Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:38 AM - Re: Re: Another RV-10 down? (Richard McBride)
2. 04:55 AM - Re: Re: Another RV-10 down? (Richard McBride)
3. 06:43 AM - Re: Re: Another RV-10 down? (Seano)
4. 06:55 AM - Re: Re: Another RV-10 down? (Kelly McMullen)
5. 07:28 AM - Re: Re: Another RV-10 down? (Tim Olson)
6. 08:31 AM - Re: Antenna Opinions, experiance and thoughts appreciated (Bill Watson)
7. 08:33 AM - Re: Re: Another RV-10 down? (Bill Watson)
8. 09:03 AM - Re: Re: Another RV-10 down? (Dave Saylor)
9. 09:05 AM - Re: Fuel pump use (William Curtis)
10. 09:15 AM - Re: Another RV-10 down? (rv10flyer)
11. 10:37 AM - Re: Cowl Replacement Update (Robin Marks)
12. 11:05 AM - Re: Cowl Replacement Update (Bob Turner)
13. 11:23 AM - Re: Cowl Replacement Update (Carl Froehlich)
14. 11:24 AM - Re: Re: Cowl Replacement Update (Robin Marks)
15. 11:52 AM - Re: Antenna Opinions, experiance and thoughts appreciated (Rob Kochman)
16. 01:09 PM - Re: Cowl Replacement Update (Robin Marks)
17. 02:59 PM - Re: Antenna Opinions, experiance and thoughts appreciated (Bob Turner)
18. 03:30 PM - Re: Re: Antenna Opinions, experiance and thoughts appreciated (Rob Kochman)
19. 04:19 PM - Re: Re: Antenna Opinions, experiance and thoughts appreciated (Robin Marks)
20. 04:51 PM - Re: Re: Antenna Opinions, experience and thoughts appreciated (Carl Froehlich)
21. 06:32 PM - Re: Fuel pump use (Kelly McMullen)
22. 09:14 PM - Re: Fuel pump use (Seano)
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: Another RV-10 down? |
But did you notice where his engine came from?
Rick
On Jan 10, 2013, at 10:15 PM, Pascal <rv10flyer@live.com> wrote:
> Unlike some other =9310 accidents Jerry did everything right. I reca
ll doing the engine review by pulling the cowl after every flight and thinki
ng it might be overkill, looks like Jerry did the same thing, so whatever ca
used that loss of oil pressure happened quickly and without any sign of it i
n his last inspection, recall that we can fly these planes with as a little a
s 2.75 quarts of oil, so at least 6 quarts drained out quickly (if that is w
hat 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 cros
s 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
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> 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 airplan
e 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 Matronic
s list. AirCrafters wasn't involved in his build in any way, except that Je
rry got a ride from my partner a few years ago and decided to build based pa
rtially on that experience. =46rom my notes:
>>
>> Jerry had been flying his plane for one week. It was his fourth flight w
ith 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 depart
ed Aqua Caliente (L54) and climbed to 8500 feet. Note that the terrain in t
he area (33 00.143, -116 42.912) includes very little flat land, peaks ab
ove 6000 feet, and deep canyons. He was headed back to his test base, Ramon
a airport (RNM), when he noticed oil pressure dropping. The plane is equipp
ed with a 3-screen Garmin G3X panel, which includes a complete engine monito
r.
>>
>> He said at first he thought the reading was erroneous, but it kept droppi
ng 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 t
o 0 his RPM rose, since the governor had no oil to work with, and at that po
int 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 reques
ted vectors to anything flat. He was given a heading to Flying T Ranch but r
ealized immediately he couldn't glide that far. Just ahead he could see a d
eep North-South canyon (San Diego River). He estimated he could glide into i
t but not over it. Opting not to glide to the bottom of a rocky canyon, he t
urned south to parallel the canyon rim. He saw a road (Eagle Peak Rd.) and f
ollowed it south. On seeing a few parked cars, he picked the most gentle hi
llside and glided into some low brush, uphill, with flaps down at 50-55 knot
s.
>>
>> The nose gear tore off almost immediately. He later found it sticking ou
t of the ground =9Clike a plumber's water pipe=9D. He noted tha
t his 406 MHz ELT had activated. He was concerned that the authorities woul
d 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. Th
is part is cool=94an RV-4 in the area had heard his distress call and h
eaded his way. The -4 found him and was able to relay some info from Jerry t
o Ramona, and pass on the exact location to ATC. It took a hiker with a sma
rtphone to get a text message to his wife, however, right after the Air Forc
e 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 th
ere 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 ha
ve and stayed together where it had to.
>>
>> This was his third engine from Aerosport Power. He's a repeat offender h
aving built a Murphy Moose and a -6A. He put 1600 hours on his last RV. Al
l the oil was concentrated on the right side but he hasn't been able to dete
rmine yet what happened. If I hear I'll try to post any news.
>>
>> Personally, I think he did a great job flying, navigating, and communicat
ing, 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 g
round, 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@gmai
l.com> wrote:
>>> Jerry Jackson came to our shop before he started building a 10. He alre
ady holds a trans-con record in a 6. Very nice guy and seemed really compet
ent.
>>>
>>> Dave Saylor
>>> 831-750-0284 CL
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Robin Marks <robin@painttheweb.com> wrot
e:
>>>> 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-serv
er@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; - Th
e 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> b
sp; -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
>>
>
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
Message 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: Another RV-10 down? |
Please disregard my previous post. I was having a conversation off the list
but inadvertently sent it to the group. It's out of context and in no way a
negative statement. Sorry.
