Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 11:04 AM - Re: Fuel pump use (Dj Merrill)
2. 11:58 AM - Re: Fuel pump use (William Curtis)
3. 12:13 PM - Cowl Replacement Update (Robin Marks)
4. 12:26 PM - Re: Cowl Replacement Update (Seano)
5. 12:37 PM - Re: Fuel pump use (Dj Merrill)
6. 12:50 PM - Re: Fuel pump use (William Curtis)
7. 12:59 PM - Re: Fuel pump use (Dj Merrill)
8. 01:02 PM - Re: Fuel pump use (n801bh@netzero.com)
9. 01:07 PM - Re: Cowl Replacement Update (Ralph E. Capen)
10. 01:12 PM - Re: Cowl Replacement Update (Pascal)
11. 01:21 PM - Re: Fuel pump use (Dj Merrill)
12. 01:30 PM - Re: Fuel pump use (William Curtis)
13. 01:52 PM - Re: Fuel pump use (Dj Merrill)
14. 02:01 PM - Re: Cowl Replacement Update (Robin Marks)
15. 02:06 PM - Re: Cowl Replacement Update (Ralph E. Capen)
16. 02:25 PM - Re: Cowl Replacement Update (William Greenley)
17. 02:51 PM - Re: Fuel pump use (William Curtis)
18. 02:54 PM - Re: Fuel pump use (Bob Turner)
19. 03:03 PM - Re: Cowl Replacement Update (Bob Turner)
20. 03:14 PM - Re: Cowl Replacement Update (Robin Marks)
21. 03:15 PM - Re: Re: Cowl Replacement Update (Robin Marks)
22. 03:40 PM - Re: Re: Another RV-10 down? (Dave Saylor)
23. 04:46 PM - Antenna Opinions, experiance and thoughts appreciated (Terry Moushon)
24. 05:02 PM - Re: Another RV-10 down? (rv10flyer)
25. 05:45 PM - Re: Antenna Opinions, experiance and thoughts appreciated (Bob Turner)
26. 06:14 PM - Re: Re: Another RV-10 down? (Miller John)
27. 06:36 PM - Re: Cowl Replacement Update (Jae Chang)
28. 07:18 PM - Re: Re: Another RV-10 down? (Pascal)
29. 07:40 PM - Re: Cowl Replacement Update (Carl Froehlich)
30. 09:45 PM - Re: Fuel pump use (Kelly McMullen)
31. 10:01 PM - Re: Antenna Opinions, experiance and thoughts appreciated (Kelly McMullen)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel pump use |
On 01/10/2013 12:38 AM, William Curtis wrote:
> If you are in a
> high wing Cessna however, the boost pump should not be run during
> takeoff and landings.
As they say, "that depends"... :-)
I have a high wing Glastar with a carburated O320. It was built
without any pump at all (mechanical or electric), and has been flying
fine for 13 years. I'm converting the carb to a Rotec TBI, and Rotec
recommends the use of an electric boost pump for takeoff, even on a high
wing plane.
The reason is that at very high angles of attack (say like a short
field takeoff), the difference in height between the engine and the wing
decreases, which means that the fuel pressure given by gravity lessens.
At really high angles of attack it is possible for the fuel pressure to
get too low without the use of a boost pump.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel pump use |
>
> As they say, "that depends"... :-)
>
Actually, no it does not. This is comparing apples and oranges and underscores
why I said to defer to the instructions in the POH. Clearly Rotec/Glastar has
recognized the deficiencies of the TBI system at high AOA and has thus adjusted
the procedures in the POH accordingly. This same procedure however would not
apply in a high wing Cessna.
First, a Glastar is not a Cessna; second, a Glastar does not have a mechanical
fuel injection system; third, I'm sure the fuel plumbing on the Glastar is nowhere
near the same as on a high wing Cessna.
W.
177RG - N24DM
RV10 - 40237
On Jan 10, 2013, at 14:03, Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net> wrote:
>
> On 01/10/2013 12:38 AM, William Curtis wrote:
>> If you are in a
>> high wing Cessna however, the boost pump should not be run during
>> takeoff and landings.
> I have a high wing Glastar with a carburated O320. It was built
> without any pump at all (mechanical or electric), and has been flying
> fine for 13 years. I'm converting the carb to a Rotec TBI, and Rotec
> recommends the use of an electric boost pump for takeoff, even on a high
> wing plane.
>
> The reason is that at very high angles of attack (say like a short
> field takeoff), the difference in height between the engine and the wing
> decreases, which means that the fuel pressure given by gravity lessens.
> At really high angles of attack it is possible for the fuel pressure to
> get too low without the use of a boost pump.
>
> -Dj
>
> --
> Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
> Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
> Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
>
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cowl Replacement Update |
We are close to flying the replacement cowl. I wanted to share a few photos
of the new cowl, baffles, oil cooler location including bracket. intake et
c...
Robin
[cid:image013.jpg@01CDEF2B.D8032790]
Can't you see the air molicules woooshing by the cowl?
I like having only 2 inlet holes.
[cid:image014.jpg@01CDEF2B.D8032790]
Engine looks pretty clean for 325+ hours.
Double Induction, double filter system. No Alt Air so yet.
[cid:image015.jpg@01CDEF2B.D8032790]
[cid:image016.jpg@01CDEF2B.D8032790]
Nifty oil cooler bracket
[cid:image017.jpg@01CDEF2B.D8032790]
[cid:image018.jpg@01CDEF2B.D8032790]
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cowl Replacement Update |
Very cool! Excited to hear how she works in flight.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 10, 2013, at 13:13, Robin Marks <robin@PaintTheWeb.com> wrote:
> We are close to flying the replacement cowl. I wanted to share a few photo
s of the new cowl, baffles, oil cooler location including bracket. intake et
c
> Robin
> <image013.jpg>
> Can't you see the air molicules woooshing by the cowl?
> I like having only 2 inlet holes.
> <image014.jpg>
>
> Engine looks pretty clean for 325+ hours.
> Double Induction, double filter system. No Alt Air so yet.
