the same basic thing, but you'll install a blade style
>>> DME antenna, and it will accept external GPS feeds. The one
>>> today had built-in GPS and a small stick antenna. For most
>>> people who are building planes, we'll want the fixed unit,
>>> because it will give better signal and performance.
>>>
>>> No, this is not a "receive only" system....it's the whole works,
>>> transmit and receive. Cool stuff, that's for sure.
>>>
>>> I'll do a quick write-up with photos when I can sit down and put
>>> it together.
>>>
>>> One other thing.....since Garmin does all their stuff using
>>> proprietary interfaces, this ADS-B isn't going to be an option on
>>> some Garmin products....they shoot themselves in the foot by not
>>> wanting to use more "open" interface specs. So the experimental
>>> and non-garmin world has a lot of good cost savings benefit by a
>>> product like this. I do think that it will feed some of the
>>> radios like the 430/530/480 though...but we didn't talk much
>>> about that, so I'm not sure.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>> William Curtis wrote:
>>>> <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>>>>
>>>> Tim,
>>>>
>>>> Very cool! Are you using the portable PADS600 or the fixed
>>>> ADS600? IF the ADS600, what do you have for antenna placement
>>>> and can you confirm that this is a "receive only" system?
>>>>
>>>> William http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> I just wanted to follow up as I said I'd post more
>>>>> information after today. I worked with Bill from NavWorx
>>>>> today in getting the NavWorx ADS-B system hooked up to the
>>>>> Chelton system. I had prepared a harness in advance, that
>>>>> could take the place of one of my existing interfaces. As
>>>>> you know, ADS-B can provide both traffic and WX. The Chelton
>>>>> has a config screen for weather and traffic and currently my
>>>>> system was set up to receive traffic from the GTX-330 and
>>>>> Weather from WSI. I turned them both to ADS-B, we fired up
>>>>> the transceiver on at OSH, and went for a flight.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can now report that ADS-B weather displays, with VERY fast
>>>>> update rates, on the Chelton system, and does a great job. On
>>>>> the flight, we got to check out the traffic portion also,
>>>>> flying a loop around Appleton and down. Traffic was visible
>>>>> and it had a very fast update speed on the screens...you
>>>>> could watch the traffic slide across the Chelton's and it was
>>>>> updated faster than the GTX-330 traffic.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was only 2 oddities in the whole thing, one of them
>>>>> done on purpose, and one of them something that NavWorx will
>>>>> now refine a little more. The first is that the unit that we
>>>>> were using was not programmed to filter traffic based on
>>>>> distance or altitude away...thus, we could actually receive
>>>>> traffic targets that were even 100nm away! This is a setting
>>>>> that they can program, so you have traffic available at
>>>>> whatever range or altitude difference that you want, and this
>>>>> one was left open to all traffic. The
>> oddity
>>>>> that we saw was that during turns, we detected our own
>>>>> airplane as traffic, which as I understand it is due to the
>>>>> inaccuracy of the radar station we were in. We would get a
>>>>> Mode-S traffic "hit" that would sometimes show up .25-.3
>>>>> miles from our plane. Apparently this is an effect caused by
>>>>> my having a mode-S transponder, in that both the ADS-B and
>>>>> Mode-S target are in the
>> same
>>>>> spot, but with radar inaccuracies, they may not be
>>>>> identically placed. The receiver is supposed to have an
>>>>> algorithm that hides one of the hits if they're so close in
>>>>> position and altitude that they must be the same plane, so
>>>>> that algorithm needs to be modified slightly (just a simple
>>>>> software update for NavWorx) to hide them just a little
>>>>> further separated than it is now. I was very interested to
>>>>> see that for Wx, the single ground-based station basically
>>>>> covers way outside the entire state of Wisconsin, so with
>>>>> ADS-B weather, my entire home state would have coverage.