Rick
On Jan 11, 2013, at 5:37 AM, Richard McBride <rick.mcbride@me.com> wrote:
> But did you notice where his engine came from?
>
> Rick
>
> On Jan 10, 2013, at 10:15 PM, Pascal <rv10flyer@live.com> wrote:
>
>> Unlike some other =9310 accidents Jerry did everything right. I rec
all doing the engine review by pulling the cowl after every flight and think
ing it might be overkill, looks like Jerry did the same thing, so whatever c
aused that loss of oil pressure happened quickly and without any sign of it i
n his last inspection, recall that we can fly these planes with as a little a
s 2.75 quarts of oil, so at least 6 quarts drained out quickly (if that is w
hat 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 cros
s 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
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> 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 airpla
ne 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 Matronic
s list. AirCrafters wasn't involved in his build in any way, except that Je
rry got a ride from my partner a few years ago and decided to build based pa
rtially on that experience. =46rom my notes:
>>>
>>> Jerry had been flying his plane for one week. It was his fourth flight w
ith 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 depart
ed Aqua Caliente (L54) and climbed to 8500 feet. Note that the terrain in t
he area (33 00.143, -116 42.912) includes very little flat land, peaks ab
ove 6000 feet, and deep canyons. He was headed back to his test base, Ramon
a airport (RNM), when he noticed oil pressure dropping. The plane is equipp
ed with a 3-screen Garmin G3X panel, which includes a complete engine monito
r.
>>>
>>> He said at first he thought the reading was erroneous, but it kept dropp
ing 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 t
o 0 his RPM rose, since the governor had no oil to work with, and at that po
int 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 reque
sted 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 int
o it but not over it. Opting not to glide to the bottom of a rocky canyon, h
e turned south to parallel the canyon rim. He saw a road (Eagle Peak Rd.) a
nd followed it south. On seeing a few parked cars, he picked the most gentl
e hillside and glided into some low brush, uphill, with flaps down at 50-55 k
nots.
>>>
>>> The nose gear tore off almost immediately. He later found it sticking o
ut of the ground =9Clike a plumber's water pipe=9D. He noted th
at his 406 MHz ELT had activated. He was concerned that the authorities wou
ld call his home looking for him, only to reach his wife who didn't know wha
t was going on. He got out and attempted a call to Ramona on a handheld. T
his part is cool=94an RV-4 in the area had heard his distress call a
nd headed his way. The -4 found him and was able to relay some info from Je
rry 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 g
ave him a ride back to town.
>>>
>>> In Jerry's estimation, the airframe is most likely destroyed. He said t
here were buckles in the sheet metal in many places, including the tunnel an
d the panel (wow!). But he said over and over that he thought Van's designe
d a great plane that protected him when he needed it, bent where it should h
ave and stayed together where it had to.
>>>
>>> This was his third engine from Aerosport Power. He's a repeat offender h
aving built a Murphy Moose and a -6A. He put 1600 hours on his last RV. Al
l the oil was concentrated on the right side but he hasn't been able to dete
rmine yet what happened. If I hear I'll try to post any news.
>>>
>>> Personally, I think he did a great job flying, navigating, and communica
ting, in that order. He took appropriate action, slowed to glide speed, did
n't stall too high, he found a place to land, and he managed to be found by g
round, 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@gma
il.com> wrote:
>>>> Jerry Jackson came to our shop before he started building a 10. He alr
eady holds a trans-con record in a 6. Very nice guy and seemed really compe
tent.
>>>>
>>>> Dave Saylor
>>>> 831-750-0284 CL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Robin Marks <robin@painttheweb.com> wro
te:
>>>>> 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-ser
ver@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?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
m>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> N262NJ.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --------
>>>>>
>>>>> Wayne G.
>>>>>
>>>>> 12/01/2011
>>>>>
>>>>> TT= 95
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391742#391742
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ==================== bsp; - T
he RV10-List Email Forum - nd much much more: tronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Lis
t"> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List =========
=========== bsp; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - eb For
ums! .matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com =========
=========== bsp; - List Contribution Web Site - o:
p> bsp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin. tronics.com/contribut
ion"> 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.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
contribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>>
>>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Another RV-10 down? |
I actually thought the same thing, who wouldn't? It could have been a
lot of other connections or accessories so we will have to wait to see
what exactly happened. Just for reference, I have an Aerosport
IO-540-N1A5 with 300 hours. Tim O and Scott S have them too with over
800 hours each.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard McBride
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Another RV-10 down?
Please disregard my previous post. I was having a conversation off
the list but inadvertently sent it to the group. It's out of context
and in no way a negative statement. Sorry.
Rick
On Jan 11, 2013, at 5:37 AM, Richard McBride <rick.mcbride@me.com>
wrote:
But did you notice where his engine came from?
Rick
On Jan 10, 2013, at 10:15 PM, Pascal <rv10flyer@live.com> wrote:
Unlike some other =9310 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
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
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 =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
-----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
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
=========
://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
=========
cs.com
=========
matronics.com/contribution
=========
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Another RV-10 down? |
Good point. Just reinforces that we need to be certain of every fluid
connection to the engine, every connection among the flight controls, and
such critical items as part of the original certification inspection, and
then every opportunity we have to inspect them. Equally important to
install the restrictors that Vans supplies for oil and fuel pressure
sensing lines.