> <image015.jpg>
> <image016.jpg>
> Nifty oil cooler bracket
> <image017.jpg>
> <image018.jpg>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel pump use |
On 01/10/2013 02:57 PM, William Curtis wrote:
>>
>> As they say, "that depends"... :-)
>>
>
> Actually, no it does not.
Actually, it does. We are on an experimental aircraft forum talking
about experimental airplanes, and your post started with "The bottom
line is to do what the airframe manufacturer suggest in the POH. As a
builder you are the airframe manufacturer."
The above combined with your comment about the high wing Cessna could
easily be construed as saying "if you are in a high wing experimental
aircraft, there is no need for a boost pump" simply because you can
write it that way in the POH.
I was offering an example of a high wing experimental aircraft where
the maker of one of the fuel system components (the Throttle Body
Injector) recommends the use of a boost pump (not to be confused with
the manufacturer of the experimental airframe kit (Stoddard Hamilton in
the case of the Glastar) or the builder of the aircraft).
Since Rotec recommends the boost pump for all aircraft, if the Cessna
were put into the experimental category, and a Rotec TBI were installed
in place of the carburator, the same recommendation for the boost pump
would apply.
I'm not trying to argue with you. I am merely saying that "it depends"
on many things, such as the parts used in the fuel system and the
recommendations from those manufacturers, in addition to recommendations
from the kit company (Vans, Stoddard Hamilton, etc).
I agree with you that on a factory produced certified aircraft, do what
it says in the POH. On our airplanes, it isn't quite so clear due to
the wide variety of options available to us.
Yes, a Glastar is not a Cessna, however, it CAN have a mechanical fuel
injection system, or a carb, or a TBI, or electronic fuel injection,
etc, and the fuel system can be plumbed to be very similar to the Cessna
should that be desired.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel pump use |
Dj,
Yup, I think we agree on the same thing, we just have different way of saying it.
W.
On Jan 10, 2013, at 15:36, Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net> wrote:
>
> On 01/10/2013 02:57 PM, William Curtis wrote:
>>>
>>> As they say, "that depends"... :-)
>>>
>>
>> Actually, no it does not.
>
> Actually, it does. We are on an experimental aircraft forum talking
> about experimental airplanes, and your post started with "The bottom
> line is to do what the airframe manufacturer suggest in the POH. As a
> builder you are the airframe manufacturer."
>
> The above combined with your comment about the high wing Cessna could
> easily be construed as saying "if you are in a high wing experimental
> aircraft, there is no need for a boost pump" simply because you can
> write it that way in the POH.
>
> I was offering an example of a high wing experimental aircraft where
> the maker of one of the fuel system components (the Throttle Body
> Injector) recommends the use of a boost pump (not to be confused with
> the manufacturer of the experimental airframe kit (Stoddard Hamilton in
> the case of the Glastar) or the builder of the aircraft).
>
> Since Rotec recommends the boost pump for all aircraft, if the Cessna
> were put into the experimental category, and a Rotec TBI were installed
> in place of the carburator, the same recommendation for the boost pump
> would apply.
>
> I'm not trying to argue with you. I am merely saying that "it depends"
> on many things, such as the parts used in the fuel system and the
> recommendations from those manufacturers, in addition to recommendations
> from the kit company (Vans, Stoddard Hamilton, etc).
>
> I agree with you that on a factory produced certified aircraft, do what
> it says in the POH. On our airplanes, it isn't quite so clear due to
> the wide variety of options available to us.
>
> Yes, a Glastar is not a Cessna, however, it CAN have a mechanical fuel
> injection system, or a carb, or a TBI, or electronic fuel injection,
> etc, and the fuel system can be plumbed to be very similar to the Cessna
> should that be desired.
>
> -Dj
>
>
> --
> Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
> Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
> Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
>
>
>
>
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: Fuel pump use |
On 01/10/2013 03:49 PM, William Curtis wrote:
> Yup, I think we agree on the same thing, we just have different way of saying
it.
I think so too, after going back and re-reading the last several posts.
Must be time for my nap... :-)
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
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: Fuel pump use |
Do the math...... Fluid dynamics are know and predictable...
For every one foot in head height, you make .43 PSI.. A high wing plane
's wing is, at best 3 feet higher then the carb in level flight. If 1.29
PSI is enough to keep your engine running then...... Have at it... Get
that same plane in a nose high attitude during take off/steep climb and
the head distance gets reduced to 2 feet , then I have a VERY hard time
believing .86PSI is capable to keep a engine running properly with NO f
uel pump in the system......YMMV
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel pump use
On 01/10/2013 02:57 PM, William Curtis wrote:
>>
>> As they say, "that depends"... :-)
>>
>
> Actually, no it does not.
Actually, it does. We are on an experimental aircraft forum talking
about experimental airplanes, and your post started with "The bottom
line is to do what the airframe manufacturer suggest in the POH. As a
builder you are the airframe manufacturer."
The above combined with your comment about the high wing Cessna could
easily be construed as saying "if you are in a high wing experimental
aircraft, there is no need for a boost pump" simply because you can
write it that way in the POH.
I was offering an example of a high wing experimental aircraft where
the maker of one of the fuel system components (the Throttle Body
Injector) recommends the use of a boost pump (not to be confused with
the manufacturer of the experimental airframe kit (Stoddard Hamilton in
the case of the Glastar) or the builder of the aircraft).
Since Rotec recommends the boost pump for all aircraft, if the Cessna
were put into the experimental category, and a Rotec TBI were installed
in place of the carburator, the same recommendation for the boost pump
would apply.
I'm not trying to argue with you. I am merely saying that "it depends"
on many things, such as the parts used in the fuel system and the
recommendations from those manufacturers, in addition to recommendations
from the kit company (Vans, Stoddard Hamilton, etc).
I agree with you that on a factory produced certified aircraft, do what
it says in the POH. On our airplanes, it isn't quite so clear due to
the wide variety of options available to us.