>>>>> That is
>> not
>>>>> to say I'd be able to receive the ground station, but I'd see
>>>>> the Nexrad for the whole state, plus more, when I am in
>>>>> ADS-B coverage. Now they just have to get the ADS-B system
>>>>> country wide to be deployed.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, not only does it appear that NavWorx has a great little
>>>>> system for WAY WAY less than Garmin, but it works fine with
>>>>> Cheltons already existing ADS-B interfacing. It should also
>>>>> work fine for others like GRT and Advanced Flight once they
>>>>> bring their programming for it to completion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weighing prior to DAR paperwork |
Please note the reg cited does NOT allow any and every pilot to
operate every plane at 115% of gross in Alaska. It requires specific
approval for a specific operation and is in no way generic. It is more
like getting a ferry permit for oceanic flights for extra fuel. Yes,
you generally do have more power and lift available, as only in the
heat of summer do you get to ISO or above conditions.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:57 PM, David McNeill <dlm46007@cox.net> wrote:
Likewise the FAA permits certified
> aircraft less than 12500# to operate at 115% of certificated weight in
> Alaska. I believe this is due to engine power availability rather than
> structural strength of the airframe. So I am not worried that a 4% increase
> in gross weight will compromise safety.
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weight and Balance Questions |
I usually re weigh my planes 2 or 3 times just to make sure I had no side
load on any of the scales. Side load can give huge errors.
Gary Specketer
40274 Flying
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Weight and Balance Questions
It was level.
But I will continue the investigation!
Thanks, Jim C
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 |
|
I'm in the process of building my tanks at the moment and have been
researching how to plumb the purge valve. I didn't want to have to add
anymore lines after I complete the tanks.
I was under the impression that it would be best for the line from the purge
valve to be run back to the left tank. If you really want to go with a
lavish solution you can run the return lines through the fuel tank switch
and let the switch control which tank is connected. Just having it routed
to the tank left tank saves $$$ on the andair valve.
In reading the purge valve documentation from AFP, it shows two solutions.
The first solution routes the return line to a tee connection in the fuel
vent line. My concern with this approach is that I'm not sure what would
prevent the fuel not going out the vent line when purging.
The second solution in their documentation has the return line routed to the
left fuel line before the fuel selector valve. My concern here is that the
hot fuel will get mixed into the fuel line too soon and defeat one of the
reasons of for the purge valve in a hot start situation.
I am interested in hearing what others have done in regards to routing the
return line and if my concerns are well founded or not.
Thanks,
Bob
#40684
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NavWorx Update |
I do have a clarification on this after emailing with Bill a little.
The PADS600 portable unit is indeed a receive-only unit, as William
made reference to. They will also have a transceiver that will
handle both transmit and receive. They do plan to certify that
unit. Since ADS-B will require you to transmit, there may be a
split-mode situation that some people will opt for. Like, my
GTX-330 is planned to be able to be upgraded to meet the 1090 ES
spec, which would satisfy my transmit requirements, and then I
could have the receiver-only system of UAT if I wanted. My guess
is that a Garmin upgrade to the GTX-330 though will add so much
cost that going with the NavWorx Transceiver will save money in
the end. I haven't heard pricing on the ADS600 non-portable, but
from my conversations so far, I'm assuming that the ADS600 is the
Transceiver version...made for permanent installations. That's
the one I've been planning to go with in the future. If it turns
out that there is a 3rd model, I'll let you know, but this is what
I've gathered for now. The reason I assume the ADS600 is the
transceiver he's referring to is that we had lots of discussion
as to how I could send appropriate altitude information to the
system so my proper altitude is transmitted, along with some other
things. But, I'll let you know as I learn more.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Just FYI, I did get some photos posted. Nothing earth shattering,
> but at least you can see some of it.
> http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20081025/index.html
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> For this test it was just the PADS600 portable. The ADS600
>> will give you the same basic thing, but you'll install a
>> blade style DME antenna, and it will accept external GPS
>> feeds. The one today had built-in GPS and a small stick
>> antenna. For most people who are building planes, we'll
>> want the fixed unit, because it will give better signal
>> and performance.
>>
>> No, this is not a "receive only" system....it's the whole
>> works, transmit and receive. Cool stuff, that's for sure.