We will have to wait for whatever investigation can be done on his plane
and engine to know what happened and whether it is something we should all
look for or not.
Kelly
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Seano <sean@braunandco.com> wrote:
> **
> I actually thought the same thing, who wouldn't? It could have been a lo
t
> of other connections or accessories so we will have to wait to see what
> exactly happened. Just for reference, I have an Aerosport IO-540-N1A5 wi
th
> 300 hours. Tim O and Scott S have them too with over 800 hours each.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Richard McBride <rick.mcbride@me.com>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Friday, January 11, 2013 5:51 AM
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: Another RV-10 down?
>
> Please disregard my previous post. I was having a conversation off the
> list but inadvertently sent it to the group. It's out of context and in
no
> way a negative statement. Sorry.
>
> Rick
>
> On Jan 11, 2013, at 5:37 AM, Richard McBride <rick.mcbride@me.com> wrote:
>
> But did you notice where his engine came from?
>
> Rick
>
> On Jan 10, 2013, at 10:15 PM, Pascal <rv10flyer@live.com> wrote:
>
> Unlike some other '10 accidents Jerry did everything right. I recall
> doing the engine review by pulling the cowl after every flight and thinki
ng
> 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 (i
f
> that is what happened). Much can be learned from what happened. BTW, I fl
ew
> 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 th
at
> 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 <gengrumpy@aol.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:12 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *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 o
f
> a rocky canyon, he turned south to parallel the canyon rim. He saw a roa
d
> (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 ou
t
> of the ground =93like a plumber's water pipe=94. He noted that his 406 M
Hz 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, an
d
> 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 tunne
l
> 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 i
t
> 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 glid
e
> 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 reall
y
>> 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 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
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>*
>
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
*
>
> *
>
> =========
> ://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ==========cs.com
> ==========matronics.com/contribution
> =========
> *
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Another RV-10 down? |
Actually, Scott and I are over 900. :)
One of the reasons we went with Aerosport was the positive feedback
on reliability. I actually trust them very much and have had
nothing but a positive experience from them. I get the feeling that
they will bend over backwards and go further than they even
should be willing to, to support your engine. They've sent me
seals and gaskets that I should have paid for, for free, and
things like that. Over and above.
I can tell you that on my engine, my experience with those
copper crush gaskets hasn't always been positive. It seems that
over time those can be prone to leakage. I had a leak on the
right side of my engine that was fixed by replacing the copper
crush gasket under my oil pressure adjuster on the right side.
Certainly this isn't absolving the engine builder from
any possibility of improper torquing or a faulty component
causing an issue...nobody knows what happened yet. But,
I'm just saying, I think there are far more happy customers
of this one than disappointed ones. If you really want
an eye opener, read the Lancair list for threads on the
Performance Engines (Continental models) that they have, and
what kinds of issues they have. That can be scary.
It will be interesting to see what was the cause on this
one....valve cover gasket? Copper crush gasket? Oil return
line? Could have been a bunch of things....could also be
an automatic quick/drain.
We'll see.
Tim
On 1/11/2013 8:42 AM, Seano wrote:
> I actually thought the same thing, who wouldn't? It could have been a
> lot of other connections or accessories so we will have to wait to see
> what exactly happened. Just for reference, I have an Aerosport
> IO-540-N1A5 with 300 hours. Tim O and Scott S have them too with over
> 800 hours each.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Richard McBride <mailto:rick.mcbride@me.com>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, January 11, 2013 5:51 AM
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: Another RV-10 down?
>
> Please disregard my previous post. I was having a conversation off
> the list but inadvertently sent it to the group. It's out of
> context and in no way a negative statement. Sorry.
>
> Rick
>
> On Jan 11, 2013, at 5:37 AM, Richard McBride <rick.mcbride@me.com
> <mailto:rick.mcbride@me.com>> wrote:
>
>> But did you notice where his engine came from?
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> On Jan 10, 2013, at 10:15 PM, Pascal <rv10flyer@live.com
>> <mailto:rv10flyer@live.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <mailto:gengrumpy@aol.com>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:12 PM
>>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
>>> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: Another RV-10 down?
>>> Hope Jerry will forward to the list what happened to his
>>> engine......
>>> grumpy
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: Antenna Opinions, experiance and thoughts appreciated |
What Kelly and Bob said.
I originally had the two Archers, the Duckworths and some no longer
available LED tip lights. Can't speak to interference but I did do
everything in the Archer installs to optimize their performance.
The Archer Nav works fine, especially in the GPS era we're in. Tim and
perhaps others have tested and documented Archer Nav performance
relative to standard external Nav antennas. They are sub-optimal but
work acceptably. I too have two Nav radios attached to the single
antenna - they both work acceptably for nav and approach work. I'd do
it again.
The Archer Comm antenna is another matter. I have two comm radios and
treated the G430 comm and Archer combination as my "backup" with an SL30
and a bottom mounted whip as my primary comm. I knew long before I flew
that I would prefer the SL30 for most communications. I prefer to stick
to navigation-only on the G430 - just a personal preference and perhaps
a lack of synapses.
