Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:05 AM - Re: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy (gary)
2. 06:59 AM - Re: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy (linn)
3. 08:11 AM - Re: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy (Bob Kaufmann)
4. 08:58 AM - Re: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy (Chuck Weyant)
5. 09:11 AM - Re: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy (Robin Marks)
6. 09:20 AM - Re: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy (Tim Olson)
7. 09:46 AM - Re: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy (Tim Olson)
8. 10:22 AM - Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy (Steven Roberts)
9. 10:36 AM - locating the Flap Positioning System box and the Safety Trim Box (Bob and Karen Brown)
10. 10:58 AM - Re: locating the Flap Positioning System box and the Safety Trim Box (Bob-tcw)
11. 11:02 AM - Re: locating the Flap Positioning System box and the Safety Trim Box (Bob-tcw)
12. 11:19 AM - Re: locating the Flap Positioning System box and the Safety Trim Box (Tim Olson)
13. 11:52 AM - Re: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy (David McNeill)
14. 12:41 PM - Re: Nose Wheels (Bart van Ruth)
15. 03:20 PM - Re: locating the Flap Positioning System box and the Safety Trim Box (Bill Mauledriver Watson)
16. 05:13 PM - Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy (nukeflyboy)
17. 06:22 PM - Washington Aviation Conference (Dave Fritzsche (Building))
18. 06:51 PM - Re: locating the Flap Positioning System box and the Safety Trim Box (Larry Rosen)
19. 07:13 PM - Re: locating the Flap Positioning System box and the Safety Trim Box (Robin Marks)
20. 08:11 PM - Re: Washington Aviation Conference (John Cox)
21. 10:04 PM - Re: Washington Aviation Conference (Bruce Breckenridge)
22. 10:39 PM - First Engine start (McGANN, Ron)
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: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
As they say, timing is everything. I was aware that you guys were doing
something, but I was still building and had my mind on other things. Now I
am flying and focused on insurance issues. I suspect others are more
interested. Now we have many more folks flying and near flying, it might be
worth while to tap the pulse of the 10 community again and see if now the
time is right. I know it is a lot of work, but it might be well worth it.
Gary Specketer
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Kaufmann
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 12:18 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the
policy
A few years back Rick and I had set up a self insurance group to solve these
challenges, Thousands of dollars later we scrapped the idea because the
community of RV 10s wouldn't support it for about $2500 a year as a cost
with an estimated 10% a year rebate. Oh well, we tried.
Bob K
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of KiloPapa
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:50 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy
Excellent discussion regarding insurance, flying spouses, etc.
Thanks.
Kevin
40494
tail/empennage
do not archive
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
Maybe it'll be feasible when the 'community' is larger. I like the idea.
Linn
Bob Kaufmann wrote:
>
> A few years back Rick and I had set up a self insurance group to solve
> these challenges, Thousands of dollars later we scrapped the idea
> because the community of RV 10s wouldn't support it for about $2500 a
> year as a cost with an estimated 10% a year rebate. Oh well, we tried.
>
>
>
> Bob K
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *KiloPapa
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:50 PM
> *To:* Matronics RV10 - List
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on
> the policy
>
>
>
> Excellent discussion regarding insurance, flying spouses, etc.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Kevin
> 40494
> tail/empennage
>
>
>
> do not archive
>
> * *
> * *
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
> **
> **
> **
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> **
> * *
> *
>
>
> *
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
That could be but until we get shown support it ain't going to happen.
Bob K
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gary
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 6:00 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the
policy
As they say, timing is everything. I was aware that you guys were doing
something, but I was still building and had my mind on other things. Now I
am flying and focused on insurance issues. I suspect others are more
interested. Now we have many more folks flying and near flying, it might be
worth while to tap the pulse of the 10 community again and see if now the
time is right. I know it is a lot of work, but it might be well worth it.
Gary Specketer
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Kaufmann
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 12:18 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the
policy
A few years back Rick and I had set up a self insurance group to solve these
challenges, Thousands of dollars later we scrapped the idea because the
community of RV 10s wouldn't support it for about $2500 a year as a cost
with an estimated 10% a year rebate. Oh well, we tried.
Bob K
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of KiloPapa
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:50 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy
Excellent discussion regarding insurance, flying spouses, etc.
Thanks.
Kevin
40494
tail/empennage
do not archive
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
I'd certainly be interested.
do not archive
Chuck Weyant
Cowling, baffling done
From: Bob Kaufmann
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on
the policy
That could be but until we get shown support it ain't going to happen.
Bob K
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gary
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 6:00 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on
the policy
As they say, timing is everything. I was aware that you guys were doing
something, but I was still building and had my mind on other things.
