Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:15 AM - Re: Re: IFR (Bill Mauledriver Watson)
2. 06:39 AM - Re: Re: IFR (Kelly McMullen)
3. 07:14 AM - Re: IFR (Miller John)
4. 07:35 AM - Leg Gear Fairing Hinge Pins - bottom or top? (Jae Chang)
5. 08:02 AM - Re: Re: IFR (Jesse Saint)
6. 08:09 AM - Re: Re: IFR (Jesse Saint)
7. 08:12 AM - Re: Leg Gear Fairing Hinge Pins - bottom or top? (ricksked@embarqmail.com)
8. 08:55 AM - Re: Leg Gear Fairing Hinge Pins - bottom or top? (Kevin Belue)
9. 09:11 AM - Re: Leg Gear Fairing Hinge Pins - bottom or top? (Don McDonald)
10. 09:53 AM - nose wheel (David McNeill)
11. 09:58 AM - Re: Re: IFR (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
12. 10:03 AM - Re: Re: IFR (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
13. 10:03 AM - Re: nose wheel (Seano)
14. 10:09 AM - Re: nose wheel (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
15. 10:28 AM - Re: Re: IFR (Bill Mauledriver Watson)
16. 10:49 AM - Re: Re: IFR (Tim Olson)
17. 11:01 AM - Re: Re: IFR (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
18. 11:44 AM - Re: Re: Voyager sale Fri only (Sean Stephens)
19. 11:49 AM - Re: nose wheel (Bob Turner)
20. 11:55 AM - Re: Re: IFR (David McNeill)
21. 12:13 PM - Re: Re: Voyager sale Fri only (Darton Steve)
22. 12:21 PM - Re: IFR (Bob Turner)
23. 12:25 PM - Rear seat heat duct (Peter James)
24. 12:28 PM - Oil Cooler Valve (Jesse Saint)
25. 12:38 PM - Re: Voyager sale Fri only (orchidman)
26. 12:45 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Jesse Saint)
27. 12:46 PM - Re: IFR (orchidman)
28. 01:19 PM - Re: Oil Cooler Valve (Bob Leffler)
29. 01:21 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Dick & Vicki Sipp)
30. 01:29 PM - Re: nose wheel (Traville Houston)
31. 01:29 PM - Re: Oil Cooler Valve (Lew Gallagher)
32. 01:37 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Bill Mauledriver Watson)
33. 01:44 PM - Re: nose wheel (Lew Gallagher)
34. 01:58 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Stein Bruch)
35. 02:11 PM - Re: Oil Cooler Valve (gary)
36. 02:20 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Tim Olson)
37. 03:10 PM - Re: Re: IFR (ricksked@embarqmail.com)
38. 03:15 PM - Re: nose wheel (David McNeill)
39. 03:15 PM - Re: Re: IFR (David McNeill)
40. 04:05 PM - Re: Re: Voyager sale Fri only (Jesse Saint)
41. 04:08 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Stein Bruch)
42. 05:03 PM - Re: Oil Cooler Valve (Kelly McMullen)
43. 05:28 PM - Re: IFR (Bob Turner)
44. 06:00 PM - Re: Re: Oil Cooler Valve (Kelly McMullen)
45. 06:35 PM - Re: Re: IFR (David McNeill)
46. 06:45 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Kelly McMullen)
47. 07:04 PM - Re: Re: IFR (ricksked@embarqmail.com)
48. 07:45 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Miller John)
49. 07:49 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Chris Colohan)
50. 08:45 PM - Re: Re: IFR (Bill Mauledriver Watson)
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 |
|
I love the sound of flying RV10s!
My experience conforms to Dave and Tim's - learning the equipment is a
big deal. I'm flying a very basic G300XL panel in the Maule and I found
that took an inordinate amount of time to learn and re-learn the proper
button pushing sequence for real life IFR flying. I did an
'accelerated' multi rating (i.e. minimal) with a G430. Didn't even come
close to learning that box in a meaningful way. In both instances,
falling back to basic Nav Comms and needles worked fine but the
un-mastered GPS is like a sick, whining passenger with grabby hands -
you have to put 'em in the back seat and select isolate on the audio
panel lest you be led into chaos. But the panels we are putting in now
don't even allow that.
I'm looking forward to the big learning curve involved in learning to
fly my new panel.
I just don't know how a non-IFR trained pilot can easily design a good
experimental panel. Getting the rating and ideally flying some real
flights before spec'ing the panel would help but it's tough to do while
building. Getting a Garmin G900 bundle is one solution. Building a
basic panel with the intent to upgrade and refine is another. Copying a
design that is known to work well is another. Trying to design a good
custom IFR panel from the fantastic grab bag of equipment out there
seems really tough.
Bill "looking forward to seeing my old Maule panel builder tonight at
KRDU" Watson
Dave Saylor wrote:
> Jesse, thanks! This has been a great thread with lots of things I can
> relate to. I thought I'd toss in my two cents.
>
> I got my IFR rating just before I started building my 10. Like a lot
> of people I didn't fly much while I was building, and certainly no
> IFR. I always figured the panel I was building would make IFR a
> breeze compared to the steam gauge 172 single axis AP I learned in. I
> was wrong about that, at least initially.
>
> Tim pointed out that figuring out all the button pushing is a job in
> itself and I couldn't agree more. My panel is pretty typical if even
> on the light side these days: Single AFS EFIS, 530, VSGV (recently
> became an AFS AP), D10A and mechanical AS for backups. We recently
> went from a 496 to a 696.
>
> One of the most important mods we made was to install autotrim. I'd
> say that cut the workload on approach by at least 30%. Totally worth
> the effort.
>
> I wasn't at all prepared for how much learning the equipment
> required. I tried to get IFR current as soon as phase I was finished
> but soon realized that between sorting out bugs and configuring things
> like I wanted it, the plane was changing too fast for me to keep up.
> The changes were mostly in how the EFIS interacted with the
> autopilot. My CFI made me do a lot of hand flying, which was very
> valuable, but I scared myself once attempting an approach and decided
> I wouldn't go IFR without knowing exactly how the autopilot worked and
> how to tell if it was lying to me. I was so far in the dark that a
> lot of times I couldn't tell the difference.
>
> I can't say enough about how AFS has supported their products.
> They've been responsive to problems, sometimes providing new software
> the same day, and now with their AP working well, it's everything (and
> more) that was promised.
>
> Six months ago I got serious about an IPC. I just recently finished
> that, and I feel good about flying IFR, although I have to admit that
> all the actual since then has been with other current IFR pilots on
> board. I'm based in perfect IFR training country. We have a nice,
> gentle, predictable marine layer 3-5 days a week, and 6 approaches to
> three different airports within 20 miles. And we can talk to Approach
> from the runup area. Plug Warning!! Instrument Flight Solutions is
> where I train (next door). They're Experimental-friendly and up to
> speed on several different EFIS and TruTrak products. Give them a
> call if you need a good CFII.
>
> Last weekend we returned from Yuma, AZ, knowing there was weather in
> Central CA. We (my wife and I--she's a B767 capt) filed in flight 20
> miles from the IMC. We could see a lot of the route, but we going in
> and out of the tops at 12000. I had my first encounter with rime ice,
> which would attach as we passed through the tops and then sublimate
> after we were in the clear. That was a little hairy but it didn't
> seem to affect performance. Our home base was VFR so we didn't need
> to do an approach.
>
> It took me a solid six months of frequent training to get comfortable
> with my glass panel. I can tell now when something's not set up
> right, or when the hardware is misbehaving. That was not the case at
> first. As the builder and designer of the panel, it's very tempting
> to try to troubleshoot as soon as something seems wrong. I'm trying
> to break that habit and just fly the airplane.
>
> Everybody, take your time, fly safe, and don't expect all those gizmos
> to feel natural right out of the box. They take some getting used to,
> but once you put in the effort it does finally start to feel right.
>
> Dave Saylor
> AirCrafters LLC
>
> N921AC 540 hours, down this week for the 500 hour mag inspection,
> wow, already??
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
This discussion has been most helpful in putting some things in
perspective for making panel and equipment choices. I have found that
GPS in my IFR flying is extremely demanding of mental processing time,
and when the chips are down it is much easier to revert to the
ingrained training with VORs and ADF. No buttons to push, no screens
to select..just twist knobs, verify station and follow the needle.
So choice of EFIS and MFD are going to focus on ease of logic and
minimum button pushing. I don't want to have to rely on an autopilot
to fly the plane while I sort out all the buttons. I can just see
flying along with 12:00 flashing on the panels like so many VCRs.
No question the EFIS displays reduce how much panel real estate has to
be scanned. Looks like need 2nd battery just to power the avionics for
programing session prior to engine start. I guess that makes kick the
tires and light the fires methods somewhat obsolete. Reminds me of one
IFR fight done on last minute decision over very familiar route, with
near zero preparation. Launch and start figuring the numbers for first
reporting point, as yes, I was flying a non-transponder airplane over
a route that was 2/3 non-radar anyway. E6B and chart for fast figuring
estimates between reporting points. Good thing that had VFR at both
ends of flight and a lot of enroute was in on top conditions. Yeah,
the "good" old days more than 25 years ago.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Bill Mauledriver Watson
<MauleDriver@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
>
> I love the sound of flying RV10s!