Yes, a Glastar is not a Cessna, however, it CAN have a mechanical fuel
injection system, or a carb, or a TBI, or electronic fuel injection,
etc, and the fuel system can be plumbed to be very similar to the Cessna
should that be desired.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/50ef2bfcc3fd62bfc5cc4st02vuc
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: Cowl Replacement Update |
Is this a new SJ RV10 cowl? I don't see it on their website....
Would like to see a front view of the dual fiberglass intake runners.
Guessing you're not using a plenum.....
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cowl Replacement Update |
you pull that cowling off a legacy? even with that supercharged engine I
don=99t think the cowling is going to give you the speed of a
Lancair.. sorry to disappoint
Very nice fit and engine
From: Robin Marks
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:13 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Cowl Replacement Update
We are close to flying the replacement cowl. I wanted to share a few
photos of the new cowl, baffles, oil cooler location including bracket.
intake etc
Robin
Can't you see the air molicules woooshing by the cowl?
I like having only 2 inlet holes.
Engine looks pretty clean for 325+ hours.
Double Induction, double filter system. No Alt Air so yet.
Nifty oil cooler bracket
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel pump use |
On 01/10/2013 03:59 PM, n801bh@netzero.com wrote:
> I have a VERY hard
> time believing .86PSI is capable to keep a engine running properly with
> NO fuel pump in the system......YMMV
My Glastar (Lyc O-320-E2D) has flown for 13 years with no fuel pump at
all, just gravity feed to a carb. I believe the min fuel pressure for a
carb is 0.5 PSI, but I can't find the reference right now.
FWIW, the Rotec TBI also has the 0.5 PSI min, and for most operations
in a high wing airplane the boost pump is not required (gravity is
enough). Rotec had a few reports of the engine burbling a little bit
when very high angles of attack occurred in very aggressive takeoff
maneuvers, which is why they now recommend the boost pump.
http://www.rotecradialengines.com/TBI/TBI.htm
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel pump use |
Ben,
OK. Just so I'm clear on what you are saying; Are you saying that after "doi
ng the math" when flying a fuel injected high wing Cessna, you would ignore t
he procedures in the POH and run the boost pump during takeoff and landings?
If my understanding is correct then as you say "have at it." I don't think a
nyone has said or would think an engine would "run properly" with fuel fed o
nly with gravity but at least you will not have a complete engine stoppage d
ue to fuel starvation. The difference in time to react that you have with pa
rtial power is considerable greater than the time to react with a complete p
ower loss. In the case of Cessna, they obviously thought this outweighed the
negatives of running the pump during that same time.
W.
On Jan 10, 2013, at 20:59, "n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com> wrote:
> Do the math...... Fluid dynamics are know and predictable...
>
> For every one foot in head height, you make .43 PSI.. A high wing plane's
wing is, at best 3 feet higher then the carb in level flight. If 1.29 PSI i
s enough to keep your engine running then...... Have at it... Get that same p
lane in a nose high attitude during take off/steep climb and the head dista
nce gets reduced to 2 feet , then I have a VERY hard time believing .86PSI i
s capable to keep a engine running properly with NO fuel pump in the system.
.....YMMV
>
> do not archive
>
>
> Ben Haas
> N801BH
> www.haaspowerair.com
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel pump use |
On 01/10/2013 04:30 PM, William Curtis wrote:
> I don't
> think anyone has said or would think an engine would "run properly" with
> fuel fed only with gravity
This is exactly what I am saying - my Glastar has never had any kind of
fuel pump installed, mechanical or electrical, and it runs just fine
with gravity fed only to a carb.
I've been told there are older certified aircraft that are setup the
same way, but I don't have any specific references to share.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cowl Replacement Update |
Ralph,
This cowl replaces the SJ cowl and plenum. Adios!
This is the new Showplanes and intake system for the FM300. No Plenum for me ever
again.
If one were to visit the Showplane website you can see the induction system from
the front view. Basically the bottom quarter of each inlet is dedicated to the
FI induction system.
Robin
"Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net> wrote:
Is this a new SJ RV10 cowl? I don't see it on their website....
Would like to see a front view of the dual fiberglass intake runners.
Guessing you're not using a plenum.....
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cowl Replacement Update |
Thanks!
-----Original Message-----
>From: Robin Marks <robin@PaintTheWeb.com>
>Sent: Jan 10, 2013 5:01 PM
>To: "rv10-list@matronics.com" <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Cowl Replacement Update
>
>
>Ralph,
>This cowl replaces the SJ cowl and plenum. Adios!
> This is the new Showplanes and intake system for the FM300. No Plenum for me
ever again.
>If one were to visit the Showplane website you can see the induction system from
the front view. Basically the bottom quarter of each inlet is dedicated to
the FI induction system.
>
>Robin
>
>"Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>Is this a new SJ RV10 cowl? I don't see it on their website....
>
>Would like to see a front view of the dual fiberglass intake runners.
>
>Guessing you're not using a plenum.....
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cowl Replacement Update |
9-12 months from needing to order a cowl. This is a new area for me, what is
the reason for using the showplanes cowl over vans regular cowl?
Bill Greenley
RV-10 builder
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Cowl Replacement Update
Ralph,
This cowl replaces the SJ cowl and plenum. Adios!
This is the new Showplanes and intake system for the FM300. No Plenum for
me ever again.
If one were to visit the Showplane website you can see the induction system
from the front view. Basically the bottom quarter of each inlet is dedicated
to the FI induction system.
Robin
"Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net> wrote:
--> <recapen@earthlink.net>
Is this a new SJ RV10 cowl? I don't see it on their website....
Would like to see a front view of the dual fiberglass intake runners.
Guessing you're not using a plenum.....
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel pump use |
Agreed, which is why I prefaced most by specifying "fuel injected high wing.
" The high wing Cessna 150/152 that I trained in also did not have boost pum
ps. Most high wing carbureted engine aircraft can and do run perfectly fine f
ull power with only gravity feeding the fuel.