Now I am flying and focused on insurance issues. I suspect others are
more interested. Now we have many more folks flying and near flying, it
might be worth while to tap the pulse of the 10 community again and see
if now the time is right. I know it is a lot of work, but it might be
well worth it.
Gary Specketer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Kaufmann
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 12:18 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on
the policy
A few years back Rick and I had set up a self insurance group to solve
these challenges, Thousands of dollars later we scrapped the idea
because the community of RV 10s wouldn't support it for about $2500 a
year as a cost with an estimated 10% a year rebate. Oh well, we tried.
Bob K
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of KiloPapa
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:50 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the
policy
Excellent discussion regarding insurance, flying spouses, etc.
Thanks.
Kevin
40494
tail/empennage
do not archive
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comht
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
I would also be interested now that I am flying however I DEFINITELY
understand that is a lot of unrewarding work. I mean who wants to toil
over insurance work? Maybe waiting till there are 300-400 flying -10
will provide the critical mass needed to make it worth the effort.
Robin
Do Not Archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Weyant
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on
the policy
I'd certainly be interested.
do not archive
Chuck Weyant
Cowling, baffling done
From: Bob Kaufmann <mailto:bob.kaufmann@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on
the policy
That could be but until we get shown support it ain't going to happen.
Bob K
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gary
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 6:00 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on
the policy
As they say, timing is everything. I was aware that you guys were doing
something, but I was still building and had my mind on other things.
Now I am flying and focused on insurance issues. I suspect others are
more interested. Now we have many more folks flying and near flying, it
might be worth while to tap the pulse of the 10 community again and see
if now the time is right. I know it is a lot of work, but it might be
well worth it.
Gary Specketer
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Kaufmann
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 12:18 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on
the policy
A few years back Rick and I had set up a self insurance group to solve
these challenges, Thousands of dollars later we scrapped the idea
because the community of RV 10s wouldn't support it for about $2500 a
year as a cost with an estimated 10% a year rebate. Oh well, we tried.
Bob K
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of KiloPapa
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:50 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the
policy
Excellent discussion regarding insurance, flying spouses, etc.
Thanks.
Kevin
40494
tail/empennage
do not archive
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
This will ruffle some feathers I'm sure, but, I really think
there are a few things that will work against it for a few years
yet.
#1. A small risk-pool. We need a lot more than the
small number of RV's that would likely sign up to get the
risk pool large enough. I know it's not RV-10's ONLY
that would be part of it, but, there are less than 200
RV-10's listed as flying, and the RV-10 is the only one
of the RV's that is looking like a real insurance hurdle.
Why the hurdle? Hull value, and 4 seats. So we're unique
in our rate problmes. Many other RV-ers will be plenty happy
to just pay their normal, many years experienced, big
corporation owned insurance policy, knowing it has a
track record. I myself even at $2,750 would be hard
to pull away from a known-good-reputation company.
The hull value is what makes the rate so high, for even
someone with > 400 hours in RV-10's now, and plenty of
total time and Instrument rating. When I compare the rates
I paid on a Sundowner, really if you adjust for the hull
value differences, I'm actually paying less. This doesn't
negate any benefits of what was proposed, but it's one of
those things that I'm not willing to switch for something
that isn't a super-firmly back and stringent plan, with
real big financial benefits. I just paid $140/yr more
for Global, just because of some little additional
benefits that I'll probably never use. I don't think I'd
be willing to give up any of the added frills for even
a $500/yr or more savings.
#2. This is the kicker for me, personally. The plan that
you guys were working on was very very open, open to all,
and it didn't screen out situations to the degree that I
would be comfortable being part of.
For instance, alternative engines, low-time pilots, and
unknown build quality. The goal of the plan was to provide
lower cost insurance, and get a large pool of RV's in it.