>
> My experience conforms to Dave and Tim's - learning the equipment is a big
> deal.
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 |
|
You're correct Marcus.
Without auto trim, you do have to occasionally re-trim when you change
airspeeds by 20-30 kts.
In my habit pattern now to re-trim after takeoff before engaging
autopilot, at level-off, and at FAF then re-engage autopilot if desired.
grumpy
do not archive
On Dec 2, 2009, at 9:45 PM, Marcus Cooper wrote:
>
> I'll add my 2 cents to the game. I've flown a lot of IFR in single
> seat
> fighters that couldn't use an autopilot on the approaches (or didn't
> have
> one at all) so I'm not 100% sold on the necessity of an AP, but a
> big fan of
> proficiency. Having said that, the RV-10 on autopilot certainly is
> a dream
> and personal minimums should be fluid based on currency and
> familiarity with
> the departure and destination.
>
> I have the TruTrak with all the bells and whistles, and while it's a
> great
> system I have noticed it gets overwhelmed while slowing and
> configuring on
> the approach unless I feed in trim periodically. The danger is
> there is no
> indication of needing to add up trim and it will get off glidepath
> significantly and could be insidiously dangerous. Just something to
> be
> aware of.
>
> By the way, if it turns out I'm the only one with this issue and it's
> because I probably wired something wrong, please let me know.
>
> Marcus
> 40286
>
> -----Original Message-----
> do not archive
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Mauledriver
> Watson
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:26 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: IFR
>
> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
>
> I did 100% of my IMC flying without an AP but I probably won't do
> anymore intentionally.
> I agree it should be considered required for us non-pros. Not because
> we are amateurs
> but because most of us don't fly enough to stay truly proficient with
> those kinds of operations.
>
> I know I can hand fly a simple, slow, draggy Maule in 'hard' turbulent
> IMC at a time when
> I flew and filed practically EVERY week. It's nice to know I can do
> it,
> but I'm probably done with it.
> I'm sure those freight dog types could do it safely all day long.
> It's
> called work.
>
> I'd give a lot for a mission and the $$ to fly every week again!
>
> Bill "never learned to fly to ATP standards on purpose" Watson
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> The Autopilot is essential. Ya ya ya, you should be able
>> to hand fly. Fine, we all know that. But, when you
>> get task loaded, nothing helps more than hitting a couple
>> buttons until you can get your head together. You can't
>> blindly trust the autopilot, either, but it really should
>> be a requirement IMHO for single-pilot ops, to have one
>> on board that works. At least when ceilings are lower
>> than VFR. When I got my IFR ticket I don't think I had
>> an AP in the plane, but it was my first purchase before
>> I'd take the family in IMC. At the time, I spent $5-7000
>> for an S-Tec and it was money well spent. The TruTrak
>> is far nicer.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Leg Gear Fairing Hinge Pins - bottom or top? |
The plans have you install this pin from the bottom, which seems odd.
Also, this requires securing the pin from falling and possibly removing
the wheel pants to insert the pin.
However, has anyone installed the pin from the top of the leg? It looks
like it might work and less worry about the pin falling out.
Thanks,
Jae
40533
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 |
|
That's why I try to base my panel designs around a very well-proven and widely-used
IFR GPS (like the 430 or the 530). The most recent panel I did has a Dynon
D-180 (with HS-34 and Ap-74 Autopilot), a GNS-430W that cross-fills onto a
696 in the stack. Electrical system is a VP-200. Garmin backup COM, Xpndr and
Audio Panel. Also a 496 for the copilot to fiddle with (apparently she likes
to push buttons). Input the flight plan into the 430 (CFI's everywhere know
and training planes everywhere have this GPS/NAV/COM to train you in it), and
you have it on the HSI on the Dynon, the 696 and the 496 automatically. It is
definitely a MUST to learn the equipment before you try to fly IMC behind it.
A good way to learn is to find someone who has your equipment and see when
they are going to be going on a x-cty flight with an open copilot seat. Ask if
you can ride along and watch how they work the instruments (simulated or actual
IMC). Also, do plenty of simulated before you try actual. I now have about
180 RV-10 hours, plenty under the hood and some right seat actual before I
went off on my own. I would like to think I know the instruments inside and out.
Knowing how to use the FPL button correctly is huge, then it is much easier
to follow the needles (and magenta line) and know they are giving good information.
In short, I agree completely that knowing the instruments, and WELL, is absolutely
crucial!
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> This discussion has been most helpful in putting some things in
> perspective for making panel and equipment choices. I have found that
> GPS in my IFR flying is extremely demanding of mental processing time,
> and when the chips are down it is much easier to revert to the
> ingrained training with VORs and ADF. No buttons to push, no screens
> to select..just twist knobs, verify station and follow the needle.
> So choice of EFIS and MFD are going to focus on ease of logic and
> minimum button pushing. I don't want to have to rely on an autopilot
> to fly the plane while I sort out all the buttons. I can just see
> flying along with 12:00 flashing on the panels like so many VCRs.
> No question the EFIS displays reduce how much panel real estate has to
> be scanned. Looks like need 2nd battery just to power the avionics for
> programing session prior to engine start. I guess that makes kick the
> tires and light the fires methods somewhat obsolete. Reminds me of one
> IFR fight done on last minute decision over very familiar route, with
> near zero preparation. Launch and start figuring the numbers for first
> reporting point, as yes, I was flying a non-transponder airplane over
> a route that was 2/3 non-radar anyway. E6B and chart for fast figuring
> estimates between reporting points. Good thing that had VFR at both
> ends of flight and a lot of enroute was in on top conditions. Yeah,
> the "good" old days more than 25 years ago.
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Bill Mauledriver Watson
> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
>>
>> I love the sound of flying RV10s!
>>
>> My experience conforms to Dave and Tim's - learning the equipment is a big
>> deal.
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
I guess I'll also add a shameless plug for Dynon. I now have flown behind their
EFIS in at least 8-10 planes and totaling over 250 hours and want to say that
they are incredibly stable. Even more impressively, they are accurate and stable
right out of the box. There are so few things that have to be calibrated
because of the way they are made, that I recommend them to everybody I can.
There is a lot to be said for having TOO MUCH INFORMATION in front of you that
you don't know how to interpret. AFS is a close second in stability out of
the box, but they do have a TON more information on them. The G900X, while an
amazing system, requires more of a scan, because of its size, than does a Dynon
with 2/3 of a 7" screen without fancy information on it. I do agree that things
like HITS in the Chelton, when the pilot knows how to use it, can be very
valuable in IMC.
It definitely needs to be repeated again, since I haven't heard it in a while,
while knowing your instruments is critical, making sure they are calibrated correctly
(read back up on the experiences and comments of Dan Lloyd) is just as
critical. I have heard from more than one person about EFIS (and some very widely
used ones) that did not agree with the horizon in VMC, and I mean by like
45 degrees or more. You do NOT want to be in a cloud with an instrument like
that.
do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> This discussion has been most helpful in putting some things in
> perspective for making panel and equipment choices. I have found that
> GPS in my IFR flying is extremely demanding of mental processing time,
> and when the chips are down it is much easier to revert to the
> ingrained training with VORs and ADF. No buttons to push, no screens
> to select..just twist knobs, verify station and follow the needle.
> So choice of EFIS and MFD are going to focus on ease of logic and
> minimum button pushing. I don't want to have to rely on an autopilot
> to fly the plane while I sort out all the buttons. I can just see
> flying along with 12:00 flashing on the panels like so many VCRs.
> No question the EFIS displays reduce how much panel real estate has to
> be scanned. Looks like need 2nd battery just to power the avionics for
> programing session prior to engine start. I guess that makes kick the
> tires and light the fires methods somewhat obsolete. Reminds me of one
> IFR fight done on last minute decision over very familiar route, with
> near zero preparation. Launch and start figuring the numbers for first
> reporting point, as yes, I was flying a non-transponder airplane over
> a route that was 2/3 non-radar anyway. E6B and chart for fast figuring
> estimates between reporting points. Good thing that had VFR at both
> ends of flight and a lot of enroute was in on top conditions. Yeah,
> the "good" old days more than 25 years ago.
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Bill Mauledriver Watson
> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
>>
>> I love the sound of flying RV10s!
>>
>> My experience conforms to Dave and Tim's - learning the equipment is a big
>> deal.
>
>
>
>
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: Leg Gear Fairing Hinge Pins - bottom or top? |
>From the bottom, the pin is kept in place by the lower fairing...
------Original Message------
From: Jae Chang
Sender: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
ReplyTo: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Dec 3, 2009 7:33 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Leg Gear Fairing Hinge Pins - bottom or top?
The plans have you install this pin from the bottom, which seems odd.
Also, this requires securing the pin from falling and possibly removing
the wheel pants to insert the pin.
However, has anyone installed the pin from the top of the leg? It looks
like it might work and less worry about the pin falling out.
Thanks,
Jae
40533
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
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: Leg Gear Fairing Hinge Pins - bottom or top? |
I installed mine from the top and that works fine for me.