>>
>> I'll do a quick write-up with photos when I can sit down
>> and put it together.
>>
>> One other thing.....since Garmin does all their stuff using
>> proprietary interfaces, this ADS-B isn't going to be an
>> option on some Garmin products....they shoot themselves
>> in the foot by not wanting to use more "open" interface
>> specs. So the experimental and non-garmin world has a
>> lot of good cost savings benefit by a product like this.
>> I do think that it will feed some of the radios like
>> the 430/530/480 though...but we didn't talk much about that,
>> so I'm not sure.
>>
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> William Curtis wrote:
>>> <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>>>
>>> Tim,
>>>
>>> Very cool! Are you using the portable PADS600 or the fixed ADS600?
>>> IF the ADS600, what do you have for antenna placement and can you
>>> confirm that this is a "receive only" system?
>>>
>>> William http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> I just wanted to follow up as I said I'd post more information after
>>>> today. I worked with Bill from NavWorx today in getting the
>>>> NavWorx ADS-B system hooked up to the Chelton system. I had
>>>> prepared a harness in advance, that could take the place of one of
>>>> my existing interfaces. As you know, ADS-B can provide both
>>>> traffic and WX. The Chelton has a config screen for weather and
>>>> traffic and currently my system was set up to receive traffic from
>>>> the GTX-330 and Weather from WSI. I turned them both to ADS-B, we
>>>> fired up the transceiver on at OSH, and went for a flight.
>>>>
>>>> I can now report that ADS-B weather displays, with VERY fast update
>>>> rates, on the Chelton system, and does a great job. On the flight,
>>>> we got to check out the traffic portion also, flying a loop around
>>>> Appleton and down. Traffic was visible and it had a very fast
>>>> update speed on the screens...you could watch the traffic slide
>>>> across the Chelton's and it was updated faster than the GTX-330
>>>> traffic.
>>>>
>>>> There was only 2 oddities in the whole thing, one of them done on
>>>> purpose, and one of them something that NavWorx will now refine a
>>>> little more. The first is that the unit that we were using was not
>>>> programmed to filter traffic based on distance or altitude
>>>> away...thus, we could actually receive traffic targets that were
>>>> even 100nm away! This is a setting that they can program, so you
>>>> have traffic available at whatever range or altitude difference
>>>> that you want, and this one was left open to all traffic. The
>>>> oddity that we saw was that during turns, we detected our own
>>>> airplane as traffic, which as I understand it is due to the
>>>> inaccuracy of the radar station we were in. We would get a Mode-S
>>>> traffic "hit" that would sometimes show up .25-.3 miles from our
>>>> plane. Apparently this is an effect caused by my having a mode-S
>>>> transponder, in that both the ADS-B and Mode-S target are in the
>>>> same spot, but with radar inaccuracies, they may not be identically
>>>> placed. The receiver is supposed to have an algorithm that hides
>>>> one of the hits if they're so close in position and altitude that
>>>> they must be the same plane, so that algorithm needs to be modified
>>>> slightly (just a simple software update for NavWorx) to hide them
>>>> just a little further separated than it is now. I was very
>>>> interested to see that for Wx, the single ground-based station
>>>> basically covers way outside the entire state of Wisconsin, so with
>>>> ADS-B weather, my entire home state would have coverage. That is
>>>> not to say I'd be able to receive the ground station, but I'd see
>>>> the Nexrad for the whole state, plus more, when I am in ADS-B
>>>> coverage. Now they just have to get the ADS-B system country wide
>>>> to be deployed.
>>>>
>>>> So, not only does it appear that NavWorx has a great little system
>>>> for WAY WAY less than Garmin, but it works fine with Cheltons
>>>> already existing ADS-B interfacing. It should also work fine for
>>>> others like GRT and Advanced Flight once they bring their
>>>> programming for it to completion.