But, if there are going to be lots of "unknowns", and some
real, true "experimenters" in it, I'm not nearly as comfortable
with the risk. Our first RV-10 crash was an experimental
engine, and the plane was built and flown with so many
questionable issues that it was a perfect illustration. I'm
very sure that had he been around to join that insurance
plan, he would have gladly joined....and nobody would have
complained a bit about it. I'm NOT saying that
alternative engines are bad, but, if you watch the track
records of accidents, they do have more incidents in
many areas. They are for those who want to do some real
experimenting. One of the other 2 crashes involved some
pretty poor airmanship, which sounds like poor autopilot/EFIS
use, or unfamiliarity. This leads into the other half
of this issue. I PERSONALLY HAVE SEEN MANY cases of real
lack of standards in our own little community. I'm sorry
if one of you readers sees yourself in this comment, but
I have seen many many situations where people have had
poor wiring, unprotected wiring, have COMPLETELY ignored
calibrations of their equipment and programming of alarm
limits, completed ENTIRE FLYOFF Periods without ever
calibrating their EFIS magnetometer, Completed 70+ hours
of flying without properly configuring an engine monitor,
and then ADJUSTING THE OIL PRESSURE on the engine because
the reading was too high, rather than set the oil pressure
sensor to the proper setting. And there is just more and
more and more. Now NONE of those people were bad people,
and none WANTED to have an issue, but some of them
have LOTS of building/flying experience yet they STILL
do not follow through with things like calibrations,
and other things. It happens just way too often, almost
consistently. This is the problem in the risk pool
that we'd have to be signing up with. At least in a
certified plane, you can reasonably expect that
Cessna/Piper/Beech have calibrated and configured the
EFIS properly, and done their diligence. Heck, if you
buy a G900 system, the dealers are supposedly REQUIRED
to complete the calibrations and setup for you...they
aren't supposed to allow you to just D-I-Y. But,
we're allowed to D-I-Y on our planes for the most part,
and not everyone actually really follows through on all
of those good suggestions. Not everyone goes for real
transition training. Not everyone builds to the same
quality standard. Not everyone has a stock plane, and
any mod is allowed.
Yeah, I know, it sounds like a pretty harsh rant.
It's not meant to discourage the people from looking
for better insurance opportunities, and it's certainly
not intended to offend anyone. I've made some
mistakes too, and forgotten things. It can happen
to anyone. But some things like not calibrating
your EFIS for 40+ hours are just plain ridiculous
in my mind, and show a real lack of common sense.
Those aren't "oops I forgots"...they're "I just really
want to get this baby flown off" things, that are the
same exact attitudes that kill people from flying
through thunderstorms. And don't even get me started
on people who don't read the manuals, watch videos,
or get to know their new EFIS systems that we all
put in our homebuilts... It's all part of being a
diligent builder and flier. Unfortunately, with
some of the flexibility we are given in building,
equipping, and and maintaining, I think there are
some valid reasons why companies are reluctant to cover
us at any real low cost. And while we aren't in the
same accident statistic category as the Lancair builders
seem to be, we still have 3 total losses with 4 fatalities
in the first 150 or so flying RV-10s, and it would be
nice if we don't see any more.
So if we had a maybe more cohesive group, that would
do some things like cross-inpections of eachother's planes,
and had some variable rates for variable risk levels
and pilot experience, then I think after we get maybe
500 flying RV-10's we may have a good opportunity.
The catch is, as in #1 above, the benefits have to be so
absolutely guaranteed that it would make even the most
happy-to-pay AIG/Global RV-10 builder jump ship and
get on board.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
Bob Kaufmann wrote:
> That could be but until we get shown support it aint going to happen.
>
>
>
> Bob K
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *gary
> *Sent:* Friday, February 20, 2009 6:00 AM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on
> the policy
>
>
>
> As they say, timing is everything. I was aware that you guys were doing
> something, but I was still building and had my mind on other things.
> Now I am flying and focused on insurance issues. I suspect others are
> more interested. Now we have many more folks flying and near flying, it
> might be worth while to tap the pulse of the 10 community again and see
> if now the time is right. I know it is a lot of work, but it might be
> well worth it.
>
>
>
> Gary Specketer
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Bob Kaufmann
> *Sent:* Friday, February 20, 2009 12:18 AM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on
> the policy
>
>
>
> A few years back Rick and I had set up a self insurance group to solve
> these challenges, Thousands of dollars later we scrapped the idea
> because the community of RV 10s wouldnt support it for about $2500 a
> year as a cost with an estimated 10% a year rebate. Oh well, we tried.
>
>
>
> Bob K
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *KiloPapa
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:50 PM
> *To:* Matronics RV10 - List
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the
> policy
>
>
>
> Excellent discussion regarding insurance, flying spouses, etc.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Kevin
> 40494
> tail/empennage
>
>
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: | Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
Quick follow up to this:
** New Slick mag SB comes out: "I'm not going to
do that right now.....these SB's/AD's don't apply
to us anyway and it's been running just fine.
** Van's releases tail bulkhead crack SB: "I don't
really think it's worth doing right now, after all,
we don't know that there's even a problem....only
Van's demo has had cracks"
Those are just another couple of examples of the types
of things you hear when a known problem is found.
Now if we were flying certified planes, we'd be forced
to deal with them in the way the companies think is
best. But we get a significant amount of comments
here that indicate that not everyone really cares to
deal with these things in a timely fashion, or maybe
at all...
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> This will ruffle some feathers I'm sure, but, I really think
> there are a few things that will work against it for a few years
> yet.