This primary/backup thing worked fine as long as both were working. I'd
use the backup G430 before takeoff for ATIS and Clearances. Sometimes
I'd plug in ground control at a busy airport. Though others have
reported some blanking of the signal if the Archer wing tip was
oppposite the ATC antenna, I never experienced even a "say again" when
on the ground or close-in to an airport. In fact, I occassionally used
the Archer in cruise without much of a thought. But it was clear that
the SL30/whip was better.
On my longest trip, at the furthest possible point away from home base
(8nc8 to KSDL), my SL30 got zapped by some convective electrical
activity. (Perversely, it only partially failed and took unnecessary
time and $$$ to fix but that's another story).
Immediately going to my 'backup' radio and antenna, I found my
communications garbled and inconsistent as I entered the Phoenix Class B
while exiting an electrically active snow squall line. Ouch.
After doing a little local flying with the backup, it seemed to work
okay in most situations. It probably had a little less range and
sometimes was a bit garbled. But notably, I would get some "say
agains" as I manuevered. This would be fine for a VFR leg or two to
get home but not acceptable for 3 long IFR legs through busy airspace.
The point I want to make is that the Archer Comm works okay as a comm2
as long as you have a comm1. Or for perhaps for casual VFR work. But
for me, it didn't work as part of a "backup" comm2 when backup function
was truly needed. And that's why I put two comms in.
I suggest sticking 1 or 2 whips on the bottom. There's plenty of room
and lot's of advice here on where and how to install them. People have
reported some possible blanking of the signals by the fuselage when on
the ground. I've never experienced that. In any case, that's manageable.
Without facts or experience to back me up..... Crikey, use the 400!!
or not.
(Thanks again Kelly for your help out in Phoenix!!)
Bill "prepped to do some proficiency work in some actual but the runway
got too wet" Watson
N215TG
Durham NC
On 1/10/2013 7:45 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
>
>
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: Another RV-10 down? |
Well, we know he didn't leave the dip stick out. You know about that
almost before you get off the ground.
Bill "don't ask" Watson
>
> It will be interesting to see what was the cause on this
> one....valve cover gasket? Copper crush gasket? Oil return
> line? Could have been a bunch of things....could also be
> an automatic quick/drain.
>
> We'll see.
> Tim
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: Another RV-10 down? |
Jerry didn't seem to have any lack of faith in Aerosport. That says a lot.
If I had to order an engine today, that's where I'd go.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, Scott and I are over 900. :)
>
> One of the reasons we went with Aerosport was the positive feedback
> on reliability. I actually trust them very much and have had
> nothing but a positive experience from them. I get the feeling that
> they will bend over backwards and go further than they even
> should be willing to, to support your engine. They've sent me
> seals and gaskets that I should have paid for, for free, and
> things like that. Over and above.
>
> I can tell you that on my engine, my experience with those
> copper crush gaskets hasn't always been positive. It seems that
> over time those can be prone to leakage. I had a leak on the
> right side of my engine that was fixed by replacing the copper
> crush gasket under my oil pressure adjuster on the right side.
>
> Certainly this isn't absolving the engine builder from
> any possibility of improper torquing or a faulty component
> causing an issue...nobody knows what happened yet. But,
> I'm just saying, I think there are far more happy customers
> of this one than disappointed ones. If you really want
> an eye opener, read the Lancair list for threads on the
> Performance Engines (Continental models) that they have, and
> what kinds of issues they have. That can be scary.
>
> It will be interesting to see what was the cause on this
> one....valve cover gasket? Copper crush gasket? Oil return
> line? Could have been a bunch of things....could also be
> an automatic quick/drain.
>
> We'll see.
> Tim
>
>
> On 1/11/2013 8:42 AM, Seano wrote:
>
>> I actually thought the same thing, who wouldn't? It could have been a
>> lot of other connections or accessories so we will have to wait to see
>> what exactly happened. Just for reference, I have an Aerosport
>> IO-540-N1A5 with 300 hours. Tim O and Scott S have them too with over
>> 800 hours each.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Richard McBride <mailto:rick.mcbride@me.com>
>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.**com<rv10
-list@matronics.com>
>> >
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 11, 2013 5:51 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: Another RV-10 down?
>>
>> Please disregard my previous post. I was having a conversation off
>> the list but inadvertently sent it to the group. It's out of
>> context and in no way a negative statement. Sorry.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> On Jan 11, 2013, at 5:37 AM, Richard McBride <rick.mcbride@me.com
>> <mailto:rick.mcbride@me.com>> wrote:
>>
>> But did you notice where his engine came from?
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>> On Jan 10, 2013, at 10:15 PM, Pascal <rv10flyer@live.com
>>> <mailto:rv10flyer@live.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Unlike some other =9310 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 <mailto:gengrumpy@aol.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:12 PM
>>>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.**com<rv
10-list@matronics.com>
>>>> >
>>>> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Re: Another RV-10 down?
>>>> Hope Jerry will forward to the list what happened to his
>>>> engine......
>>>> grumpy
>>>>
>>>
=====**===================
===========**=
ronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
=====**===================
===========**=
=====**===================
===========**=
com/contribution>
=====**===================
===========**=
>
>
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: Fuel pump use |
Kelly,
I see my attempts at clarification has failed miserably. As this is an RV10 l
ist, I won't drag this out further. I would suggest however that you review s
ection 3 (Emergency Procedures) of the POH link I included previously and al
so my post(s) on exactly what I said about how much power is available follo
wing a mechanical fuel pump failure in each type of aircraft.