I know we are "out in the weeds" on this thread now but I'll restate my orig
inal statement with clarification and expansion-- I hope:
-In the case of the RV10 with a Lycoming fuel injected engine, follow the Va
ns suggested recommendation of running the boost pump during takeoff and lan
dings. This is normal procedure for most low wing aircraft.
-For high wing fuel injected Cessnas, all POH that I have seen DO NOT indica
te running the fuel pump during takeoff and landings.
-Many, if not all, high wing carbureted aircraft, including the Cessna 150/1
52/172, DO NOT specify in the POH running the boost pump during takeoff and l
andings.
W.
On Jan 10, 2013, at 16:51, Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net> wrote:
>
> On 01/10/2013 04:30 PM, William Curtis wrote:
>
>> I don't
>> think anyone has said or would think an engine would "run properly" with
>> fuel fed only with gravity
>
>
> This is exactly what I am saying - my Glastar has never had any kind of
> fuel pump installed, mechanical or electrical, and it runs just fine
> with gravity fed only to a carb.
>
> I've been told there are older certified aircraft that are setup the
> same way, but I don't have any specific references to share.
>
> -Dj
>
>
> --
> Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
> Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
> Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
>
>
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: Fuel pump use |
You guys are mixing apples and oranges.
I know of no injected engine that will run properly with just gravity feed.
There are lots of high wing carb engines that do run on just gravity feed.
And there are some high wing, carb engines, that have an aux pump for very nose
high situations (172RG, for example).
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392021#392021
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cowl Replacement Update |
Do you plan to stuff some insulation between the induction air and the #1 exhaust?
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392024#392024
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cowl Replacement Update |
I originally placed the SJ cowl on the -10 based on the 2 place RV fleet history
with the SJ unit. I was probably the 3rd -10 SJ cowl flying. Unfortunately the
SJ -10 cowl well documented problems meant that I needed to replace the cowl
on my flying -10. The smart move would have been to go with the proven factory
cowl. It does everything you need it to do and there are 350 other -10 pilots
you can have something in common with when installing the Vans cowl. When my
8A came on line it was time to replace the -10 cowl. I opted for the new cowl
even though I will most likely be the first flying production Showplanes -10
cowl because the builder has a long history of RV aftermarket product development
and I had been in discussions with Bryan for about 2 years tracking his progress.
He is extremely methodical in his development approach vs. just blowing
up a smaller cowl and plenum hoping it works. My prior cowl & plenum were sold
as a set intended to be used together but even a basic measurement like the
inlet holes weren't aligned. That should have been a warning to me but I already
had started the assembly. Bryan on the other hand had done so much R&D and
his goal was to develop a "no compromises" cowl. A cowl that can fly with the
standard Vans oil cooler on the wedge with no added louvers and cobbled together
solutions required. When it came time I decided to support a builder & designer
that gave great care in his development. I can say the quality of fiberglass
far exceeds anything ever shipped from Vans.
Long story / short. The smartest solution would have been the Standard Vans cowl
and it will remain so for most builders. But this cowl is great looking and
works with the FM200 & FM300 so I am giving it a try. That is why I fly in the
Experimental category for gosh sakes. Of course the first 325 hours I flew in
the Disgruntled category but hopefully this new cowl will resolve those issues.
The rest of the plane is a dream to own & fly.
Robin
RV-4 Sold
RV-6A Sold
RV-10 Flying
RV-8A Flying
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Greenley
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 2:24 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Cowl Replacement Update
--> <wgreenley@gmail.com>
9-12 months from needing to order a cowl. This is a new area for me, what is the
reason for using the showplanes cowl over vans regular cowl?
Bill Greenley
RV-10 builder
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Cowl Replacement Update
Ralph,
This cowl replaces the SJ cowl and plenum. Adios!
This is the new Showplanes and intake system for the FM300. No Plenum for me ever
again.
If one were to visit the Showplane website you can see the induction system from
the front view. Basically the bottom quarter of each inlet is dedicated to the
FI induction system.
Robin
"Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net> wrote:
--> <recapen@earthlink.net>
Is this a new SJ RV10 cowl? I don't see it on their website....
Would like to see a front view of the dual fiberglass intake runners.
Guessing you're not using a plenum.....
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: Cowl Replacement Update |
Yes. It's tight up there.
R
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Turner
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:03 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Cowl Replacement Update
Do you plan to stuff some insulation between the induction air and the #1 exhaust?
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392024#392024
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Another RV-10 down? |
I spoke to Jerry Jackson on the phone today. He's a friend of my airplane
partner and was gracious enough to describe his recent forced landing in a
lot of detail for me, and said I could make a post about it to the
Matronics list. AirCrafters wasn't involved in his build in any way,
except that Jerry got a ride from my partner a few years ago and decided to
build based partially on that experience. From my notes:
Jerry had been flying his plane for one week. It was his fourth flight
with six hours on the Hobbs. He had flown for two hours the day before.
His habit had been to decowl after every flight to look for trouble. He
landed at two airports in his test area and practiced some steep turns. He
departed Aqua Caliente (L54) and climbed to 8500 feet. Note that the
terrain in the area (33 00.143, -116 42.912) includes very little flat
land, peaks above 6000 feet, and deep canyons. He was headed back to his
test base, Ramona airport (RNM), when he noticed oil pressure dropping.
The plane is equipped with a 3-screen Garmin G3X panel, which includes a
complete engine monitor.
He said at first he thought the reading was erroneous, but it kept dropping
evenly. 20 miles from RNM he called the tower and declared an emergency.
There was no smell of oil and no visible oil leak. As the pressure went
to 0 his RPM rose, since the governor had no oil to work with, and at that
point he knew he had a true emergency.
17 miles from Ramona, the engine seized and stopped.
He slowed to a good glide speed and being already on frequency, he
requested vectors to anything flat. He was given a heading to Flying T
Ranch but realized immediately he couldn't glide that far. Just ahead he
could see a deep North-South canyon (San Diego River). He estimated he
could glide into it but not over it. Opting not to glide to the bottom of
a rocky canyon, he turned south to parallel the canyon rim. He saw a road
(Eagle Peak Rd.) and followed it south. On seeing a few parked cars, he
picked the most gentle hillside and glided into some low brush, uphill,
with flaps down at 50-55 knots.