>
> #1. A small risk-pool. We need a lot more than the
> small number of RV's that would likely sign up to get the
> risk pool large enough. I know it's not RV-10's ONLY
> that would be part of it, but, there are less than 200
> RV-10's listed as flying, and the RV-10 is the only one
> of the RV's that is looking like a real insurance hurdle.
> Why the hurdle? Hull value, and 4 seats. So we're unique
> in our rate problmes. Many other RV-ers will be plenty happy
> to just pay their normal, many years experienced, big
> corporation owned insurance policy, knowing it has a
> track record. I myself even at $2,750 would be hard
> to pull away from a known-good-reputation company.
> The hull value is what makes the rate so high, for even
> someone with > 400 hours in RV-10's now, and plenty of
> total time and Instrument rating. When I compare the rates
> I paid on a Sundowner, really if you adjust for the hull
> value differences, I'm actually paying less. This doesn't
> negate any benefits of what was proposed, but it's one of
> those things that I'm not willing to switch for something
> that isn't a super-firmly back and stringent plan, with
> real big financial benefits. I just paid $140/yr more
> for Global, just because of some little additional
> benefits that I'll probably never use. I don't think I'd
> be willing to give up any of the added frills for even
> a $500/yr or more savings.
>
> #2. This is the kicker for me, personally. The plan that
> you guys were working on was very very open, open to all,
> and it didn't screen out situations to the degree that I
> would be comfortable being part of.
>
> For instance, alternative engines, low-time pilots, and
> unknown build quality. The goal of the plan was to provide
> lower cost insurance, and get a large pool of RV's in it.
> But, if there are going to be lots of "unknowns", and some
> real, true "experimenters" in it, I'm not nearly as comfortable
> with the risk. Our first RV-10 crash was an experimental
> engine, and the plane was built and flown with so many
> questionable issues that it was a perfect illustration. I'm
> very sure that had he been around to join that insurance
> plan, he would have gladly joined....and nobody would have
> complained a bit about it. I'm NOT saying that
> alternative engines are bad, but, if you watch the track
> records of accidents, they do have more incidents in
> many areas. They are for those who want to do some real
> experimenting. One of the other 2 crashes involved some
> pretty poor airmanship, which sounds like poor autopilot/EFIS
> use, or unfamiliarity. This leads into the other half
> of this issue. I PERSONALLY HAVE SEEN MANY cases of real
> lack of standards in our own little community. I'm sorry
> if one of you readers sees yourself in this comment, but
> I have seen many many situations where people have had
> poor wiring, unprotected wiring, have COMPLETELY ignored
> calibrations of their equipment and programming of alarm
> limits, completed ENTIRE FLYOFF Periods without ever
> calibrating their EFIS magnetometer, Completed 70+ hours
> of flying without properly configuring an engine monitor,
> and then ADJUSTING THE OIL PRESSURE on the engine because
> the reading was too high, rather than set the oil pressure
> sensor to the proper setting. And there is just more and
> more and more. Now NONE of those people were bad people,
> and none WANTED to have an issue, but some of them
> have LOTS of building/flying experience yet they STILL
> do not follow through with things like calibrations,
> and other things. It happens just way too often, almost
> consistently. This is the problem in the risk pool
> that we'd have to be signing up with. At least in a
> certified plane, you can reasonably expect that
> Cessna/Piper/Beech have calibrated and configured the
> EFIS properly, and done their diligence. Heck, if you
> buy a G900 system, the dealers are supposedly REQUIRED
> to complete the calibrations and setup for you...they
> aren't supposed to allow you to just D-I-Y. But,
> we're allowed to D-I-Y on our planes for the most part,
> and not everyone actually really follows through on all
> of those good suggestions. Not everyone goes for real
> transition training. Not everyone builds to the same
> quality standard. Not everyone has a stock plane, and
> any mod is allowed.
>
> Yeah, I know, it sounds like a pretty harsh rant.
> It's not meant to discourage the people from looking
> for better insurance opportunities, and it's certainly
> not intended to offend anyone. I've made some
> mistakes too, and forgotten things. It can happen
> to anyone. But some things like not calibrating
> your EFIS for 40+ hours are just plain ridiculous
> in my mind, and show a real lack of common sense.
> Those aren't "oops I forgots"...they're "I just really
> want to get this baby flown off" things, that are the
> same exact attitudes that kill people from flying
> through thunderstorms. And don't even get me started
> on people who don't read the manuals, watch videos,
> or get to know their new EFIS systems that we all
> put in our homebuilts... It's all part of being a
> diligent builder and flier. Unfortunately, with
> some of the flexibility we are given in building,
> equipping, and and maintaining, I think there are
> some valid reasons why companies are reluctant to cover
> us at any real low cost. And while we aren't in the
> same accident statistic category as the Lancair builders
> seem to be, we still have 3 total losses with 4 fatalities
> in the first 150 or so flying RV-10s, and it would be
> nice if we don't see any more.