Kevin Belue
RV-10 flying
RV-6A flying
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:33 AM, Jae Chang <jc-matronics_rv10@jline.com>
wrote:
> >
>
> The plans have you install this pin from the bottom, which seems
> odd. Also, this requires securing the pin from falling and possibly
> removing the wheel pants to insert the pin.
>
> However, has anyone installed the pin from the top of the leg? It
> looks like it might work and less worry about the pin falling out.
>
> Thanks,
> Jae
> 40533
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Leg Gear Fairing Hinge Pins - bottom or top? |
I also install mine from the top.... works fine.
Don McDonald
--- On Thu, 12/3/09, Kevin Belue <kdbelue@charter.net> wrote:
From: Kevin Belue <kdbelue@charter.net>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Leg Gear Fairing Hinge Pins - bottom or top?
I installed mine from the top and that works fine for me.
Kevin Belue
RV-10 flying
RV-6A flying
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:33 AM, Jae Chang <jc-matronics_rv10@jline.com> wrote:
>
> The plans have you install this pin from the bottom, which seems odd. Als
o, this requires securing the pin from falling and possibly removing the wh
eel pants to insert the pin.
>
> However, has anyone installed the pin from the top of the leg? It looks l
ike it might work and less worry about the pin falling out.
>
> Thanks,
> Jae
> 40533
>
>
>
>
>
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
Just a reminder to the new builders. The nose wheel and axle as supplied by
Van's is , the opinion of many, inadequate. First the nose wheel is a MATCO
wheel that is common to the other RVs and causes the tire to be mounted so
that the valve stem for the tube is within .125 inch of the fork and that's
without valve cap. An alternative wheel is available from MATCO (exchange if
new and unmounted) which solves the valve stem clearance problem.
Secondly the manner in which the axle and stainless steel sleeves are used
to hold the bearings in place works for 100 hours (maybe) . After that time
the whole mechanism loosens and the sleeves start to rotate and score the
aluminum fork. The nose wheel then has side to side wobble on the bearings.
If this continues the bearings and races wear prematurely. The solution is
to not install he Vans nose wheel and sleeve arrangement. MATCO supplies an
axle, and spacers and hardware to solve this problem. Order the axle kit to
solve this.
This is a pay me now or pay me later proposition The cost or a new MATCO
wheel is about $130, a new Van's fork is about $200, new wheel bearings are
about $40, and a MATCO axle kit is about $75. If the SS sleeves rotate,
they will over time cause wheel wobble which can cause the valve stem to
strike the fork and cause a flat ire. The wobble will destroy the bearings
and seal. The sleeves will score the fork beyond serviceable limits.
The reason for this post: I just talked with the IA at a maintenance faculty
where a second owner RV10 was squawked for excessive nose wheel shimmy.
Another faculty had just passed the aircraft on an annual without fixing the
nose wheel. The problem is going to cost the present owner $250-$450 plus
labor. Suggest doing this right the first time.
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 |
|
Hmm, I don't know if Dynon would even recommend their EFIS for IFR. I have to
be honest, I have a hard time swallowing recommendations when the EFIS you think
is the best is also the lowest cost and would give you the greatest margin.
There are few systems out there that can give you all the information in a
useful format that a G900 can and comparing it to a Dynon is ludicrous. I would
never take equipment into conditions where I have to rely on it and don't
feel comfortable operating it. Doesn't matter if it's avionics, airframe, or
powerplant.
I also need to chime in that personal minimums are what YOU should feel comfortable
with, not an average of what everyone else uses. At no point in my Instrument
training, or in the almost 20 years since, have I ever wondered what someone
else uses. If you are behind the aircraft at any point after the FAF it
should be a no thought reaction to go missed and get your head back around things.
There is no magic number that says at x altitude I'm going to miss, it
should be based on many factors, not the least of which is currency and conditions.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: IFR
I guess I'll also add a shameless plug for Dynon. I now have flown behind their
EFIS in at least 8-10 planes and totaling over 250 hours and want to say that
they are incredibly stable. Even more impressively, they are accurate and stable
right out of the box. There are so few things that have to be calibrated
because of the way they are made, that I recommend them to everybody I can.
There is a lot to be said for having TOO MUCH INFORMATION in front of you that
you don't know how to interpret. AFS is a close second in stability out of
the box, but they do have a TON more information on them. The G900X, while an
amazing system, requires more of a scan, because of its size, than does a Dynon
with 2/3 of a 7" screen without fancy information on it. I do agree that things
like HITS in the Chelton, when the pilot knows how to use it, can be very
valuable in IMC.
It definitely needs to be repeated again, since I haven't heard it in a while,
while knowing your instruments is critical, making sure they are calibrated correctly
(read back up on the experiences and comments of Dan Lloyd) is just as
critical. I have heard from more than one person about EFIS (and some very widely
used ones) that did not agree with the horizon in VMC, and I mean by like
45 degrees or more. You do NOT want to be in a cloud with an instrument like
that.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
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 |
|
John can chime in here but as far as I know it has always been SOP in a checkride
for the candidate to exhibit a complete functional understanding of all onboard
equipment (unless marked INOP and not on the MEL) and to be able to demonstrate
the proper use of that equipment. That would include using an AP for
coupled approaches and recovery from unusual attitudes.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: IFR
Since we're on the subject of checkrides, I took mine in an Archer with an autopilot.
The examiner expected me to fly one approach with the autopilot (and not
the partial panel one) and even recommended that I use the autopilot to recover
from unusual attitudes at least once, which I declined. The most common
wisdom around here (take that for what it's worth) is to mark the ADF "INOP" for
the checkride and thereafter.
Those rivets on the outboard ends of the lower bracket are just for a little stability
of the bottom of the panel. There can't be a whole lot of structural
integrity from two 3/32 rivets. You can make a bracket that attaches to the c-channels
there or can brace the bottom of the panel to the subpanel somehow.
If you have the throttle quadrant that adds a fair bit of stability to the lower
end of the panel in itself by the way it attaches to the subpanel. You could
make a couple of braces out of aluminum angle.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
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 |
|
Ya, I wish I would have known this!! I mounted mine a couple of weeks
ago and now I have a valve stem that's too long. I called Van's and
they said to push it in while filling the tire and then went on to tell
me to leave the valve stem cap off!! REALLY! I like Van's way of
staying simple and cheap BUT some items really need to be changed.
----- Original Message -----
From: David McNeill
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 10:52 AM
Subject: RV10-List: nose wheel
Just a reminder to the new builders. The nose wheel and axle as
supplied by Van's is , the opinion of many, inadequate. First the nose
wheel is a MATCO wheel that is common to the other RVs and causes the
tire to be mounted so that the valve stem for the tube is within .125
inch of the fork and that's without valve cap. An alternative wheel is
available from MATCO (exchange if new and unmounted) which solves the
valve stem clearance problem.
Secondly the manner in which the axle and stainless steel sleeves are
used to hold the bearings in place works for 100 hours (maybe) . After
that time the whole mechanism loosens and the sleeves start to rotate
and score the aluminum fork. The nose wheel then has side to side wobble
on the bearings. If this continues the bearings and races wear
prematurely. The solution is to not install he Vans nose wheel and
sleeve arrangement. MATCO supplies an axle, and spacers and hardware to
solve this problem. Order the axle kit to solve this.
This is a pay me now or pay me later proposition The cost or a new
MATCO wheel is about $130, a new Van's fork is about $200, new wheel
bearings are about $40, and a MATCO axle kit is about $75. If the SS
sleeves rotate, they will over time cause wheel wobble which can cause
the valve stem to strike the fork and cause a flat ire. The wobble will
destroy the bearings and seal. The sleeves will score the fork beyond
serviceable limits.
The reason for this post: I just talked with the IA at a maintenance
faculty where a second owner RV10 was squawked for excessive nose wheel
shimmy. Another faculty had just passed the aircraft on an annual
without fixing the nose wheel. The problem is going to cost the present
owner $250-$450 plus labor. Suggest doing this right the first time.
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 actually did the MATCO solution a couple weeks back. Very nice and seems
much more robust in addition to addressing the issue around the preload.
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 12:52 PM
Subject: RV10-List: nose wheel
Just a reminder to the new builders. The nose wheel and axle as supplied by
Van's is , the opinion of many, inadequate. First the nose wheel is a MATC
O wheel that is common to the other RVs and causes the tire to be mounted s
o that the valve stem for the tube is within .125 inch of the fork and that
's without valve cap. An alternative wheel is available from MATCO (exchang
e if new and unmounted) which solves the valve stem clearance problem.
Secondly the manner in which the axle and stainless steel sleeves are used
to hold the bearings in place works for 100 hours (maybe) . After that time
the whole mechanism loosens and the sleeves start to rotate and score the
aluminum fork. The nose wheel then has side to side wobble on the bearings.
If this continues the bearings and races wear prematurely. The solution is
to not install he Vans nose wheel and sleeve arrangement. MATCO supplies a
n axle, and spacers and hardware to solve this problem. Order the axle kit
to solve this.
This is a pay me now or pay me later proposition The cost or a new MATCO
wheel is about $130, a new Van's fork is about $200, new wheel bearings ar
e about $40, and a MATCO axle kit is about $75. If the SS sleeves rotate,
they will over time cause wheel wobble which can cause the valve stem to st
rike the fork and cause a flat ire. The wobble will destroy the bearings an
d seal. The sleeves will score the fork beyond serviceable limits.