The only reason I responded to this thread initially was because you made th
e following statement:
You are correct. Every Lycoming powered fuel injected aircraft I have worked
on, with Bendix RSA injection called for pump on for takeoff and landing.
Since I knew this not to be the case, I sought to correct the statement. At t
his point I am unsure what you are still defending but alas, I will concede.
Lastly, I see you are now an accident investigator. Can you cite for me the 2
10 accident that you have concluded was brought down 10 days ago due to not r
unning the fuel pump on takeoff?
W.
On Jan 11, 2013, at 0:44, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>
> 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 w
ing 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 o
r mechanical pump because it isn't needed as it takes almost no pressure to f
eed fuel past the needle valve when the fuel in bowl drops and lets the valv
e open. Totally different than the Bendix fuel injection that requires nearl
y 15 psi to allow for full power, which you won't get from a wing that is on
ly 6 ft above the wheels and much less above the fuel injection servo, and p
robably 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 bee
n enough documented cases of mechanical fuel pump failure that resulted in a
n AD on Lycoming high pressure mechanical pumps, is simply negligence on Ces
sna'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 eve
n put in boost pumps adequate to run the engine after mechanical pump failur
e.
>
> 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 c
ruise altitude. How dumb is that? You aren't going to switch on boost pump, s
witch tanks and check mags for both until you are at the leisure of cruise a
ltitude if the engine quits at 2000 ft????? Yes, I would ignore the POH and u
se the boost pump for takeoff and landing, just as the low wing planes with t
he same engine and injection system recommend, because the wing position can
't make enough a difference to generate the pressure needed. Would you rathe
r follow POH and risk an off airport landing if your mechanical pump fails a
t 100 ft in the air, or be more informed and keep flying until you are at a
ltitude 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 da
ys 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 wi
ng." The high wing Cessna 150/152 that I trained in also did not have boost p
umps. Most high wing carbureted engine aircraft can and do run perfectly fin
e 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 o
riginal 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 i
ndicate running the fuel pump during takeoff and landings.
>>
>> -Many, if not all, *high wing **carbureted *aircraft, including the Cessn
a 150/152/172, DO NOT specify in the POH running the boost pump during takeo
ff and landings.
>>
>> W.
>>
>> On Jan 10, 2013, at 16:51, Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net <mailto:deej@deej.ne
t>> wrote:
>>
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" wit
h
>>>> fuel fed only with gravity
>>>
>>>
>>> This is exactly what I am saying - my Glastar has never had any kind o
f
>>> 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-L
ist Emailnics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV
10-List=======================
==========================
===; - List Contribution Web Site -*http://www.m======
==========================
=================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>> *
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>> *
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
>
>
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: Another RV-10 down? |
Did we ever find out what caused the hole in oil sump in Rck Gray's RV-10 emergency
landing and fire?
--------
Wayne G.
12/01/2011
TT= 95
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392075#392075
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: | Cowl Replacement Update |
Carl,
I would not necessarily dispute your observations. I just can't consistentl
y keep my cylinders under 400 F and I fly in CA often out of the San Fernan
do Valley. Just no way to fly the plane and not feel you are reducing the e
ngine life at those temps. Plus I could not fly LOP with the SJ cowl which
would have given my CHT's a rest for the bulk of each leg. The thought of l
anding at temp and a quick turnaround with a heat soaked engine makes me gr
oan for my Barrett special. I figured I could pay now or pay later. In gene
ral while 187 TAS at 2,500 RPM sounds good my long term preference is targe
ting 10 GPH, Low CHT's and an engine that makes it to 2,000 TBO.
Robin
[cid:image005.jpg@01CDEFE7.8BE00290]
[cid:image006.jpg@01CDEFE7.8BE00290]
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Froehlich
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:40 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 o
il cooler (but not mounted like Van's suggests) and bottom cowl louvers abo
ut 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 measurabl
e gains (data run taken before recent rigging tweaks yielded 187kts TAS, 65
00', 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 inl
et 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 nos
e 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 V
an's cowl. I decided to go down this path for the same reason it seems Rob
in did; the positive James Cowl track record in 2 place RVs. When I ordere
d mine Will James was straight with me on customer reports of heating probl
ems
- 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 sto
ck Van's cowl. My decision tree was biased toward fuel efficient cross cou
ntry 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 bac
k fit the ADSB receiver and to work the gripe list but this weekend it come
s back out of the hangar. It's a shame the day job keeps getting in the wa
y of flying.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ma
tronics.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
robin@painttheweb.com>>
I originally placed the SJ cowl on the -10 based on the 2 place RV fleet hi
story 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 ther
e are 350 other -10 pilots you can have something in common with when insta
lling 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 fi
rst flying production Showplanes -10 cowl because the builder has a long hi
story of RV aftermarket product development and I had been in discussions w
ith Bryan for about 2 years tracking his progress. He is extremely methodic
al in his development approach vs. just blowing up a smaller cowl and plenu
m 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 o
ther hand had done so much R&D and his goal was to develop a "no compromise
s" 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 a
nything 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 looki
ng 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 ho
urs I flew in the Disgruntled category but hopefully this new cowl will res
olve 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@ma
tronics.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<mailto:wgreenley@gmail.com>>
9-12 months from needing to order a cowl. This is a new area for me, what i
s 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@ma
tronics.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
robin@painttheweb.com>>
Ralph,
This cowl replaces the SJ cowl and plenum. Adios!