>
> So if we had a maybe more cohesive group, that would
> do some things like cross-inpections of eachother's planes,
> and had some variable rates for variable risk levels
> and pilot experience, then I think after we get maybe
> 500 flying RV-10's we may have a good opportunity.
> The catch is, as in #1 above, the benefits have to be so
> absolutely guaranteed that it would make even the most
> happy-to-pay AIG/Global RV-10 builder jump ship and
> get on board.
>
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>
>
>
> Bob Kaufmann wrote:
>> That could be but until we get shown support it aint going to happen.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob K
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *gary
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 20, 2009 6:00 AM
>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
>> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots
>> on the policy
>>
>>
>>
>> As they say, timing is everything. I was aware that you guys were
>> doing something, but I was still building and had my mind on other
>> things. Now I am flying and focused on insurance issues. I suspect
>> others are more interested. Now we have many more folks flying and
>> near flying, it might be worth while to tap the pulse of the 10
>> community again and see if now the time is right. I know it is a lot
>> of work, but it might be well worth it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gary Specketer
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Bob Kaufmann
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 20, 2009 12:18 AM
>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
>> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots
>> on the policy
>>
>>
>>
>> A few years back Rick and I had set up a self insurance group to solve
>> these challenges, Thousands of dollars later we scrapped the idea
>> because the community of RV 10s wouldnt support it for about $2500 a
>> year as a cost with an estimated 10% a year rebate. Oh well, we tried.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob K
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *KiloPapa
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:50 PM
>> *To:* Matronics RV10 - List
>> *Subject:* RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on
>> the policy
>>
>>
>>
>> Excellent discussion regarding insurance, flying spouses, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kevin
>> 40494
>> tail/empennage
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
My two cents worth on the insurance issue:
It is very hard to make generalized comparisons. Insurance companies, in
addition to looking at the specific aircraft type, hull value, and aviation
experience, also look at age, location, credit ratings, and particularly
past insurance claims (including cars, boats, motorcycles, homeowners and
professional liability).
Policy limits are a big factor. It is hard to find more than $1M. Many
companies will have a maximum sub-limit per passenger of $100K for low-time
pilots and new clients. Higher sub-limits cost more, and $1M 'smooth', to
use their jargon, costs the most and is often not available to new clients
or those with limited experience.
Then you have the variability of the underwriters. They all have their own,
albeit similar, algorithms. Publicly held, privately held, non-profit and
mutual (owned by the policy holders) companies all have different profit
expectations, cost structure, discount multipliers (multi-year,
multi-aircraft, etc.), regulatory and reserve requirements, and claim
histories.
Since every pilot situation is different and every company is different, you
have to shop. I am a 350 hour instrument pilot with HP and complex
endorsements. Quotes on my Mooney ran from 1.3% to 3.5% of hull value the
first year, and a $100K sub-limit was the max they would offer. The second
year they offered a $250K sub-limit at higher cost, while the same coverage
was slightly less. Hope this helps.
Steve Roberts
N2700W 1966 M20E 'Ms. Obsession' KMOR Morristown, TN
(still lurking while waiting for suitable place to build my RV-10)
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | locating the Flap Positioning System box and the Safety Trim |
Box
Where have you been putting the FPS box? Unless you cut/splice the FPS
harness (which I really don't want to do), it would seem it almost has to go
in the tunnel where the flap motor is. How about locating the Safe trim
box? If you can direct me to some sites that would have photos of this, it
would save a thousand words.
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: locating the Flap Positioning System box and the Safety |
Trim Box
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob and Karen Brown
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 1:34 PM
Subject: RV10-List: locating the Flap Positioning System box and the
Safety Trim Box
Where have you been putting the FPS box? Unless you cut/splice the
FPS harness (which I really don't want to do), it would seem it almost
has to go in the tunnel where the flap motor is. How about locating the
Safe trim box? If you can direct me to some sites that would have
photos of this, it would save a thousand words.
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: | Re: locating the Flap Positioning System box and the Safety |
Trim Box
We have had folks mount the Safety-Trim box in many places. We have a
few photo's on our website and there are few photos on the Van's
Airforce web site. However, the three places I hear about most are
1) under the front seats, 2) on the sub-panel behind the instrument
panel and 3) in the rear of the plane near the battery area. If you
visit our site you'll see the equipment trays we made for our RV-10,
that's were our Safety-trim goes. There's also a photo on the review's
page of an RV-8 with it mounted towards the back of the tail cone.