The reason for this post: I just talked with the IA at a maintenance facult
y where a second owner RV10 was squawked for excessive nose wheel shimmy. A
nother faculty had just passed the aircraft on an annual without fixing the
nose wheel. The problem is going to cost the present owner $250-$450 plus
labor. Suggest doing this right the first time.
rsbooks.com>
m>
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 |
|
My rust may be showing here but I think you are expected to proceed to
the missed approach point before executing the miss procedure, even from
inside the FAF. Agreed that you can halt your descent as you see fit.
As a practical matter under radar control, you say 'miss' and you are
probably going to get vectors for your next move.
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> If you are behind the aircraft at any point after the FAF it should be a no
thought reaction to go missed and get your head back around things. There is
no magic number that says at x altitude I'm going to miss, it should be based
on many factors, not the least of which is currency and conditions.
>
>
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 |
|
You are correct. They want to to still hit that point
(although you don't have to keep descending down to
minimums), because then you have reference for the entire
flight path of the missed approach. In practical use
I can see someone being so screwed up on the approach
path though that they maybe can't even hit the MAP,
which I'm sure would cause lots of headaches for ATC.
But yeah, you're supposed to fly the whole thing as
published. If you didn't go to the MAP, you may
be inclined to do stupid things like ignore
"Climb to 4800, then climbing left turn to 9000
via TCH R-249 to STACO INT/TCH 20 DME and hold"
(clipped from SLC ILS or Loc RWY 34L)
And start a climb while turning too early to 9000
and smack a hill or something.
With a reference of being at the MAP, if you follow
the directions as published, they keep you in protected
airspace.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Bill Mauledriver Watson wrote:
> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
>
> My rust may be showing here but I think you are expected to proceed to
> the missed approach point before executing the miss procedure, even from
> inside the FAF. Agreed that you can halt your descent as you see fit.
>
> As a practical matter under radar control, you say 'miss' and you are
> probably going to get vectors for your next move.
>
> RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>> If you are behind the aircraft at any point after the FAF it should
>> be a no thought reaction to go missed and get your head back around
>> things. There is no magic number that says at x altitude I'm going to
>> miss, it should be based on many factors, not the least of which is
>> currency and conditions.
>>
>>
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 |
|
Yep, sorry if it seemed I was implying something else.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Mauledriver Watson
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: IFR
My rust may be showing here but I think you are expected to proceed to
the missed approach point before executing the miss procedure, even from
inside the FAF. Agreed that you can halt your descent as you see fit.
As a practical matter under radar control, you say 'miss' and you are
probably going to get vectors for your next move.
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> If you are behind the aircraft at any point after the FAF it should be a no
thought reaction to go missed and get your head back around things. There is
no magic number that says at x altitude I'm going to miss, it should be based
on many factors, not the least of which is currency and conditions.
>
>
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: Voyager sale Fri only |
Hmmm, is what nacomatic.com is publishing a "legal" thing? Just
wondering if it has the potential of disappearing.
Is getting charts from a source (not sure what his source is) and
reproducing them "legal"?
On Dec 1, 2009, at 2:52 PM, Eric Ekberg wrote:
> I noticed the same thing with the departure procedures. Also, when I
did a "just download the procedures that have changed", it did not pick
up the revision to the departure procedures. When I did a "download
them all" it did. I did bite on the lifetime subscription, but I am not
the die-hard fan that Tim is. I only hope that there involvement with
BK will lead to a better product. I download the pdfs from
nacomatic.com as well as using voyager. Basically when I use the
product I hear a little nagging voice in the back of my head that says
that it is a POS, but I still refuse to listen to it. Afterall, I don't
even have my IFR ticket yet, so what do I know?
>
> -Eric
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:43 PM, <pilotdds@aol.com> wrote:
> I am becoming very concerned with the folks at Voyager. I purchased
the Skypad and the lifetime program and I have found both to be very
capable, with a few glitches. The departure procedures on the IFR charts
apparently cannot be accessed. Only the first page of the plate shows up
and unlike the AOPA version, you cannot scroll through. Secondly, the
radar echoes and clouds are very intermittently displayed. They seem
like very nice folks, but have been unresponsive to my emails, phone
calls, and even failed to have a scheduled teleconference with me. I am
concerned about the overall health of the company and I will continue to
attempt to get my questions answered. In the event that I am successful
I will place a post. If anyone else has had a different experience, I
would love to hear about it. I have spoken to the secretary who assures
me that I will be contacted by a technical person, but I do not receive
a contact. I am not upset at the company as I do feel it is a good
value, I am just concerned about whether they will continue to function
and what will happen to these life time subscriptions and equipment
should they fail to be able to provide support. If you are considering
purchase you may wish to take this into consideration.
> Jim Rore
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: orchidman <gary@wingscc.com>
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:55 am
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Voyager sale Fri only
>
>
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
> > Just got the latest newsletter and they claim the lowest prices EVER
> > on lifetime chart subscriptions and some other things for Friday
only.
> > Tim
>
> The price is right except they are not giving credit for existing
subscriptions.
> They screwed up my Osh order so bad that I have over a years
subscription still
> on their books. Otherwise I might have jumped on it.
> Maybe next year if they offer it again.
>
> --------
> Gary Blankenbiller
> RV10 - # 40674
> (N2GB Flying)
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=275078#275078
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =_blank>www.aeroelectric.com
> m/" target=_blank>www.buildersbooks.com
> =_blank>www.homebuilthelp.com
> _blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> rget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Just a quick "thank you" to the posters on this site, and to Matt for running it.
Thanks to all of you (and a previous post on this subject) I was able to delete
this wheel and axle from the kit, and order the better ones directly from
Matco, for very little net extra cost.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276014#276014
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 |
|
For the miss on the Cheltons, hitting the miss soft key at any time will
provide HITS boxes at or above but along the published missed approach
course
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Mauledriver
Watson
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: IFR
--> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
My rust may be showing here but I think you are expected to proceed to the
missed approach point before executing the miss procedure, even from inside
the FAF. Agreed that you can halt your descent as you see fit.
As a practical matter under radar control, you say 'miss' and you are
probably going to get vectors for your next move.
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> If you are behind the aircraft at any point after the FAF it should be a
no thought reaction to go missed and get your head back around things.
There is no magic number that says at x altitude I'm going to miss, it
should be based on many factors, not the least of which is currency and
conditions.
>
>
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: Voyager sale Fri only |
Sean=0A=0ANational Aeronautical Charting Office - NACO- - this is the div
ision of the FAA that publishes charts. Paid for buy your tax dollars, char
ts as current as possible, right now you can download charts effective: =0A
17 December 2009 to 14 January 2010 =0A=0ASteve 40212=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_______
_________________________=0AFrom: Sean Stephens <sean@stephensville.com>=0A
ject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Voyager sale Fri only=0A=0AHmmm, is what nacomatic
.com is publishing a "legal" thing? -Just wondering if it has the potenti
al of disappearing. =0A=0AIs getting charts from a source (not sure what hi
s source is) and reproducing them "legal"?=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Dec 1, 2009, at 2:
52 PM, Eric Ekberg wrote:=0A=0AI noticed the same thing with the departure
procedures.- Also, when I did a "just download the procedures that have c
hanged", it did not pick up the revision to the departure procedures.- Wh
en I did a "download them all" it did.- I did bite on the lifetime subscr
iption, but I am not the die-hard fan that Tim is.- I only hope that ther
e involvement with BK will lead to a better product.- I download the pdfs
from nacomatic.com as well as using voyager.- Basically when I use the p
roduct I hear a little nagging voice in the back of my head that says that
it is a POS, but I still refuse to listen to it.- Afterall, I don't even
have my IFR ticket yet, so what do I know?=0A>=0A>-Eric=0A>=0A>=0A>On Fri,
Nov 27, 2009 at 1:43 PM, <pilotdds@aol.com> wrote:=0A>=0A>I am becoming ver
y concerned with the folks at Voyager. I purchased the Skypad and the lifet
ime program and I have found both to be very capable, with a few glitches.