This is the new Showplanes and intake system for the FM300. No Plenum for m
e 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 dedicat
ed to the FI induction system.
Robin
"Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net<mailto:recapen@earthlink.net>> wrot
e:
--> <recapen@earthlink.net<mailto: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 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: Cowl Replacement Update |
How did the cowl affect the ability to fly LOP? Is this the odd air pressure on
the injector bleed holes issue?
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392082#392082
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: | Cowl Replacement Update |
Interesting that you were not able to run LOP. Even with mags I am able to
do that - and do so consistently. I do miss the eMag ignitions that I have
on my 8A as LOP operation is much better with them (and for all engine
operations for that matter). Maybe Brad will have the IO-540 ignition out
before to many more years.
I agree on the speed aspect. 10 GPH or so LOP is the 90% of the time flying
mode. The fuel save, range gain and engine life enhancement for the slight
cruise speed penalty makes this a simple choice.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 1:37 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Cowl Replacement Update
Carl,
I would not necessarily dispute your observations. I just can't consistently
keep my cylinders under 400 F and I fly in CA often out of the San Fernando
Valley. Just no way to fly the plane and not feel you are reducing the
engine life at those temps. Plus I could not fly LOP with the SJ cowl which
would have given my CHT's a rest for the bulk of each leg. The thought of
landing at temp and a quick turnaround with a heat soaked engine makes me
groan for my Barrett special. I figured I could pay now or pay later. In
general while 187 TAS at 2,500 RPM sounds good my long term preference is
targeting 10 GPH, Low CHT's and an engine that makes it to 2,000 TBO.
Robin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Froehlich
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:40 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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: <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>
owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[ <mailto: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
<mailto:robin@painttheweb.com> robin@painttheweb.com>
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: <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>
owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[ <mailto: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
--> < <mailto:wgreenley@gmail.com> 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: <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>
owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[ <mailto: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
<mailto:robin@painttheweb.com> robin@painttheweb.com>
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" < <mailto:recapen@earthlink.net> recapen@earthlink.net>
wrote:
--> < <mailto:recapen@earthlink.net> 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 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 |
Bob, It's been years since I addressed the issue so I don't want to tell you something
that is partially correct but not totally accurate. I have a feeling that
some of my temp issues and LOP issues had to do with such a minor difference
in top & bottom deck pressure which limited the amount of cooling air passing
through the cylinder fins.
I did however swap out my standard injectors to a Turbo Rail type of set up (AFP
Products) which helped but never got me balanced all the way to LOP flight w/o
a rough running engine. At that point I knew I was a year out from scrapping
the cowl all together so no further development was undertaken. Just too many
patches & band aids for me. Hopefully v.2.0 will work out better.
Robin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Turner
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 11:05 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Cowl Replacement Update
How did the cowl affect the ability to fly LOP? Is this the odd air pressure on
the injector bleed holes issue?
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392082#392082
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: Antenna Opinions, experiance and thoughts appreciated |
My suggestion is that if you're going to use the nav antenna to fly real
IFR with real approaches, get an externally-mounted antenna to ensure
maximum reception.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Terry Moushon <tmoushon@gmail.com> 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
>
>
--
Rob Kochman
RV-10 Flying since March 2011
Woodinville, WA
http://kochman.net/N819K
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 |
No LOP for me on the -10 with LOTS of R&D. My 8A flew LOP out of the box wi
th Mag/Pmag. I love my 4 cylinder Pmag. I get 152-157 KTAS on 6.2-6.7 GPH t
hat makes me very happy. Either side of 30 MPG. I have a 1 hour commute and
after my round trip I look in the tanks and there is lots of fuel remainin
g. Again very happy! RV-8A round trip ~13 Gallons LOP. Current RV-10 cowl R
OP round trip ~30 gallons.
I am near the top of the mythical list for a 6 cylinder Pmag. At this point
I am not sure I want one of the first units.
Robin
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Froehlich
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 11:23 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Cowl Replacement Update
Interesting that you were not able to run LOP. Even with mags I am able to
do that - and do so consistently. I do miss the eMag ignitions that I hav
e on my 8A as LOP operation is much better with them (and for all engine op
erations for that matter). Maybe Brad will have the IO-540 ignition out be
fore to many more years.
I agree on the speed aspect. 10 GPH or so LOP is the 90% of the time flyin
g mode. The fuel save, range gain and engine life enhancement for the slig
ht cruise speed penalty makes this a simple choice.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ma
tronics.com> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob
in Marks
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 1:37 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Cowl Replacement Update
Carl,
I would not necessarily dispute your observations. I just can't consistentl
y keep my cylinders under 400 F and I fly in CA often out of the San Fernan
do Valley. Just no way to fly the plane and not feel you are reducing the e
ngine life at those temps. Plus I could not fly LOP with the SJ cowl which
would have given my CHT's a rest for the bulk of each leg. The thought of l
anding at temp and a quick turnaround with a heat soaked engine makes me gr
oan for my Barrett special. I figured I could pay now or pay later. In gene
ral while 187 TAS at 2,500 RPM sounds good my long term preference is targe
ting 10 GPH, Low CHT's and an engine that makes it to 2,000 TBO.