>>>>
>>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
I'm just getting started with the cowl and associated hinges. For those that used
the stock hinge material....would you still use it if you did it again? How
is it holding up? I seem to remember something mentioned of a heavier hinge
material. Or...would you switch to Skybolts? I'm aware of the problem of the
lower hinges losing ears, so I'll use an alternative approach there. Thanks in
advance. Sean Blair #40225
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 |
|
Not flying yet, but if I did it again I would use proseal between the
hinge and cowl before rivetting.
cheers,
Ron
-187 painting
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
dogsbark@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, 28 October 2008 1:03 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: cowl hinges
I'm just getting started with the cowl and associated hinges.
For those that used the stock hinge material....would you still use it
if you did it again? How is it holding up? I seem to remember something
mentioned of a heavier hinge material. Or...would you switch to
Skybolts? I'm aware of the problem of the lower hinges losing ears, so
I'll use an alternative approach there.
Thanks in advance.
Sean Blair
#40225
"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."
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NavWorx Update |
Ok, here is the further clarification already. I just got a reply
to my request for more info....
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The PADS600 is a portable ADS-B receiver-only product (comes with
USB and Garmin 396/496 connectors, bluetooth optional, separate dc jack
for power) - This is what we used Saturday (although a prototype with
different connector)
2. The ADS600 is a non-portable ADS-B receiver-only product (comes with
DB37 low density connector containing various interfaces - RS232 for
ADS-B data in/out, RS422 for GPS timemark signal for external WAAS GPS
navigator connection (eliminates the need to use our internal GPS, and
hence having to connect a separate GPS antenna. optional ARINC 429
interface for connecting to devices that display ARINC 735 TCAS traffic
(e.g. Garmin 430/530, GNS480).
3. The ADS600-T is the transceiver. Due to be certified by the end of
2009.
We plan on certifying both the receiver and transceiver. For now, we
will be selling un-certified ADS600 and PADS600 until that time. If one
purchases any product (cert or un-cert) from us before the certified
transceiver comes available, they can upgrade for cost difference plus
shipping. That's our plan for now. I have to say for legal reasons
that we reserve the right to change any thing I've mentioned above, at
any time (mainly because if the FAA finalizes the NPRM and it contains
something drastic that would change our cost structure, we'd have to
pass that along. If you remember when I had the box open at lunch, I
pointed to the board and said that the transmitter board would fit on
top of the existing receiver/processor board. All we do is change out
the top half of the chassis and add the tx board.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> I do have a clarification on this after emailing with Bill a little.
> The PADS600 portable unit is indeed a receive-only unit, as William
> made reference to. They will also have a transceiver that will
> handle both transmit and receive. They do plan to certify that
> unit. Since ADS-B will require you to transmit, there may be a
> split-mode situation that some people will opt for. Like, my
> GTX-330 is planned to be able to be upgraded to meet the 1090 ES
> spec, which would satisfy my transmit requirements, and then I
> could have the receiver-only system of UAT if I wanted. My guess
> is that a Garmin upgrade to the GTX-330 though will add so much
> cost that going with the NavWorx Transceiver will save money in
> the end. I haven't heard pricing on the ADS600 non-portable, but
> from my conversations so far, I'm assuming that the ADS600 is the
> Transceiver version...made for permanent installations. That's
> the one I've been planning to go with in the future. If it turns
> out that there is a 3rd model, I'll let you know, but this is what
> I've gathered for now. The reason I assume the ADS600 is the
> transceiver he's referring to is that we had lots of discussion
> as to how I could send appropriate altitude information to the
> system so my proper altitude is transmitted, along with some other
> things. But, I'll let you know as I learn more.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> Just FYI, I did get some photos posted. Nothing earth shattering,
>> but at least you can see some of it.
>> http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/upgrades/20081025/index.html
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> Tim Olson wrote:
>>>
>>> For this test it was just the PADS600 portable. The ADS600
>>> will give you the same basic thing, but you'll install a
>>> blade style DME antenna, and it will accept external GPS
>>> feeds. The one today had built-in GPS and a small stick
>>> antenna. For most people who are building planes, we'll
>>> want the fixed unit, because it will give better signal
>>> and performance.