Thanks,
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies, LLC.
www.tcwtech.com
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: locating the Flap Positioning System box and the Safety |
Trim Box
The Safety trim can go many places. Mine is under the panel.
The FPS mounts well on the inside of the tunnel wall.
Just make sure to tie up any wires so nothing can interfere
with the flap mechanism.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
Bob and Karen Brown wrote:
> Where have you been putting the FPS box? Unless you cut/splice the FPS
> harness (which I really dont want to do), it would seem it almost has
> to go in the tunnel where the flap motor is. How about locating the
> Safe trim box? If you can direct me to some sites that would have
> photos of this, it would save a thousand words
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
Although we don't condone the don't know and don't care attitude, we
understand the difference between an AD and an SB in the certified world.
SBs are still optional there for not for hire aircraft. I have examined the
SB for the slick mags and determined that one mag is outside the widest
envelope and the other is in the first two weeks of the earliest date.
Knowing the mentality of the lawyers,I am taking a wait and see approach and
checking to see if timing changes dramatically which will indicate the need
to do something. With respect to the Van's issued SB on the tail, We are
again watching the situation. Certified airplanes don't attract an SB for a
single airplane problem. If the problem is super serious an emergency AD
will be issued. We have had the Van's patch analyzed by friends who are
stress engineers at the big airplane company. Until they can suggest a means
to actually fixing the problem (if it exists in more than their prototype)
we inspect. Incidentally where Van's calls for AN3 bolts we are using
Hilocks which have an interference fit and have no play in the hole. So
although we have not accomplished the SBs we have seriously examined them
and will comply if we see signs of problems or the engineers come up with a
real fix rather than the doublers.
A couple of A&Ps and a couple of stress engineers.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the
policy
Quick follow up to this:
** New Slick mag SB comes out: "I'm not going to do that right
now.....these SB's/AD's don't apply to us anyway and it's been running just
fine.
** Van's releases tail bulkhead crack SB: "I don't really think it's worth
doing right now, after all, we don't know that there's even a
problem....only Van's demo has had cracks"
Those are just another couple of examples of the types of things you hear
when a known problem is found.
Now if we were flying certified planes, we'd be forced to deal with them in
the way the companies think is best. But we get a significant amount of
comments here that indicate that not everyone really cares to deal with
these things in a timely fashion, or maybe at all...
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> This will ruffle some feathers I'm sure, but, I really think there are
> a few things that will work against it for a few years yet.
>
> #1. A small risk-pool. We need a lot more than the
> small number of RV's that would likely sign up to get the risk pool
> large enough. I know it's not RV-10's ONLY that would be part of it,
> but, there are less than 200 RV-10's listed as flying, and the RV-10
> is the only one of the RV's that is looking like a real insurance
> hurdle.
> Why the hurdle? Hull value, and 4 seats. So we're unique in our rate
> problmes. Many other RV-ers will be plenty happy to just pay their
> normal, many years experienced, big corporation owned insurance
> policy, knowing it has a track record. I myself even at $2,750 would
> be hard to pull away from a known-good-reputation company.
> The hull value is what makes the rate so high, for even someone with >
> 400 hours in RV-10's now, and plenty of total time and Instrument
> rating. When I compare the rates I paid on a Sundowner, really if you
> adjust for the hull value differences, I'm actually paying less. This
> doesn't negate any benefits of what was proposed, but it's one of
> those things that I'm not willing to switch for something that isn't a
> super-firmly back and stringent plan, with real big financial
> benefits. I just paid $140/yr more for Global, just because of some
> little additional benefits that I'll probably never use. I don't
> think I'd be willing to give up any of the added frills for even a
> $500/yr or more savings.
>
> #2. This is the kicker for me, personally. The plan that you guys
> were working on was very very open, open to all, and it didn't screen
> out situations to the degree that I would be comfortable being part
> of.
>
> For instance, alternative engines, low-time pilots, and unknown build
> quality. The goal of the plan was to provide lower cost insurance,
> and get a large pool of RV's in it.
> But, if there are going to be lots of "unknowns", and some real, true
> "experimenters" in it, I'm not nearly as comfortable with the risk.