Robin
[cid:image001.jpg@01CDEFFC.C1671DD0]
[cid:image002.jpg@01CDEFFC.C1671DD0]
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ma
tronics.com> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Car
l Froehlich
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:40 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 o
il cooler (but not mounted like Van's suggests) and bottom cowl louvers abo
ut 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 measurabl
e gains (data run taken before recent rigging tweaks yielded 187kts TAS, 65
00', 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 inl
et 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 nos
e 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 V
an's cowl. I decided to go down this path for the same reason it seems Rob
in did; the positive James Cowl track record in 2 place RVs. When I ordere
d mine Will James was straight with me on customer reports of heating probl
ems
- 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 sto
ck Van's cowl. My decision tree was biased toward fuel efficient cross cou
ntry 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 bac
k fit the ADSB receiver and to work the gripe list but this weekend it come
s back out of the hangar. It's a shame the day job keeps getting in the wa
y of flying.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@ma
tronics.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
robin@painttheweb.com>>
I originally placed the SJ cowl on the -10 based on the 2 place RV fleet hi
story 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 ther
e are 350 other -10 pilots you can have something in common with when insta
lling 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 fi
rst flying production Showplanes -10 cowl because the builder has a long hi
story of RV aftermarket product development and I had been in discussions w
ith Bryan for about 2 years tracking his progress. He is extremely methodic
al in his development approach vs. just blowing up a smaller cowl and plenu
m 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 o
ther hand had done so much R&D and his goal was to develop a "no compromise
s" 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 a
nything 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 looki
ng 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 ho
urs I flew in the Disgruntled category but hopefully this new cowl will res
olve 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@ma
tronics.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<mailto:wgreenley@gmail.com>>
9-12 months from needing to order a cowl. This is a new area for me, what i
s 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@ma
tronics.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
robin@painttheweb.com>>
Ralph,
This cowl replaces the SJ cowl and plenum. Adios!
This is the new Showplanes and intake system for the FM300. No Plenum for m
e 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 dedicat
ed to the FI induction system.
Robin
"Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net<mailto:recapen@earthlink.net>> wrot
e:
--> <recapen@earthlink.net<mailto: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: Antenna Opinions, experiance and thoughts appreciated |
Everyone has their own opinion. The Archer nav antenna - since it is well matched
to the VOR horizontal polarization - works almost as well as an external antenna.
I have never had an issue with it or an approach, whether ILS or VOR. The
only issue is enroute, where a cross fix more than 40 nm away might be hard
to get, if it's on the 'wrong' side of the airframe.
For me the VOR has become a backup, since I use the GPS as primary 99.9% of the
time. Besides, I'm always afraid I'll poke my eyes out on cat whiskers!
Also, I have Whelan strobes in the wing tip, no issues.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392089#392089
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: Antenna Opinions, experiance and thoughts appreciated |
The "cat whiskers" problem is no joke. I didn't think much of it when my
fuselage was on sawhorses, but once I got it up on the gear, I realized
it's right at little-kid-running-around eye height. I haven't heard of any
incidents, but I think if/when I go to airshows I'll bring a couple foam
clown noses or tennis balls to put on there.
-Rob
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> Everyone has their own opinion. The Archer nav antenna - since it is well
> matched to the VOR horizontal polarization - works almost as well as an
> external antenna. I have never had an issue with it or an approach, whether
> ILS or VOR. The only issue is enroute, where a cross fix more than 40 nm
> away might be hard to get, if it's on the 'wrong' side of the airframe.
> For me the VOR has become a backup, since I use the GPS as primary 99.9%
> of the time. Besides, I'm always afraid I'll poke my eyes out on cat
> whiskers!
>
> Also, I have Whelan strobes in the wing tip, no issues.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392089#392089
>
>
--
Rob Kochman
RV-10 Flying since March 2011
Woodinville, WA
http://kochman.net/N819K
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: Antenna Opinions, experiance and thoughts appreciated |
My painter puts blue tape streamers on the bent belly antennas so his dogs
don't run into them.
Robin
Rob Kochman <rv10rob@gmail.com> wrote:
The "cat whiskers" problem is no joke. I didn't think much of it when my f
uselage was on sawhorses, but once I got it up on the gear, I realized it's
right at little-kid-running-around eye height. I haven't heard of any inc
idents, but I think if/when I go to airshows I'll bring a couple foam clown
noses or tennis balls to put on there.
-Rob
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu<mailto:
bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>> wrote:
o:bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>>
Everyone has their own opinion. The Archer nav antenna - since it is well m
atched to the VOR horizontal polarization - works almost as well as an exte
rnal antenna. I have never had an issue with it or an approach, whether ILS
or VOR. The only issue is enroute, where a cross fix more than 40 nm away
might be hard to get, if it's on the 'wrong' side of the airframe.
For me the VOR has become a backup, since I use the GPS as primary 99.9% of
the time. Besides, I'm always afraid I'll poke my eyes out on cat whiskers
!
Also, I have Whelan strobes in the wing tip, no issues.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392089#392089
arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Rob Kochman
RV-10 Flying since March 2011
Woodinville, WA
http://kochman.net/N819K
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Opinions, experience and thoughts appreciated |
Yep - I put plastic hose with a red streamer on my belly antennas for the
dogs, and for me. They are real eye pokers at just the right height to
catch a dog, and me when I get carried away cleaning the belly and lean up
to reach something. Good reason by itself to steer away from VOR cat
whiskers.