>>>
>>> No, this is not a "receive only" system....it's the whole
>>> works, transmit and receive. Cool stuff, that's for sure.
>>>
>>> I'll do a quick write-up with photos when I can sit down
>>> and put it together.
>>>
>>> One other thing.....since Garmin does all their stuff using
>>> proprietary interfaces, this ADS-B isn't going to be an
>>> option on some Garmin products....they shoot themselves
>>> in the foot by not wanting to use more "open" interface
>>> specs. So the experimental and non-garmin world has a
>>> lot of good cost savings benefit by a product like this.
>>> I do think that it will feed some of the radios like
>>> the 430/530/480 though...but we didn't talk much about that,
>>> so I'm not sure.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>>> do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>> William Curtis wrote:
>>>> <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
>>>>
>>>> Tim,
>>>>
>>>> Very cool! Are you using the portable PADS600 or the fixed ADS600?
>>>> IF the ADS600, what do you have for antenna placement and can you
>>>> confirm that this is a "receive only" system?
>>>>
>>>> William http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> I just wanted to follow up as I said I'd post more information
>>>>> after today. I worked with Bill from NavWorx today in getting the
>>>>> NavWorx ADS-B system hooked up to the Chelton system. I had
>>>>> prepared a harness in advance, that could take the place of one of
>>>>> my existing interfaces. As you know, ADS-B can provide both
>>>>> traffic and WX. The Chelton has a config screen for weather and
>>>>> traffic and currently my system was set up to receive traffic from
>>>>> the GTX-330 and Weather from WSI. I turned them both to ADS-B, we
>>>>> fired up the transceiver on at OSH, and went for a flight.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can now report that ADS-B weather displays, with VERY fast update
>>>>> rates, on the Chelton system, and does a great job. On the flight,
>>>>> we got to check out the traffic portion also, flying a loop around
>>>>> Appleton and down. Traffic was visible and it had a very fast
>>>>> update speed on the screens...you could watch the traffic slide
>>>>> across the Chelton's and it was updated faster than the GTX-330
>>>>> traffic.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was only 2 oddities in the whole thing, one of them done on
>>>>> purpose, and one of them something that NavWorx will now refine a
>>>>> little more. The first is that the unit that we were using was not
>>>>> programmed to filter traffic based on distance or altitude
>>>>> away...thus, we could actually receive traffic targets that were
>>>>> even 100nm away! This is a setting that they can program, so you
>>>>> have traffic available at whatever range or altitude difference
>>>>> that you want, and this one was left open to all traffic. The
>>>>> oddity that we saw was that during turns, we detected our own
>>>>> airplane as traffic, which as I understand it is due to the
>>>>> inaccuracy of the radar station we were in. We would get a Mode-S
>>>>> traffic "hit" that would sometimes show up .25-.3 miles from our
>>>>> plane. Apparently this is an effect caused by my having a mode-S
>>>>> transponder, in that both the ADS-B and Mode-S target are in the
>>>>> same spot, but with radar inaccuracies, they may not be identically
>>>>> placed. The receiver is supposed to have an algorithm that hides
>>>>> one of the hits if they're so close in position and altitude that
>>>>> they must be the same plane, so that algorithm needs to be modified
>>>>> slightly (just a simple software update for NavWorx) to hide them
>>>>> just a little further separated than it is now. I was very
>>>>> interested to see that for Wx, the single ground-based station
>>>>> basically covers way outside the entire state of Wisconsin, so with
>>>>> ADS-B weather, my entire home state would have coverage. That is
>>>>> not to say I'd be able to receive the ground station, but I'd see
>>>>> the Nexrad for the whole state, plus more, when I am in ADS-B
>>>>> coverage. Now they just have to get the ADS-B system country wide
>>>>> to be deployed.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, not only does it appear that NavWorx has a great little system
>>>>> for WAY WAY less than Garmin, but it works fine with Cheltons
>>>>> already existing ADS-B interfacing. It should also work fine for
>>>>> others like GRT and Advanced Flight once they bring their
>>>>> programming for it to completion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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 use it again. It seems to be holding up just fine, and it works
better than I thought it ever would. I was a die-hard camloc