The nose gear tore off almost immediately. He later found it sticking out
of the ground =9Clike a plumber's water pipe=9D. He noted that
his 406 MHz ELT
had activated. He was concerned that the authorities would call his home
looking for him, only to reach his wife who didn't know what was going on.
He got out and attempted a call to Ramona on a handheld. This part is
cool=94an RV-4 in the area had heard his distress call and headed his
way.
The -4 found him and was able to relay some info from Jerry to Ramona, and
pass on the exact location to ATC. It took a hiker with a smartphone to
get a text message to his wife, however, right after the Air Force called
her. The fire department arrived 45 minutes after landing and gave him a
ride back to town.
In Jerry's estimation, the airframe is most likely destroyed. He said
there were buckles in the sheet metal in many places, including the tunnel
and the panel (wow!). But he said over and over that he thought Van's
designed a great plane that protected him when he needed it, bent where it
should have and stayed together where it had to.
This was his third engine from Aerosport Power. He's a repeat offender
having built a Murphy Moose and a -6A. He put 1600 hours on his last RV.
All the oil was concentrated on the right side but he hasn't been able to
determine yet what happened. If I hear I'll try to post any news.
Personally, I think he did a great job flying, navigating, and
communicating, in that order. He took appropriate action, slowed to glide
speed, didn't stall too high, he found a place to land, and he managed to
be found by ground, air, and space. And he walked away. Good job!
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Dave Saylor <
dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jerry Jackson came to our shop before he started building a 10. He
> already holds a trans-con record in a 6. Very nice guy and seemed really
> competent.
>
> Dave Saylor
> 831-750-0284 CL
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Robin Marks <robin@painttheweb.com> wrote
:
>
>> Certificate Issue Date 11/27/2012****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Serial Number* *41147****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Do Not Archive****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> [image: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4119PH1X-zL._SS500_.jpg]**
*
>> *
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
>> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of rv10flyer
>> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 12:08 AM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Another RV-10 down?
>>
>> ** **
>>
*
>> ***
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> N262NJ.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> --------****
>>
>> Wayne G.****
>>
>> 12/01/2011****
>>
>> TT= 95****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Read this topic online here:****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391742#391742****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>> ====================**** bsp; -
The RV10-List Email Forum -**** nd much
>> much more:**** tronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List**** =======
=============****bsp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUM
S -
>> **** eb Forums!**** .matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com****=
==================
>> **** bsp; - List Contribution Web Site -**** o:p>**bsp;
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> **** tronics.com/contribution"> http://www.matronics.com/contribution***
*===================
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> -----****
>>
>> No virus found in this message.****
>>
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com****
>> - Release Date: 01/03/13****
>>
>
>
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: | Antenna Opinions, experiance and thoughts appreciated |
I am about to start my RV10 wings... I plan to use Pulsar NS90 wingtip lights and
Duckworth 35W HID landing lights. My plan is to install an Archer design communication
antenna in the right wing and an Archer design antenna in the left
which would be split for both VOR and Glideslope. All will be tied together with
RG-58C/U. My question is simple. Do these components play well together given
their close proximity? Any suggestions?
Terry
Builder #41393
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Another RV-10 down? |
Dave,
Thank you for keeping us updated. We are glad he made it down safely and is sharing
his experiences with us. We will all learn from this. Let us know what you
find out on the RH side oil leak.
--------
Wayne G.
12/01/2011
TT= 95
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392032#392032
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: Antenna Opinions, experiance and thoughts appreciated |
I presume you've read all the posts about the Archer antennas, e.g. Most would
say the nav is pretty good, the com is fair, compared to an external antenna.
Be sure to bend the com to get as much vertical run as possible in the arm with
the feedline attachment.
I know RG400 is more expensive than RG58 but the 400 should buy you a bit less
loss, why run cheap coax in a new plane?
I have a Duckworks HD in the same wingtip as my Archer clone com antenna. When
I turn it on there is a just perceptible reduction in signal to noise, e.g.,if
I can just barely make out the ATIS with the HD off, then I cannot quite understand
it with the HD on. If the signal is already strong then I cannot hear the
difference.
I have no experience with the strobe/nav lights you mention, except to say that
I know some have had trouble with high power LED's generating a lot of RF interference.
Question: most LEDs tend to be pretty directional. Do these meet the requirements
for night flight?
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392033#392033
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Another RV-10 down? |
Hope Jerry will forward to the list what happened to his engine......
grumpy
N184JM
do not archive
On Jan 10, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Dave Saylor wrote:
> I spoke to Jerry Jackson on the phone today. He's a friend of my
airplane partner and was gracious enough to describe his recent forced
landing in a lot of detail for me, and said I could make a post about it
to the Matronics list. AirCrafters wasn't involved in his build in any
way, except that Jerry got a ride from my partner a few years ago and
decided to build based partially on that experience. =46rom my notes:
>
> Jerry had been flying his plane for one week. It was his fourth
flight with six hours on the Hobbs. He had flown for two hours the day
before. His habit had been to decowl after every flight to look for
trouble. He landed at two airports in his test area and practiced some
steep turns. He departed Aqua Caliente (L54) and climbed to 8500 feet.
Note that the terrain in the area (33 00.143, -116 42.912) includes
very little flat land, peaks above 6000 feet, and deep canyons. He was
headed back to his test base, Ramona airport (RNM), when he noticed oil
pressure dropping. The plane is equipped with a 3-screen Garmin G3X
panel, which includes a complete engine monitor.
>
> He said at first he thought the reading was erroneous, but it kept
dropping evenly. 20 miles from RNM he called the tower and declared an
emergency. There was no smell of oil and no visible oil leak. As the
pressure went to 0 his RPM rose, since the governor had no oil to work
with, and at that point he knew he had a true emergency.
>
> 17 miles from Ramona, the engine seized and stopped.