The departure procedures on the IFR charts apparently cannot be accessed. O
nly the first page of the plate shows up and unlike the AOPA version, you c
annot scroll through. Secondly, the radar echoes and clouds are very interm
ittently displayed. They seem like very nice folks, but have been unrespons
ive to my emails, phone calls, and even failed to have a scheduled teleconf
erence with me. I am concerned about the overall health of the company and
I will continue to attempt to get my questions answered. In the event that
I am successful I will place a post. If anyone else has had a different exp
erience, I would love to hear about it. I have spoken to the secretary who
assures me that I will be contacted by a technical person, but I do not rec
eive a contact. I am not upset at the company as I
do feel it is a good value, I am just concerned about whether they will co
ntinue to function and what will happen to these life time subscriptions an
d equipment should they fail to be able to provide support. If you are cons
idering purchase you may wish to take this into consideration.=0A>>Jim Rore
=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>-----Original Message-----=0A>>From: orchidman <gary@wi
ngscc.com>=0A>>To: rv10-list@matronics.com=0A>>=0A>>Sent: Fri, Nov 27, 2009
8:55 am=0A>>Subject: RV10-List: Re: Voyager sale Fri only=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>--
>Tim Olson wrote:=0A>>> Just got the latest newsletter and they claim the l
owest prices EVER =0A>>> on lifetime chart subscriptions and some other th
ings for Friday only.=0A>>> Tim=0A>>=0A>>The price is right except they are
not giving credit for existing subscriptions. =0A>>They screwed up my Osh
order so bad that I have over a years subscription still =0A>>on their boo
ks. Otherwise I might have jumped on it.=0A>>Maybe next year if they offer
it again.=0A>>=0A>>--------=0A>>Gary Blankenbiller=0A>>RV10 - # 40674=0A>>
(N2GB Flying)=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>Read this topic online here:=0A>>=0A>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=275078#275078=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>
=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=_blank>www.aeroelectric.com=0A>>m/" target=_b
lank>www.buildersbooks.com=0A>>=_blank>www.homebuilthelp.com=0A>>_blank>h
ttp://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A>>rget=_blank>http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List=0A>>tp://forums.matronics.com=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>
=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>_blank">www.aeroelectric.com=0A>>.com" target="_blank">www
.buildersbooks.com=0A>>="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com=0A>>_blank">http:/
/www.matronics.com/contributionget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navi
gator?RV10-List=0A>>tp://forums.matronics.com=0A>>=0A>>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com=0A>href="http:
//www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com=0A>href="http://www.homeb
uilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com=0A>href="http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution">http://www.matronics.com/contributionhref="http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhre
f="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com=0A>=0A>=0A
=============0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
A few comments:
Yes, on a missed approach, you are to proceed to the MAP and then execute the miss
as published, except that you may climb immediately. There is a very good
reason for this: there are some missed approach procedures which take you up
a valley, around a hill, etc. Turn too early and you hit the mountain.
The instrument PTS was changed a few years ago to require an autopilot coupled
approach, if the aircraft has such an autopilot. And, most examiners are on to
the "inop" trick with the ADF, and many don't like it. I still remember my ifr
checkride, years ago. During the NDB approach (no moving maps then) I could
feel the DE fidgeting next to me. Finally, he leaned over and turned off the alternator.
The ADF needle jumped about 20 degrees. I glanced at him, and he just
said, "You know, in the old days, that's all they had." (!!). But while a lousy
instrument, ADF's are great for teaching position awareness (in case your
gps goes south).
Finally, I cannot agree more with all the comments about really knowing your EFIS
and avionics. If you read the NTSB report on the fatal RV-10 ifr accident,
you'll see that they suggest the fact that the PIC had never flown behind an EFIS
may have contributed to the accident.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276023#276023
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: | Rear seat heat duct |
Hello folks,
As an early kit purchaser, I, like many, have a problem with the 'stock'
heat tube issue for the back seat as it goes past the fuel selector valve.
I have solved the problem. In the attached pictures, I made a plug out of
wood. We vacuumed bagged a part for my plane..so my problem is solved. But
I also sent pictures to a plastics injection mold shop, and a roto-mold
shop. Injection molding was 3 times the cost of the roto-molding. I have a
quote back from the roto-mold shop that may make it viable to pay to have
the tooling made and parts cast. I estimate that we would need to order
about 200 units to make the time and money worth the effort. An expected
price would be $70-75, with another $5 or $10 for boxing and postage. They
estimate the part will weigh about 6/10ths of a pound.
I do realize that the problem has been solved in later kits. I also realize
that many solved the problem by installing an Adair valve. But I also think
that hundreds of kits shipped with the same issue, and many are facing the
same issue. I chose to make my own part --- the on-going reason my plane
still isn't flying! I need to know if there is demand for this part to be
made. If so, I can pursue having it done. If not, I will spend my time
completing my plane. So open the flood gates - drop me a response. When
you respond, put something in the subject line like HEAT DUCT YES, or HEAT
DUCT NO to make a quick survey of my inbox possible.
Pete James
RV-10 Escalade - heavy & gas guzzling, yet comfortable!
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Oil Cooler Valve |
Can anybody on the list remind me where I can get that valve that closes
off the scat tube going to the oil cooler (so the oil will warm up
faster on a cold day)? I remember buying one in the past, but can't
remember where.
do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Voyager sale Fri only |
sean(at)stephensville.com wrote:
> Hmmm, is what nacomatic.com (http://nacomatic.com) is publishing a "legal" thing? Just wondering if it has the potential of disappearing.
>
> Is getting charts from a source (not sure what his source is) and reproducing
them "legal"?
And there is a script that will automate the downloading.
You can specify state, section, all etc. I am using it to put the charts on an
SD card. I download only the states I might need for a flight and can review
multiple airports very quickly. I think it is much easier then the Voyager program
if you are trying to review what is available in an area as say looking
for alternates.
http://mstewart.net/super8/grtgetallplates/index.htm
--------
Gary Blankenbiller
RV10 - # 40674
(N2GB Flying)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276027#276027
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I never said Dynon is the best. I said it is the easiest to install and get calibrated,
and it is stable right out of the box. I also said that I base the
panel on a certified IFR GPS, and drive the autopilot with that. Also, I believe
Dynon does recommend their EFIS for IFR.
do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Dec 3, 2009, at 12:58 PM, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>
> Hmm, I don't know if Dynon would even recommend their EFIS for IFR. I have
to be honest, I have a hard time swallowing recommendations when the EFIS you
think is the best is also the lowest cost and would give you the greatest margin.
There are few systems out there that can give you all the information in
a useful format that a G900 can and comparing it to a Dynon is ludicrous. I would
never take equipment into conditions where I have to rely on it and don't
feel comfortable operating it. Doesn't matter if it's avionics, airframe, or
powerplant.
>
> I also need to chime in that personal minimums are what YOU should feel comfortable
with, not an average of what everyone else uses. At no point in my Instrument
training, or in the almost 20 years since, have I ever wondered what
someone else uses. If you are behind the aircraft at any point after the FAF
it should be a no thought reaction to go missed and get your head back around
things. There is no magic number that says at x altitude I'm going to miss, it
should be based on many factors, not the least of which is currency and conditions.
>
> Michael
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 |
|
Bob Turner wrote:
> A few comments:
>
> Yes, on a missed approach, you are to proceed to the MAP and then execute the
miss as published, except that you may climb immediately. There is a very good
reason for this: there are some missed approach procedures which take you up
a valley, around a hill, etc. Turn too early and you hit the mountain.
Bob,
VERY TRUE. IFR pilots need to remember this. In the design of an approach, the
obstacle clearance is provided from the IAF(s) to the MAP along the designed
flight path. THEN from the MAP to the missed holding along the missed approach
path. DO NOT TAKE A SHORT CUT.
--------
Gary Blankenbiller
RV10 - # 40674
(N2GB Flying)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276029#276029
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Oil Cooler Valve |
NonStop Aviation
http://www.nonstopaviation.com/rv10-parts-c-1337.html
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 3:25 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Oil Cooler Valve
Can anybody on the list remind me where I can get that valve that closes off
the scat tube going to the oil cooler (so the oil will warm up faster on a
cold day)? I remember buying one in the past, but can't remember where.
do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
D========================
=========
D========================
=========
D========================
=========
D========================
=========
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Just to throw another ditto on the stack; with several thousand hours flying
sophisticated EFIS systems in Corp aircraft it took at least 50-60 hours
before I felt I knew the Chelton system well enough to begin flying IFR.
The more I use it the more I like the Chelton, it is easy to manage and edit
flight plans on the fly which is the real test. Too bad Cobham does not
seem interested in marketing this great system.
What IFR RV-10 accident?
Dick Sipp
N110DV 200 hours
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Can you please tell me the matco product number or name for the axle kit?
________________________________
From: Seano <sean@braunandco.com>
Sent: Thu, December 3, 2009 1:02:05 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: nose wheel
Ya, I wish I would have known this!! I
mounted mine a couple of weeks ago and now I have a valve stem that's too
long. I called Van's and they said to push it in while filling the tire
and then went on to tell me to leave the valve stem cap off!! REALLY! I
like Van's way of staying simple and cheap BUT some items really need to be
changed.
----- Original Message -----
>From: David McNeill
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 10:52
> AM
>Subject: RV10-List: nose wheel
>
>
>Just
> a reminder to the new builders. The nose wheel and axle as
> supplied by Van's is , the opinion of many, inadequate. First the nose wheel
> is a MATCO wheel that is common to the other RVs and causes the tire to be
> mounted so that the valve stem for the tube is within .125 inch of the fork
> and that's without valve cap. An alternative wheel is available from MATCO
> (exchange if new and unmounted) which solves the valve stem clearance
> problem.
>
>Secondly the manner in
> which the axle and stainless steel sleeves are used to hold the bearings in
> place works for 100 hours (maybe) . After that time the whole mechanism
> loosens and the sleeves start to rotate and score the aluminum fork. The nose
> wheel then has side to side wobble on the bearings. If this continues the
> bearings and races wear prematurely. The solution is to not install he Vans
nose wheel and sleeve
> arrangement. MATCO supplies an axle, and spacers and hardware
> to solve this problem. Order the axle kit to solve
> this.