> Our first RV-10 crash was an experimental engine, and the plane was
> built and flown with so many questionable issues that it was a perfect
> illustration. I'm very sure that had he been around to join that
> insurance plan, he would have gladly joined....and nobody would have
> complained a bit about it. I'm NOT saying that alternative engines
> are bad, but, if you watch the track records of accidents, they do
> have more incidents in many areas. They are for those who want to do
> some real experimenting. One of the other 2 crashes involved some
> pretty poor airmanship, which sounds like poor autopilot/EFIS use, or
> unfamiliarity. This leads into the other half of this issue. I
> PERSONALLY HAVE SEEN MANY cases of real lack of standards in our own
> little community. I'm sorry if one of you readers sees yourself in
> this comment, but I have seen many many situations where people have
> had poor wiring, unprotected wiring, have COMPLETELY ignored
> calibrations of their equipment and programming of alarm limits,
> completed ENTIRE FLYOFF Periods without ever calibrating their EFIS
> magnetometer, Completed 70+ hours of flying without properly
> configuring an engine monitor, and then ADJUSTING THE OIL PRESSURE on
> the engine because the reading was too high, rather than set the oil
> pressure sensor to the proper setting. And there is just more and
> more and more. Now NONE of those people were bad people, and none
> WANTED to have an issue, but some of them have LOTS of building/flying
> experience yet they STILL do not follow through with things like
> calibrations, and other things. It happens just way too often, almost
> consistently. This is the problem in the risk pool that we'd have to
> be signing up with. At least in a certified plane, you can reasonably
> expect that Cessna/Piper/Beech have calibrated and configured the EFIS
> properly, and done their diligence. Heck, if you buy a G900 system,
> the dealers are supposedly REQUIRED to complete the calibrations and
> setup for you...they aren't supposed to allow you to just D-I-Y. But,
> we're allowed to D-I-Y on our planes for the most part, and not
> everyone actually really follows through on all of those good
> suggestions. Not everyone goes for real transition training. Not
> everyone builds to the same quality standard. Not everyone has a
> stock plane, and any mod is allowed.
>
> Yeah, I know, it sounds like a pretty harsh rant.
> It's not meant to discourage the people from looking for better
> insurance opportunities, and it's certainly not intended to offend
> anyone. I've made some mistakes too, and forgotten things. It can
> happen to anyone. But some things like not calibrating your EFIS for
> 40+ hours are just plain ridiculous in my mind, and show a real lack
> of common sense.
> Those aren't "oops I forgots"...they're "I just really want to get
> this baby flown off" things, that are the same exact attitudes that
> kill people from flying through thunderstorms. And don't even get me
> started on people who don't read the manuals, watch videos, or get to
> know their new EFIS systems that we all put in our homebuilts... It's
> all part of being a diligent builder and flier. Unfortunately, with
> some of the flexibility we are given in building, equipping, and and
> maintaining, I think there are some valid reasons why companies are
> reluctant to cover us at any real low cost. And while we aren't in
> the same accident statistic category as the Lancair builders seem to
> be, we still have 3 total losses with 4 fatalities in the first 150 or
> so flying RV-10s, and it would be nice if we don't see any more.
>
> So if we had a maybe more cohesive group, that would do some things
> like cross-inpections of eachother's planes, and had some variable
> rates for variable risk levels and pilot experience, then I think
> after we get maybe 500 flying RV-10's we may have a good opportunity.
> The catch is, as in #1 above, the benefits have to be so absolutely
> guaranteed that it would make even the most happy-to-pay AIG/Global
> RV-10 builder jump ship and get on board.
>
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>
>
>
> Bob Kaufmann wrote:
>> That could be but until we get shown support it ain't going to happen.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob K
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *gary
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 20, 2009 6:00 AM
>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
>> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots
>> on the policy
>>
>>
>>
>> As they say, timing is everything. I was aware that you guys were
>> doing something, but I was still building and had my mind on other
>> things. Now I am flying and focused on insurance issues. I suspect
>> others are more interested. Now we have many more folks flying and
>> near flying, it might be worth while to tap the pulse of the 10
>> community again and see if now the time is right. I know it is a lot
>> of work, but it might be well worth it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gary Specketer
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>>
>> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Bob
>> Kaufmann
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 20, 2009 12:18 AM
>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
>> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots
>> on the policy
>>
>>
>>
>> A few years back Rick and I had set up a self insurance group to
>> solve these challenges, Thousands of dollars later we scrapped the
>> idea because the community of RV 10s wouldn't support it for about
>> $2500 a year as a cost with an estimated 10% a year rebate. Oh well, we
tried.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob K
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *KiloPapa
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:50 PM
>> *To:* Matronics RV10 - List
>> *Subject:* RV10-List: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on
>> the policy
>>
>>
>>
>> Excellent discussion regarding insurance, flying spouses, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kevin
>> 40494
>> tail/empennage
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
I followed the discussions about the fixes of the nose wheel bearing
problem.
The fix I chose is to mount a bushing between the inner rings of the
bearings and make sure that the shaft is a little short.
That way the axial preload of the central bolt is clamping all inner
bushing and rings tightly together so that they do not rotate.