planner in the beginning but decided to give it a try and now
I'm very happy with the results. Just don't use them on the
bottom section.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
dogsbark@comcast.net wrote:
> *I'm just getting started with the cowl and associated hinges. For
> those that used the stock hinge material....would you still use it if
> you did it again? How is it holding up? I seem to remember something
> mentioned of a heavier hinge material. Or...would you switch to
> Skybolts? I'm aware of the problem of the lower hinges losing ears,
> so I'll use an alternative approach there.*
>
> *Thanks in advance.*
>
> *Sean Blair*
>
> *#40225 *
>
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 |
|
If you use the hinges , be sure and cover the rivet heads with a glass tape
or see the heads work their way through the paint after some hours.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: cowl hinges
I'd use it again. It seems to be holding up just fine, and it works better
than I thought it ever would. I was a die-hard camloc planner in the
beginning but decided to give it a try and now I'm very happy with the
results. Just don't use them on the bottom section.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
dogsbark@comcast.net wrote:
> *I'm just getting started with the cowl and associated hinges. For
> those that used the stock hinge material....would you still use it if
> you did it again? How is it holding up? I seem to remember something
> mentioned of a heavier hinge material. Or...would you switch to
> Skybolts? I'm aware of the problem of the lower hinges losing ears,
> so I'll use an alternative approach there.*
>
> *Thanks in advance.*
>
> *Sean Blair*
>
> *#40225 *
>
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 |
|
what's wrong with using the hinges on the bottom section? what does one use
for it's replacement?
Thx
Pascal
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: cowl hinges
>
> I'd use it again. It seems to be holding up just fine, and it works
> better than I thought it ever would. I was a die-hard camloc
> planner in the beginning but decided to give it a try and now
> I'm very happy with the results. Just don't use them on the
> bottom section.
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> dogsbark@comcast.net wrote:
>> *I'm just getting started with the cowl and associated hinges. For
>> those that used the stock hinge material....would you still use it if
>> you did it again? How is it holding up? I seem to remember something
>> mentioned of a heavier hinge material. Or...would you switch to
>> Skybolts? I'm aware of the problem of the lower hinges losing ears,
>> so I'll use an alternative approach there.*
>>
>> *Thanks in advance.*
>>
>> *Sean Blair*
>>
>> *#40225 *
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Can you wait until you come up next month..... I'll show you what I did...
Don
--- On Mon, 10/27/08, pascal <pascal@rv10builder.net> wrote:
From: pascal <pascal@rv10builder.net>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: cowl hinges
<pascal@rv10builder.net>
what's wrong with using the hinges on the bottom section? what does one use
for it's replacement?
Thx
Pascal
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: cowl hinges
>
> I'd use it again. It seems to be holding up just fine, and it works
> better than I thought it ever would. I was a die-hard camloc
> planner in the beginning but decided to give it a try and now
> I'm very happy with the results. Just don't use them on the
> bottom section.
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> dogsbark@comcast.net wrote:
>> *I'm just getting started with the cowl and associated hinges.
For
>> those that used the stock hinge material....would you still use it if
>> you did it again? How is it holding up? I seem to remember something
>> mentioned of a heavier hinge material. Or...would you switch to
>> Skybolts? I'm aware of the problem of the lower hinges losing
ears,
>> so I'll use an alternative approach there.*
>>
>> *Thanks in advance.*
>>
>> *Sean Blair*
>>
>> *#40225 *
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
There are a lot of choices to connect your cowl. On my -10 we went all
out with the sky bolts but they are unreasonably expensive and heavy
IMHO. An excellent alternative to piano hinges and sky bolts or locks is
a simple stainless screw. My RV-6A cowl is held together with S/S screws
and they work great, look good and can you can replace 5 of them for a
quarter.
The cowl uses piano hinges along the vertical lower sides but S/S screws
along the top, horizontal sides & the underside. I much prefer these to
piano hinges.
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! --
|