>
>This is a pay me now or pay me later > proposition The cost or a new MATCO
wheel is about
> $130, a new Van's fork is about $200, new wheel bearings are about $40, and
a
> MATCO axle kit is about $75. If the SS sleeves rotate, they will over
> time cause wheel wobble which can cause the valve stem to strike the fork and
> cause a flat ire. The wobble will destroy the bearings and seal. The sleeves
> will score the fork beyond serviceable limits.
>
>The reason for this post:
> I just talked with the IA at a maintenance faculty where a second owner RV10
> was squawked for excessive nose wheel shimmy. Another faculty had just
> passed the aircraft on an annual without fixing the nose wheel. The
> problem is going to cost the present owner $250-$450 plus labor.Suggest doing
this right the first
> time.
>
>
>href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
>href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
>href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Oil Cooler Valve |
Hey Jesse,
Here's what I had:
http://www.nonstopaviation.com/rv10-controller-cooler-p-14566.html?osCsid=3b72614996a7569bab65773be35830a5
--------
non-pilot
crazy about building
NOW OFICIALLY BUILDER #40549
Painting done!
On with wiring and avionics.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276041#276041
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I've been a GPS person since before the first handhelds were really in
common use. That was due to a loop hole in the rules for racing
sailplanes years ago. Ground based navigation aids were prohibited
which in effect, required pilotage for all cross country racing. When
GPS was first available, it was not specifically prohibited by the
rules so within a split second or two, we had purpose built GPS-driven
glide computers for sailplanes. Magic! The rules were never changed
and now sailplane racing is a sport I barely recognize any longer with
GPS starts, finishes, turn areas and such. No one knows what's going on
until the loggers are processed.
But I still find it hard to break away from needle based, RF driven,
analog navigation thinking. I mean, yes, your electrical system can
fail and yes your primary nav radio can fail, but practically speaking,
will GPS fail?
Hard hat on: yes everything can fail. But my '10 will have 3
independent GPS receivers on 3 different electrical systems and
batteries. That's not counting my 396. And while a VOR station in a
critical location can fail, the GPS network is sort of a cellular
network. A couple of Sats go down, will I notice? Can the entities
running that network purposely fail it? Can they afford to? A lot of
things can happen but I've never had a GPS failure or glitch in 20+
years or so. I did get strange inaccuracies near the Aberdeen proving
grounds on 2 occassions in 1999 - so I'm stretching the truth a bit.
A major challenge in staying current is staying proficient with VOR
navigation (forget the ADF which should be a hole in most of our
panels). Can you really do that VOR approach without the GPS? Can you
do it with one Nav?
I look at my backup guages (ASI, Alt, and ADI) and they make me feel
safe. But I wonder if old-fart-ism is the only thing preventing me
from considering a little Dynon to replace the 3 needles.
Where are the airlines on this stuff today. Do they still include
pneumatic, analog backups? It's tough to think far outside the box but
I guess that conservatism in the maintenance of long life is a good thing.
Bill "realizing that it's getting harder to shift paradigms, sleep
soundly through the night, and put his pants on in the morning" Watson
Bob Turner wrote:
> The instrument PTS was changed a few years ago to require an autopilot coupled
approach, if the aircraft has such an autopilot. And, most examiners are on
to the "inop" trick with the ADF, and many don't like it. I still remember my
ifr checkride, years ago. During the NDB approach (no moving maps then) I could
feel the DE fidgeting next to me. Finally, he leaned over and turned off the
alternator. The ADF needle jumped about 20 degrees. I glanced at him, and he
just said, "You know, in the old days, that's all they had." (!!). But while a
lousy instrument, ADF's are great for teaching position awareness (in case your
gps goes south).
>
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Here's the axel:
http://www.matcomfg.com/AXLEASSEMBLYA24125INCH_idv_3657_1.html
Later, - Lew
----- Original Message -----
From: Traville Houston
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: nose wheel
Can you please tell me the matco product number or name for the axle
kit?
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I'm pretty sure you'll find many suppliers of Non-Certified components won't
specifically "recommend" their units for IFR flight - Lawyers have made sure
of that! However, they may in marketing literature or other sales pitches
lead you to make an assumption of your own without necessarily telling one
way or another that their components are or are not specifically recommended
for IFR or VFR flight. In fact, many of them have small print stuffed into
their manuals making statements about their equipment as it relates to
91.205. See this statement: " XXXXXX makes no claim as to the suitability
of its products in connection with FAR 91.205" found in the install manuals
of your favorite EFIS for IFR flight.
My experience is that "easiest to install and calibrate" is something that
is wholly subjective and depends almost entirely on the experience of the
person doing said installation. For example, I'm pretty sure TimO could
install and calibrate a Chelton system faster than just about anyone could
do for any other EFIS of any type - so from his perspective that may be the
easiest to install and calibrate. For others it may be the Grand Rapids
systems, or the AFS or the Garmin or MGL. I'm not taking sides nor
intending any flames, just pointing out that statements like you made below
are really subjective and based on your own exposure.....but it's not
necessarily a hard fact. I don't really have a dog in the fight one way or
another but as usual I just like to keep the facts as straight and level as
possible.
My 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: IFR
I never said Dynon is the best. I said it is the easiest to install and get
calibrated, and it is stable right out of the box. I also said that I base
the panel on a certified IFR GPS, and drive the autopilot with that. Also,
I believe Dynon does recommend their EFIS for IFR.
do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Oil Cooler Valve |
Just so we are clear here, The vernatherm is open when it is cold and the
oil is not flowing through the cooler. Thus cutting off the air flow to the
cooler will not make it warm up faster. Up north folks do limit air flow to
the cooler in winter so the straight weight oil does not over cool and get
so thick it doesn't want to flow through the cooler. Just so you warm
weather folks know.
Gary Specketer
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:25 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Oil Cooler Valve
Can anybody on the list remind me where I can get that valve that closes off
the scat tube going to the oil cooler (so the oil will warm up faster on a
cold day)? I remember buying one in the past, but can't remember where.
do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Fine, keep your facts straight and level, but don't do that
with your airplane...it would be a waste not to enjoy
your RV-6.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Stein Bruch wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure you'll find many suppliers of Non-Certified components won't
> specifically "recommend" their units for IFR flight - Lawyers have made sure
> of that! However, they may in marketing literature or other sales pitches
> lead you to make an assumption of your own without necessarily telling one
> way or another that their components are or are not specifically recommended
> for IFR or VFR flight. In fact, many of them have small print stuffed into
> their manuals making statements about their equipment as it relates to
> 91.205. See this statement: " XXXXXX makes no claim as to the suitability
> of its products in connection with FAR 91.205" found in the install manuals
> of your favorite EFIS for IFR flight.
>
> My experience is that "easiest to install and calibrate" is something that
> is wholly subjective and depends almost entirely on the experience of the
> person doing said installation. For example, I'm pretty sure TimO could
> install and calibrate a Chelton system faster than just about anyone could
> do for any other EFIS of any type - so from his perspective that may be the
> easiest to install and calibrate. For others it may be the Grand Rapids
> systems, or the AFS or the Garmin or MGL. I'm not taking sides nor
> intending any flames, just pointing out that statements like you made below
> are really subjective and based on your own exposure.....but it's not
> necessarily a hard fact. I don't really have a dog in the fight one way or
> another but as usual I just like to keep the facts as straight and level as
> possible.
>
> My 2 cents as usual!
> Cheers,
> Stein
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:42 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: IFR
>
>
> I never said Dynon is the best. I said it is the easiest to install and get
> calibrated, and it is stable right out of the box. I also said that I base
> the panel on a certified IFR GPS, and drive the autopilot with that. Also,
> I believe Dynon does recommend their EFIS for IFR.
>
> do not archive
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I knew at some point the flame throwers would be fired!!! Lol...hey Stein., shouldn't
you be hangin out here? rv-6-list@matronics.com..
JUST KIDDING!!!!!!
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: IFR
Fine, keep your facts straight and level, but don't do that
with your airplane...it would be a waste not to enjoy
your RV-6.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Stein Bruch wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure you'll find many suppliers of Non-Certified components won't
> specifically "recommend" their units for IFR flight - Lawyers have made sure
> of that! However, they may in marketing literature or other sales pitches
> lead you to make an assumption of your own without necessarily telling one
> way or another that their components are or are not specifically recommended
> for IFR or VFR flight. In fact, many of them have small print stuffed into
> their manuals making statements about their equipment as it relates to
> 91.205. See this statement: " XXXXXX makes no claim as to the suitability
> of its products in connection with FAR 91.205" found in the install manuals
> of your favorite EFIS for IFR flight.
>
> My experience is that "easiest to install and calibrate" is something that
> is wholly subjective and depends almost entirely on the experience of the
> person doing said installation. For example, I'm pretty sure TimO could
> install and calibrate a Chelton system faster than just about anyone could
> do for any other EFIS of any type - so from his perspective that may be the
> easiest to install and calibrate. For others it may be the Grand Rapids
> systems, or the AFS or the Garmin or MGL. I'm not taking sides nor
> intending any flames, just pointing out that statements like you made below
> are really subjective and based on your own exposure.....but it's not
> necessarily a hard fact. I don't really have a dog in the fight one way or
> another but as usual I just like to keep the facts as straight and level as
> possible.