Of course I had to test mount and measure the amount of play in the
bearings carefully and adjust the length of the bushing accordingly.
This way I will not have any wear and successively a lot of bearing play
witch leads to shimmy.
Speaking of shimmy, I also replaced the standard Belleville washer
springs bye much thinner ones. The deflection on the standard springs
is so little that even a minimum wear will drastically reduce the
friction value. The ones I chose deflect at least 5 times more and will
not effect the friction bye much if some wear starts to appear.
I also added bushing to the main gear wheels so that I can put some real
torque on the main nuts and secure the wheel a little better in spite of
the flimsy backup bushing in the rear felt seal.
Bart van Ruth
PH-USN RV-10 wiring
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: locating the Flap Positioning System box and the Safety |
Trim Box
Here's what I did with mounting it in the tunnel. Plenty of room in
there. The wires are run forward thru the tunnel. I used some tape
backed wire holders but they will be riveted.
Bob and Karen Brown wrote:
>
> Where have you been putting the FPS box? Unless you cut/splice the FPS
> harness (which I really dont want to do), it would seem it almost has
> to go in the tunnel where the flap motor is. How about locating the
> Safe trim box? If you can direct me to some sites that would have
> photos of this, it would save a thousand words
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
Tim,
You are right on target. Time and time again we have seen builders in this forum
with "better" ideas on aircraft construction than the engineers at Van's.
Most don't understand the difference between tension and compression and couldn't
do a stress calc if their life depended on it.
"I don't have to do the AD because it doesn't apply to experimentals".
"That SB is too much trouble and isn't necessary." They are reckless in my mind.
Caveat emptor to anyone that buys an experimental.
The FAA gives us enough rope to hang ourselves. That's why insurance companies
have so many restrictions. It's all about risk management and they know that
FAA legal doesn't mean squat. Three fatal crashes out of 200 flying is horrible.
A $2500 - $3000 policy on a $150,000 aircraft is cheap when you consider
that virtually ever crash results in a lawsuit. If you don't like the cost then
blame the lawyers and the crappy pilots that fly the airplanes, not the insurance
companies.
--------
Dave Moore
RV-6 flying
RV-10 QB - cabin top/fiberglass hell
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=231283#231283
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: | Washington Aviation Conference |
Anyone going to attend the Washington Aviation Association Conference
held at the Puyallup Fairgrounds over the next two days?
Dave Fritzsche
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Fritzsche
40813
Puyallup, WA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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: locating the Flap Positioning System box and the Safety |
Trim Box
I mounted mine in front of the right rear seat, same spot many are
mounting there back up batteries.
Larry Rosen
#356
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | locating the Flap Positioning System box and the Safety |
Trim Box
Here is our position. Note you want to mount the unit with the text
upside down to access the adjustment screws.
Robin
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: | Washington Aviation Conference |
I'll be there for renewal of my IA.
John Cox
503-453-6016
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Fritzsche (Building)
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 6:20 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Washington Aviation Conference
<fritzsch@eskimo.com>
Anyone going to attend the Washington Aviation Association Conference
held at the Puyallup Fairgrounds over the next two days?
Dave Fritzsche
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Fritzsche
40813
Puyallup, WA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Washington Aviation Conference |
Becky & I are there already!
Bruce Breckenridge
40018
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 20, 2009, at 8:08 PM, "John Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
>
> I'll be there for renewal of my IA.
>
> John Cox
> 503-453-6016
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
> Fritzsche (Building)
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 6:20 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Washington Aviation Conference
>
> <fritzsch@eskimo.com>
>
> Anyone going to attend the Washington Aviation Association Conference
> held at the Puyallup Fairgrounds over the next two days?
>
> Dave Fritzsche
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dave Fritzsche
> 40813
> Puyallup, WA
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | First Engine start |
First engine start today - what a buzz. Ranks better than first panel chec
ks and having the smoke stay in the wire.
Not quite without incident. I had previously removed the bottom plugs and
spun the prop to preoil the engine. The new Concorde battery had no proble
m turning an engine with no compression. Left the battery on charge overni
ght knowing a few starts may be required. The battery had barely enough cr
anking capacity to kick the engine. May need to go to a couple of Odysseys
in parallel. With battery sorted, the engine still would not fire. Found
I needed to remove the fuel injector lines to the cylinders and run the bo
ost pump to flush the lines. Once the lines were clean and free of air, sh
e fired with little trouble.
Did not take it over 1500 rpm for the first run (only 2-3 mins), but even 1
t 1500 she was screamin' to get over the chocks. Just the W&B and paperwor
k to do.
On a high - had to share.
cheers
Ron
-187
"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."
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! --
|