>
> He slowed to a good glide speed and being already on frequency, he
requested vectors to anything flat. He was given a heading to Flying T
Ranch but realized immediately he couldn't glide that far. Just ahead
he could see a deep North-South canyon (San Diego River). He estimated
he could glide into it but not over it. Opting not to glide to the
bottom of a rocky canyon, he turned south to parallel the canyon rim.
He saw a road (Eagle Peak Rd.) and followed it south. On seeing a few
parked cars, he picked the most gentle hillside and glided into some low
brush, uphill, with flaps down at 50-55 knots.
>
> The nose gear tore off almost immediately. He later found it sticking
out of the ground =93like a plumber's water pipe=94. He noted that his
406 MHz ELT had activated. He was concerned that the authorities would
call his home looking for him, only to reach his wife who didn't know
what was going on. He got out and attempted a call to Ramona on a
handheld. This part is cool=97an RV-4 in the area had heard his
distress call and headed his way. The -4 found him and was able to
relay some info from Jerry to Ramona, and pass on the exact location to
ATC. It took a hiker with a smartphone to get a text message to his
wife, however, right after the Air Force called her. The fire
department arrived 45 minutes after landing and gave him a ride back to
town.
>
> In Jerry's estimation, the airframe is most likely destroyed. He said
there were buckles in the sheet metal in many places, including the
tunnel and the panel (wow!). But he said over and over that he thought
Van's designed a great plane that protected him when he needed it, bent
where it should have and stayed together where it had to.
>
> This was his third engine from Aerosport Power. He's a repeat
offender having built a Murphy Moose and a -6A. He put 1600 hours on
his last RV. All the oil was concentrated on the right side but he
hasn't been able to determine yet what happened. If I hear I'll try to
post any news.
>
> Personally, I think he did a great job flying, navigating, and
communicating, in that order. He took appropriate action, slowed to
glide speed, didn't stall too high, he found a place to land, and he
managed to be found by ground, air, and space. And he walked away.
Good job!
>
> Dave Saylor
> 831-750-0284 CL
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Dave Saylor
<dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jerry Jackson came to our shop before he started building a 10. He
already holds a trans-con record in a 6. Very nice guy and seemed
really competent.
>
> Dave Saylor
> 831-750-0284 CL
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Robin Marks <robin@painttheweb.com>
wrote:
> Certificate Issue Date 11/27/2012
>
>
>
> Serial Number 41147
>
>
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of rv10flyer
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 12:08 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Another RV-10 down?
>
>
>
<wayne.gillispie@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> N262NJ.
>
>
>
> --------
>
> Wayne G.
>
> 12/01/2011
>
> TT= 95
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391742#391742
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==================== bsp; -
The RV10-List Email Forum - nd much much more:
tronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ==========
========== bsp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - eb
Forums! .matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ========
============ bsp; - List Contribution Web
Site - o:p> bsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
tronics.com/contribution"> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----
>
> No virus found in this message.
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
> - Release Date: 01/03/13
>
>
>
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cowl Replacement Update |
Robin... Wow, pretty cool. I think i spoke with Bryan at Independence
last year. He and the owner were showing the RV-10 prototype just back
from the painter. Unfortunately, they didn't make it in time for
Oshkosh. However, their -10 was probably the most modified -10 i have
ever seen or heard of yet. I had never heard of Showplanes before, so i
was quite surprised to see so many great mods i had never heard of. I
could have easily spent another 10 years building if i had known. ;)
Oh well, back to my plain jane airplane. :D
Jae
--
#40533 RV-10
First flight 10/19/2011
Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011
do not archive
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Another RV-10 down? |
Unlike some other '10 accidents Jerry did everything right. I recall
doing the engine review by pulling the cowl after every flight and
thinking it might be overkill, looks like Jerry did the same thing, so
whatever caused that loss of oil pressure happened quickly and without
any sign of it in his last inspection, recall that we can fly these
planes with as a little as 2.75 quarts of oil, so at least 6 quarts
drained out quickly (if that is what happened). Much can be learned from
what happened. BTW, I flew into aqua caliente once, and only once, swore
I would never go back there again. (gas was .15c cheaper a gallon) I got
beat up from the steep terrain, high cross winds and high oil
temperatures. What Jerry did in that terrain is amazing, one needs to
see how tough that terrain is to set a plane down anywhere to understand
the level of difficulty.
Pascal
From: Miller John
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Another RV-10 down?
Hope Jerry will forward to the list what happened to his engine......
grumpy
N184JM
do not archive
On Jan 10, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Dave Saylor wrote:
I spoke to Jerry Jackson on the phone today. He's a friend of my
airplane partner and was gracious enough to describe his recent forced
landing in a lot of detail for me, and said I could make a post about it
to the Matronics list. AirCrafters wasn't involved in his build in any
way, except that Jerry got a ride from my partner a few years ago and
decided to build based partially on that experience. From my notes:
Jerry had been flying his plane for one week. It was his fourth
flight with six hours on the Hobbs. He had flown for two hours the day
before. His habit had been to decowl after every flight to look for
trouble. He landed at two airports in his test area and practiced some
steep turns. He departed Aqua Caliente (L54) and climbed to 8500 feet.
Note that the terrain in the area (33 00.143, -116 42.912) includes
very little flat land, peaks above 6000 feet, and deep canyons. He was
headed back to his test base, Ramona airport (RNM), when he noticed oil
pressure dropping. The plane is equipped with a 3-screen Garmin G3X
panel, which includes a complete engine monitor.
He said at first he thought the reading was erroneous, but it kept
dropping evenly. 20 miles from RNM he called the tower and declared an
emergency. There was no smell of oil and no visible oil leak. As the
pressure went to 0 his RPM rose, since the governor had no oil to work
with, and at that point he knew he had a true emergency.
17 miles from Ramona, the engine seized and stopped.
He slowed to a good glide speed and being already on frequency, he
requested vectors to anything flat. He was given a heading to Flying T
Ranch but realized immediately he couldn't glide that far. Just ahead
he could see a deep North-South canyon (San Diego River). He estimated
he could glide into it but not over it. Opting not to glide to the
bottom of a rocky canyon, he turned south to parallel the canyon rim.