>
> My 2 cents as usual!
> Cheers,
> Stein
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:42 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: IFR
>
>
> I never said Dynon is the best. I said it is the easiest to install and get
> calibrated, and it is stable right out of the box. I also said that I base
> the panel on a certified IFR GPS, and drive the autopilot with that. Also,
> I believe Dynon does recommend their EFIS for IFR.
>
> do not archive
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
call MATCO and ask for tech support; they know.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Traville Houston
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: nose wheel
Can you please tell me the matco product number or name for the axle kit?
_____
From: Seano <sean@braunandco.com>
Sent: Thu, December 3, 2009 1:02:05 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: nose wheel
Ya, I wish I would have known this!! I mounted mine a couple of weeks ago
and now I have a valve stem that's too long. I called Van's and they said
to push it in while filling the tire and then went on to tell me to leave
the valve stem cap off!! REALLY! I like Van's way of staying simple and
cheap BUT some items really need to be changed.
----- Original Message -----
From: David McNeill <mailto:dlm46007@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 10:52 AM
Subject: RV10-List: nose wheel
Just a reminder to the new builders. The nose wheel and axle as supplied by
Van's is , the opinion of many, inadequate. First the nose wheel is a MATCO
wheel that is common to the other RVs and causes the tire to be mounted so
that the valve stem for the tube is within .125 inch of the fork and that's
without valve cap. An alternative wheel is available from MATCO (exchange if
new and unmounted) which solves the valve stem clearance problem.
Secondly the manner in which the axle and stainless steel sleeves are used
to hold the bearings in place works for 100 hours (maybe) . After that time
the whole mechanism loosens and the sleeves start to rotate and score the
aluminum fork. The nose wheel then has side to side wobble on the bearings.
If this continues the bearings and races wear prematurely. The solution is
to not install he Vans nose wheel and sleeve arrangement. MATCO supplies an
axle, and spacers and hardware to solve this problem. Order the axle kit to
solve this.
This is a pay me now or pay me later proposition The cost or a new MATCO
wheel is about $130, a new Van's fork is about $200, new wheel bearings are
about $40, and a MATCO axle kit is about $75. If the SS sleeves rotate,
they will over time cause wheel wobble which can cause the valve stem to
strike the fork and cause a flat ire. The wobble will destroy the bearings
and seal. The sleeves will score the fork beyond serviceable limits.
The reason for this post: I just talked with the IA at a maintenance faculty
where a second owner RV10 was squawked for excessive nose wheel shimmy.
Another faculty had just passed the aircraft on an annual without fixing the
nose wheel. The problem is going to cost the present owner $250-$450 plus
labor. Suggest doing this right the first time.
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution"
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Lis
t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhref="http://forums.matronics
.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
210HM
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dick & Vicki Sipp
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: IFR
--> <rsipp@earthlink.net>
Just to throw another ditto on the stack; with several thousand hours flying
sophisticated EFIS systems in Corp aircraft it took at least 50-60 hours
before I felt I knew the Chelton system well enough to begin flying IFR.
The more I use it the more I like the Chelton, it is easy to manage and edit
flight plans on the fly which is the real test. Too bad Cobham does not
seem interested in marketing this great system.
What IFR RV-10 accident?
Dick Sipp
N110DV 200 hours
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Voyager sale Fri only |
Fabulous link. Takes a little doing for a not-that-technical computer guy, but
very nice once it's working.
do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On Dec 3, 2009, at 3:36 PM, orchidman wrote:
>
>
> sean(at)stephensville.com wrote:
>> Hmmm, is what nacomatic.com (http://nacomatic.com) is publishing a "legal" thing? Just wondering if it has the potential of disappearing.
>>
>> Is getting charts from a source (not sure what his source is) and reproducing
them "legal"?
>
> And there is a script that will automate the downloading.
> You can specify state, section, all etc. I am using it to put the charts on
an SD card. I download only the states I might need for a flight and can review
multiple airports very quickly. I think it is much easier then the Voyager
program if you are trying to review what is available in an area as say looking
for alternates.
> http://mstewart.net/super8/grtgetallplates/index.htm
>
> --------
> Gary Blankenbiller
> RV10 - # 40674
> (N2GB Flying)
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276027#276027
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Ha! I do have dreams of having my own RV-10, so I still have to watch all
of ya'll and make sure I don't miss anything. Maybe Tim will trade me his
-10 for my -6 one of these days when his wife gets her license because I
know she like to be upside down in my RV-6! I think her comment was "her
husband wasn't nearly as good at it as I was"...or something like that!
Cheers,
Stein
Do Not Archive my worthless drivel!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
ricksked@embarqmail.com
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: IFR
I knew at some point the flame throwers would be fired!!! Lol...hey Stein.,
shouldn't you be hangin out here? rv-6-list@matronics.com..
JUST KIDDING!!!!!!
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: IFR
Fine, keep your facts straight and level, but don't do that
with your airplane...it would be a waste not to enjoy
your RV-6.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Oil Cooler Valve |
Not the whole story. Just like automotive cooling systems thermostats
there is a bypass passage for oil in the aircraft engine, AND the
passage to the oil cooler. The vernatherm ONLY controls the bypass and
does nothing for the path through the cooler. So the bypass gets
closed as the engine nears the rated oil temp of the vernatherm, but
the oil cooler lines are always open. So if the oil cooler is getting
20 degree air across its full face, it may stay mostly congealed until
the vernatherm closes the bypass. If airflow is restricted to the
cooler, the cooler will in fact warm up faster.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:05 PM, gary <speckter@comcast.net> wrote:
> Just so we are clear here, The vernatherm is open when it is cold and the
> oil is not flowing through the cooler. Thus cutting off the air flow to the
> cooler will not make it warm up faster. Up north folks do limit air flow to
> the cooler in winter so the straight weight oil does not over cool and get
> so thick it doesnt want to flow through the cooler. Just so you warm
> weather folks know.
>
>
> Gary Specketer
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:25 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Oil Cooler Valve
>
>
> Can anybody on the list remind me where I can get that valve that closes off
> the scat tube going to the oil cooler (so the oil will warm up faster on a
> cold day)? I remember buying one in the past, but can't remember where.
>
>
> do not archive
>
>
> Jesse Saint
>
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>
> jesse@saintaviation.com
>
> Cell: 352-427-0285
>
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
>
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
re: What ifr accident?
go to
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 080422X00528&ntsbno=NYC08FA157&akey=1
or go to NTSB.gov, aviation, search on RV-10
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276084#276084
Message 44
| 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: Oil Cooler Valve |
Also available:
https://www.averytools.com/pc-1070-115-rv-10-4-air-controller-for-oil-cooler.aspx
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Lew Gallagher <lewgall@charter.net> wrote:
>
> Hey Jesse,
>
> Here's what I had:
> http://www.nonstopaviation.com/rv10-controller-cooler-p-14566.html?osCsid=3b72614996a7569bab65773be35830a5
>
> --------
> non-pilot
> crazy about building
> NOW OFICIALLY BUILDER #40549
> Painting done!
> On with wiring and avionics.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276041#276041
>
>
Message 45
| 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 |
|
This is "one RV10 pilot and one instrument pilot don't make one RV10
instrument pilot".
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Turner
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 6:24 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: IFR
re: What ifr accident?
go to
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 080422X00528&ntsbno=NYC08FA157&a
key=1
or go to NTSB.gov, aviation, search on RV-10
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276084#276084
Message 46
| 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 |
|
Well, it is very feasible and proven for the military to jam GPS for a
wide area. I've had that every time flying near Edwards AFB and a few
times in NM. So it really does not matter how many redundant GPS's you
have, if one can't get satellites the others probably can't either.
Staying current on VOR approaches? Please...that is easier than
staying proficient on ILSs. Some of us used to be younger and bolder.
I started flying IFR after getting the ticket in a plane with one
Navcom with ILS, and one ADF with manual tuning(non-digital)(Bendix
T-12C for old timers). I flew both colored airways based on NDBs and
Victor airways routinely, and no, I didn't have a transponder and my
only backup was a trusty KX-99 handheld nav-com, which mostly served
as a Nav 2 for crossing radials. So all altitude changes had to be
reported, and each reporting point on the chart had to be called in as
Center had very poor primary radar, so handled me as non-radar. Only
approach control would bother to radar identify me.Oh, and that plane
had AN gyros(yes, backwards DG just like compass). I didn't get a GPS
until 15 years later.
Point being that you best be able to fly the traditional airways with
something other than GPS and better have something for back up
attitude and altitude display, whether a second independent EFIS or
steam gauges.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Bill Mauledriver Watson
<MauleDriver@nc.rr.com> wrote:
I mean, yes, your electrical system can fail and yes
> your primary nav radio can fail, but practically speaking, will GPS fail?
>
> Hard hat on: yes everything can fail. But my '10 will have 3 independent
> GPS receivers on 3 different electrical systems and batteries. That's not
> counting my 396. And while a VOR station in a critical location can fail,
> the GPS network is sort of a cellular network. A couple of Sats go down,
> will I notice? Can the entities running that network purposely fail it?