He saw a road (Eagle Peak Rd.) and followed it south. On seeing a few
parked cars, he picked the most gentle hillside and glided into some low
brush, uphill, with flaps down at 50-55 knots.
The nose gear tore off almost immediately. He later found it sticking
out of the ground =93like a plumber's water pipe=94. He noted that his
406 MHz ELT had activated. He was concerned that the authorities would
call his home looking for him, only to reach his wife who didn't know
what was going on. He got out and attempted a call to Ramona on a
handheld. This part is cool=97an RV-4 in the area had heard his
distress call and headed his way. The -4 found him and was able to
relay some info from Jerry to Ramona, and pass on the exact location to
ATC. It took a hiker with a smartphone to get a text message to his
wife, however, right after the Air Force called her. The fire
department arrived 45 minutes after landing and gave him a ride back to
town.
In Jerry's estimation, the airframe is most likely destroyed. He said
there were buckles in the sheet metal in many places, including the
tunnel and the panel (wow!). But he said over and over that he thought
Van's designed a great plane that protected him when he needed it, bent
where it should have and stayed together where it had to.
This was his third engine from Aerosport Power. He's a repeat
offender having built a Murphy Moose and a -6A. He put 1600 hours on
his last RV. All the oil was concentrated on the right side but he
hasn't been able to determine yet what happened. If I hear I'll try to
post any news.
Personally, I think he did a great job flying, navigating, and
communicating, in that order. He took appropriate action, slowed to
glide speed, didn't stall too high, he found a place to land, and he
managed to be found by ground, air, and space. And he walked away.
Good job!
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Dave Saylor
<dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com> wrote:
Jerry Jackson came to our shop before he started building a 10. He
already holds a trans-con record in a 6. Very nice guy and seemed
really competent.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Robin Marks <robin@painttheweb.com>
wrote:
Certificate Issue Date 11/27/2012
Serial Number 41147
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of rv10flyer
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 12:08 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Another RV-10 down?
<wayne.gillispie@gmail.com>
N262NJ.
--------
Wayne G.
12/01/2011
TT= 95
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391742#391742
==================== bsp;
- The RV10-List Email Forum - nd much much more:
tronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
==================== bsp;
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - eb Forums!
.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
==================== bsp; -
List Contribution Web Site - o:p> bsp; -Matt
Dralle, List Admin. tronics.com/contribution">
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
====================
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
- Release Date: 01/03/13
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
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 |
|
| Subject: | Cowl Replacement Update |
Just to offer another opinion on the James Cowl and plenum...
I'm running a stock IO-540 from Van's with the Hartzell BA prop, a single
oil cooler (but not mounted like Van's suggests) and bottom cowl louvers
about the same area size as specified for the stock Van's cowl. I do not
have oil temp problems and control CHTs below 400 degrees. Comparing my
cruise and top speeds to Van's performance specifications I am enjoying
measurable gains (data run taken before recent rigging tweaks yielded 187kts
TAS, 6500', 2500 RPM, 23.3"MP - about 73% power). Tracking this discussion
on the list for a few years now it seems I have a much later cowl than Robin
as I did not have plenum alignment problems and started off with the larger
inlet rings.
The James Cowl is not magic. It offers reduced drag over the Van's cowl by
a smaller inlet area but (theoretically) more efficient use of the cooling
air that is taken in. The trade off is on a hot day I have to put the nose
down a little more on an extended climb (say 135 knots instead of the 120 I
use in my RV-8A). The set up does add significant work over the stock Van's
cowl. I decided to go down this path for the same reason it seems Robin
did; the positive James Cowl track record in 2 place RVs. When I ordered
mine Will James was straight with me on customer reports of heating problems
- and what action he took to address them. This was enough to mitigate my
concerns. The last time I checked however Will no longer offers the RV-10
cowl.
As Robin states the least risk, lowest work option is to stick with the
stock Van's cowl. My decision tree was biased toward fuel efficient cross
country performance. With just 60 hours and only one long cross country, I
am pleased with the results. I've had the plane down for the holidays to
back fit the ADSB receiver and to work the gripe list but this weekend it
comes back out of the hangar. It's a shame the day job keeps getting in the
way of flying.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:14 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Cowl Replacement Update
I originally placed the SJ cowl on the -10 based on the 2 place RV fleet
history with the SJ unit. I was probably the 3rd -10 SJ cowl flying.
Unfortunately the SJ -10 cowl well documented problems meant that I needed
to replace the cowl on my flying -10. The smart move would have been to go
with the proven factory cowl. It does everything you need it to do and there
are 350 other -10 pilots you can have something in common with when
installing the Vans cowl. When my 8A came on line it was time to replace the
-10 cowl. I opted for the new cowl even though I will most likely be the
first flying production Showplanes -10 cowl because the builder has a long
history of RV aftermarket product development and I had been in discussions
with Bryan for about 2 years tracking his progress. He is extremely
methodical in his development approach vs. just blowing up a smaller cowl
and plenum hoping it works. My prior cowl & plenum were sold as a set
intended to be used together but even a!
basic measurement like the inlet holes weren't aligned. That should have
been a warning to me but I already had started the assembly. Bryan on the
other hand had done so much R&D and his goal was to develop a "no
compromises" cowl. A cowl that can fly with the standard Vans oil cooler on
the wedge with no added louvers and cobbled together solutions required.
When it came time I decided to support a builder & designer that gave great
care in his development. I can say the quality of fiberglass far exceeds
anything ever shipped from Vans.
Long story / short. The smartest solution would have been the Standard Vans
cowl and it will remain so for most builders. But this cowl is great looking
and works with the FM200 & FM300 so I am giving it a try. That is why I fly
in the Experimental category for gosh sakes. Of course the first 325 hours I
flew in the Disgruntled category but hopefully this new cowl will resolve
those issues. The rest of the plane is a dream to own & fly.