> Can they afford to? A lot of things can happen but I've never had a GPS
> failure or glitch in 20+ years or so. I did get strange inaccuracies near
> the Aberdeen proving grounds on 2 occassions in 1999 - so I'm stretching the
> truth a bit.
>
> A major challenge in staying current is staying proficient with VOR
> navigation (forget the ADF which should be a hole in most of our panels).
> Can you really do that VOR approach without the GPS? Can you do it with
Message 47
| 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 |
|
On my cross country flights although they have been GPS direct to specified way
points due to restricted airspace and some hot MOA's both nav radios have been
tuned to VORs enroute for DME and cross check info...I hardly ever fly alone
and the old guys I fly with never look at or trust the MX-20, they keep a chart
in hand and only really understand the CDI...(Kidding) but they are great
backup navigation!!
Rick Sked
N246RS
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: IFR
Well, it is very feasible and proven for the military to jam GPS for a
wide area. I've had that every time flying near Edwards AFB and a few
times in NM. So it really does not matter how many redundant GPS's you
have, if one can't get satellites the others probably can't either.
Staying current on VOR approaches? Please...that is easier than
staying proficient on ILSs. Some of us used to be younger and bolder.
I started flying IFR after getting the ticket in a plane with one
Navcom with ILS, and one ADF with manual tuning(non-digital)(Bendix
T-12C for old timers). I flew both colored airways based on NDBs and
Victor airways routinely, and no, I didn't have a transponder and my
only backup was a trusty KX-99 handheld nav-com, which mostly served
as a Nav 2 for crossing radials. So all altitude changes had to be
reported, and each reporting point on the chart had to be called in as
Center had very poor primary radar, so handled me as non-radar. Only
approach control would bother to radar identify me.Oh, and that plane
had AN gyros(yes, backwards DG just like compass). I didn't get a GPS
until 15 years later.
Point being that you best be able to fly the traditional airways with
something other than GPS and better have something for back up
attitude and altitude display, whether a second independent EFIS or
steam gauges.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Bill Mauledriver Watson
<MauleDriver@nc.rr.com> wrote:
I mean, yes, your electrical system can fail and yes
> your primary nav radio can fail, but practically speaking, will GPS fail?
>
> Hard hat on: yes everything can fail. But my '10 will have 3 independent
> GPS receivers on 3 different electrical systems and batteries. That's not
> counting my 396. And while a VOR station in a critical location can fail,
> the GPS network is sort of a cellular network. A couple of Sats go down,
> will I notice? Can the entities running that network purposely fail it?
> Can they afford to? A lot of things can happen but I've never had a GPS
> failure or glitch in 20+ years or so. I did get strange inaccuracies near
> the Aberdeen proving grounds on 2 occassions in 1999 - so I'm stretching the
> truth a bit.
>
> A major challenge in staying current is staying proficient with VOR
> navigation (forget the ADF which should be a hole in most of our panels).
> Can you really do that VOR approach without the GPS? Can you do it with
Message 48
| 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 |
|
For the list, I have copied the probable cause of that RV 10 fatal
accident below.
I had not read any of this one since the early reports, and at the
time heard reports that the weather was much worse than it actually was.
The earlier link was to the full report, but did not have probable
cause.
It is very good reading for all of us, and here is the probable cause
for those who don't want to go to the website. There are numerous
lessons here for us.
grumpy
NTSB Identification: NYC08FA157
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, April 07, 2008 in Seale, AL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/5/2009
Aircraft: CARTWRIGHT H JR/COTTRELL M RV-10, registration: N210HM
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
The instrument-rated private pilot requested a very high frequency
omnidirectional radio range (VOR) approach into an airport. Thereafter
he began a descent from cruise flight into instrument meteorological
conditions. The controller cleared the airplane for the approach about
20 miles north of the airport. The airplane then began a descending
right turn and the pilot requested, and was provided, vectors to
another airport. While en-route to that airport, he amended his
request and asked for vectors to a third airport, stating that he
required an airport with an instrument landing system (ILS) approach.
The controller subsequently provided vectors, followed by an ILS
approach clearance. Shortly after receiving the clearance, the
airplane flew past the ILS localizer path, and the controller
cancelled the approach clearance. The pilot then requested an airport
with cloud bases 2,000 feet or better, and the controller advised him
to check the weather at a nearby airport. The airplane then began a
rapid descending right turn, followed by a steep climbing right turn.
The airplane then began another rapid descent and was destroyed when
it collided with wooded terrain. Throughout the approach portions of
the flight, the airplane deviated multiple times from assigned
altitudes and headings. The airplane was equipped with a liquid
crystal display avionics suite, in a configuration commonly referred
to as a "glass cockpit." No logbook entries were noted indicating that
the instrument-rated pilot had flight experience in the accident
airplane, and the majority of his flight experience in IMC took place
in his own airplane, which was equipped with conventional flight
instruments. The pilot-rated passenger/builder held a private pilot
certificate and did not possess an instrument rating. No evidence of
any preimpact mechanical anomalies was discovered. Weather reports for
airports in the vicinity of the accident varied between 8 and 10 miles
visibility, with cloud bases between 1,200 and 2,000 feet mean sea
level (msl) and cloud tops at 4,500 feet msl. The airplane's turning
ground track and the cloud conditions were conducive to the onset of
pilot spatial disorientation. The airplane's multiple, rapid ascents
and descents are consistent with the pilot's loss of control of the
airplane because of spatial disorientation.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot-in-command's in-flight loss of control due to spatial
disorientation. Contributing to the accident were the weather
conditions and the pilot-in-command's lack of flight experience in the
accident airplane.
Message 49
| 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 |
|
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Bill Mauledriver Watson <
MauleDriver@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> Hard hat on: yes everything can fail. But my '10 will have 3 independent
> GPS receivers on 3 different electrical systems and batteries. That's not
> counting my 396. And while a VOR station in a critical location can fail,
> the GPS network is sort of a cellular network. A couple of Sats go down,
> will I notice? Can the entities running that network purposely fail it?
> Can they afford to? A lot of things can happen but I've never had a GPS
> failure or glitch in 20+ years or so. I did get strange inaccuracies near
> the Aberdeen proving grounds on 2 occassions in 1999 - so I'm stretching the
> truth a bit.
>
To give a counterexample: I've been flying IFR for less than 2 years. I am
a relative newbie. I have had two GPS failures:
1. My GPS went into "RAIM failure" mode while on a practice approach into
PAO. Non-event. I took off the hood and continued VFR.
2. On an actual instrument approach (still in the clouds) after the FAF
going into Truckee (in the mountains) riding in a friend's plane, I had the
GPS screen blank out and announce "GPS SIGNAL LOST". That had us seriously
scrambling to find a way to estimate the position of the MAP, since there
was a mountain straight ahead of us... (The GPS recovered about 5 frantic
seconds later.)
Would a second GPS unit continued to work in either of these situations? I
don't know. But it does convince me that having a different type of
navigation on board is very worthwhile.
Chris
Message 50
| 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 |
|
Chris Colohan wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Bill Mauledriver Watson
> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com <mailto:MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>> wrote:
>
> Hard hat on: yes everything can fail. But my '10 will have 3
> independent GPS receivers on 3 different electrical systems and
> batteries. That's not counting my 396. And while a VOR station
> in a critical location can fail, the GPS network is sort of a
> cellular network. A couple of Sats go down, will I notice? Can
> the entities running that network purposely fail it? Can they
> afford to? A lot of things can happen but I've never had a GPS
> failure or glitch in 20+ years or so. I did get strange
> inaccuracies near the Aberdeen proving grounds on 2 occassions in
> 1999 - so I'm stretching the truth a bit.
>
>
> To give a counterexample: I've been flying IFR for less than 2 years.
> I am a relative newbie. I have had two GPS failures:
>
> 1. My GPS went into "RAIM failure" mode while on a practice approach
> into PAO. Non-event. I took off the hood and continued VFR.
>
> 2. On an actual instrument approach (still in the clouds) after the
> FAF going into Truckee (in the mountains) riding in a friend's plane,
> I had the GPS screen blank out and announce "GPS SIGNAL LOST". That
> had us seriously scrambling to find a way to estimate the position of
> the MAP, since there was a mountain straight ahead of us... (The GPS
> recovered about 5 frantic seconds later.)
>
> Would a second GPS unit continued to work in either of these
> situations? I don't know. But it does convince me that having a
> different type of navigation on board is very worthwhile.
Good examples. Some additional thoughts:
Regarding 1, I think a RAIM failure means that the unit will not load or
execute a GPS approach. I belieive you still have GPS nav capability
essentially equivalent to VOR Nav but no approach capability. More unit
specific procedure stuff and TSO details to train on. But a RAIM
failure definitely means you need an alternate means of doing the
approach as required by the FARs
Regarding 2, I just attended an FAA maintenance training/safety session
focused on avionics installations. The guy who led it talked a lot
about GPS attenna installations with lots of examples. He put the fear
of GPS antenna installation induced failures in my heart. He had my
number when he mentioned how plastic airplane people want all their
antenna hidden and how sometimes 'hidden' doesn't work so well for
various reasons. And expressed some disdain for the Archer antenna
installations that work "well enough in most directions". He focused on
using the manufacturers installation instructions. All good stuff.
Bill
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! --
|