Robin
RV-4 Sold
RV-6A Sold
RV-10 Flying
RV-8A Flying
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Greenley
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 2:24 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Cowl Replacement Update
--> <wgreenley@gmail.com>
9-12 months from needing to order a cowl. This is a new area for me, what is
the reason for using the showplanes cowl over vans regular cowl?
Bill Greenley
RV-10 builder
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Cowl Replacement Update
Ralph,
This cowl replaces the SJ cowl and plenum. Adios!
This is the new Showplanes and intake system for the FM300. No Plenum for
me ever again.
If one were to visit the Showplane website you can see the induction system
from the front view. Basically the bottom quarter of each inlet is dedicated
to the FI induction system.
Robin
"Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net> wrote:
--> <recapen@earthlink.net>
Is this a new SJ RV10 cowl? I don't see it on their website....
Would like to see a front view of the dual fiberglass intake runners.
Guessing you're not using a plenum.....
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel pump use |
Boy are you confused. The Cessna 177RG for a long time was the only
Bendix fuel injected, Lycoming engined high wing Cessna. I haven't
looked at later models that got Lycoming engines, but there is no
question that your high wing will NOT produce the fuel pressure needed
for full power without a boost pump. Period.
The models you cite are all carbureted, and most do not have a boost
pump or mechanical pump because it isn't needed as it takes almost no
pressure to feed fuel past the needle valve when the fuel in bowl drops
and lets the valve open. Totally different than the Bendix fuel
injection that requires nearly 15 psi to allow for full power, which you
won't get from a wing that is only 6 ft above the wheels and much less
above the fuel injection servo, and probably only 2 ft or less above it
in a 15 degree pitch attitude.
That Cessna is idiotic enough to not change their POH after there have
been enough documented cases of mechanical fuel pump failure that
resulted in an AD on Lycoming high pressure mechanical pumps, is simply
negligence on Cessna's part, and yes, if it came to testifying at a
litigation trial, that is exactly what I would say.
Cessna in the early 210s also did not recognize the problem and didn't
even put in boost pumps adequate to run the engine after mechanical pump
failure.
All you are doing is pointing out the deficiencies of the 38 year old
POH. It also has no emergency checklist items to restore power before
reaching cruise altitude. How dumb is that? You aren't going to switch
on boost pump, switch tanks and check mags for both until you are at the
leisure of cruise altitude if the engine quits at 2000 ft????? Yes, I
would ignore the POH and use the boost pump for takeoff and landing,
just as the low wing planes with the same engine and injection system
recommend, because the wing position can't make enough a difference to
generate the pressure needed. Would you rather follow POH and risk an
off airport landing if your mechanical pump fails at 100 ft in the air,
or be more informed and keep flying until you are at altitude you can
return to runway when engine quits as you turn off the boost pump at
above 1000ft? Since I saw a 210 totaled for that exact reason 10 days
ago, I know my choice.
Kelly
On 1/10/2013 3:50 PM, William Curtis wrote:
> Agreed, which is why I prefaced most by specifying "fuel injected high
> wing." The high wing Cessna 150/152 that I trained in also did not
> have boost pumps. Most high wing carbureted engine aircraft can and do
> run perfectly fine full power with only gravity feeding the fuel.
>
> I know we are "out in the weeds" on this thread now but I'll restate
> my original statement with clarification and expansion-- I hope:
>
> -In the case of the RV10 with a Lycoming fuel injected engine, follow
> the Vans suggested recommendation of *running the boost pump during
> takeoff and landing*s. This is normal procedure for most low wing
> aircraft.
>
> -For *high wing fuel injected* Cessnas, all POH that I have seen DO
> NOT indicate running the fuel pump during takeoff and landings.
>
> -Many, if not all, *high wing **carbureted *aircraft, including the
> Cessna 150/152/172, DO NOT specify in the POH running the boost pump
> during takeoff and landings.
>
> W.
>
> On Jan 10, 2013, at 16:51, Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net
> <mailto:deej@deej.net>> wrote:
>
>> <mailto:deej@deej.net>>
>>
>> On 01/10/2013 04:30 PM, William Curtis wrote:
>>
>>> I don't
>>> think anyone has said or would think an engine would "run properly" with
>>> fuel fed only with gravity
>>
>>
>> This is exactly what I am saying - my Glastar has never had any
>> kind of
>> fuel pump installed, mechanical or electrical, and it runs just fine
>> with gravity fed only to a carb.
>>
>> I've been told there are older certified aircraft that are setup the
>> same way, but I don't have any specific references to share.
>>
>> -Dj
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
>> Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
>> Glastar Flyer N866RH -
>> http://deej.net/glastar/<========================== - The
>> RV10-List
>> Emailnics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List====================================================; -
>> List Contribution Web Site
>> -*http://www.m=================================================
>>
>>
>>
>> *
> *
> *
>
>
> *
> *
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.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: Antenna Opinions, experiance and thoughts appreciated |
Well, whatever you are saving by using an Archer antenna for com, you
are losing in both cost of coax and in performance. A good external com
antenna may cost you 50-70 more, but will need 1/2 the coax to reach it,
give you double the reception/transmission range. Also, having wingtip
antennas precludes using any metallic variety of paint on the wingtips,
and makes them vulnerable to any noise the nav/strobe lights generate.
IIRC some folks have had some RF noise issues with the AeroLED lights,
but could be wrong. Yes, the external antenna might cost you .5 kts in
cruise speed, but good rigging will do more for you than any antenna
drag reduction efforts.
Kelly
On 1/10/2013 5:45 PM, Terry Moushon wrote:
>
> I am about to start my RV10 wings... I plan to use Pulsar NS90 wingtip lights
and Duckworth 35W HID landing lights. My plan is to install an Archer design
communication antenna in the right wing and an Archer design antenna in the left
which would be split for both VOR and Glideslope. All will be tied together
with RG-58C/U. My question is simple. Do these components play well together
given their close proximity? Any suggestions?
>
> Terry
> Builder #41393
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
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! --
|