In addition to the wingtip VOR antenna option, a simple dipole antenna the
attaches to the inside top of the windshield molding, feed with a coax line
running up the inside of the window brace tube, is electrically just as good
as a store bought external cat whisker antenna.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Antenna Opinions, experiance and thoughts
appreciated
My painter puts blue tape streamers on the bent belly antennas so his dogs
don't run into them.
Robin
Rob Kochman <rv10rob@gmail.com> wrote:
The "cat whiskers" problem is no joke. I didn't think much of it when my
fuselage was on sawhorses, but once I got it up on the gear, I realized it's
right at little-kid-running-around eye height. I haven't heard of any
incidents, but I think if/when I go to airshows I'll bring a couple foam
clown noses or tennis balls to put on there.
-Rob
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
Everyone has their own opinion. The Archer nav antenna - since it is well
matched to the VOR horizontal polarization - works almost as well as an
external antenna. I have never had an issue with it or an approach, whether
ILS or VOR. The only issue is enroute, where a cross fix more than 40 nm
away might be hard to get, if it's on the 'wrong' side of the airframe.
For me the VOR has become a backup, since I use the GPS as primary 99.9% of
the time. Besides, I'm always afraid I'll poke my eyes out on cat whiskers!
Also, I have Whelan strobes in the wing tip, no issues.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392089#392089
==========
arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
--
Rob Kochman
RV-10 Flying since March 2011
Woodinville, WA
http://kochman.net/N819K
p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
ics.com
.matronics.com/contribution
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: Fuel pump use |
My statement was correct. I have not personally worked on a C177RG, only
flown them. I have reviewed what is in the POH you provided.
IMHO it is pitiful.
I spoke directly to the pilot/A&P/IA who was flying the C210 when it
crashed, and it is powered by an IO-470 Continental, and its pump failed(at
about 100 ft AGL), the boost pump is not recommended for takeoff, and he
believe is inadequate to even provide takeoff fuel flow, not to mention
that it takes according to TCM 6 seconds to restore power if fuel flow is
interrupted. From personal experience that timeframe is about right on Lyc
IO-360 as well, but at least the pump I have on my Mooney will provide
enough fuel for full power, and using it has no impact on mixture, whether
the mechanical pump is working or not.
Just recognize your POH is 38 years old and there is far better information
available today than what was generally available in 1975. Lawyers are why
you don't have a revised and improved POH, not that the original was
perfect.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:04 AM, William Curtis <wwc4@njit.edu> wrote:
> Kelly,
>
> I see my attempts at clarification has failed miserably. As this is an
> RV10 list, I won't drag this out further. I would suggest however that you
> review section 3 (Emergency Procedures) of the POH link I included
> previously and also my post(s) on exactly what I said about how much power
> is available following a mechanical fuel pump failure in each type of
> aircraft.
>
> The only reason I responded to this thread initially was because you made
> the following statement:
> *You are correct. Every Lycoming powered fuel injected aircraft I have
> worked on, with Bendix RSA injection called for pump on for takeoff and
> landing. *
> Since I knew this not to be the case, I sought to correct the statement.
> At this point I am unsure what you are still defending but alas, I will
> concede.
>
> Lastly, I see you are now an accident investigator. Can you cite for me
> the 210 accident that you have concluded was brought down 10 days ago due
> to not running the fuel pump on takeoff?
>
> W.
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2013, at 0:44, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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<deej@deej.net>>>
> wrote:
>
>
> mailto:deej@deej.net <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
>
> ==========================bsp; - The RV10-List Email Forum -**
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List**
> **
> _ &n-->
> http://www.matronic================================================<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: Fuel pump use |
I really haven't been following this thread until I scanned through and
noticed the "early 210" part. I had a mechanical fuel pump fail in a
1960 210A with an IO-470 around 500 hours on a factory reman. This is
way before the Service Letter or whatever came out explaining how the
electric pump will not keep it running. I tried but ended up gliding in
to an uncontrolled airfield in Colorado. It would pop every few seconds
but I could NOT get it to run. Mixture change and trying low and high
settings on the pump didn't change the outcome. When I slowed down to
land, the prop stopped. 700$ later the following day I flew out of
Blake.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kelly McMullen
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel pump use
My statement was correct. I have not personally worked on a C177RG,
only flown them. I have reviewed what is in the POH you provided.
IMHO it is pitiful.
I spoke directly to the pilot/A&P/IA who was flying the C210 when it
crashed, and it is powered by an IO-470 Continental, and its pump
failed(at about 100 ft AGL), the boost pump is not recommended for
takeoff, and he believe is inadequate to even provide takeoff fuel flow,
not to mention that it takes according to TCM 6 seconds to restore power
if fuel flow is interrupted. From personal experience that timeframe is
about right on Lyc IO-360 as well, but at least the pump I have on my
Mooney will provide enough fuel for full power, and using it has no
impact on mixture, whether the mechanical pump is working or not.
Just recognize your POH is 38 years old and there is far better
information available today than what was generally available in 1975.
Lawyers are why you don't have a revised and improved POH, not that the
original was perfect.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:04 AM, William Curtis <wwc4@njit.edu>
wrote:
Kelly,
I see my attempts at clarification has failed miserably. As this is
an RV10 list, I won't drag this out further. I would suggest however
that you review section 3 (Emergency Procedures) of the POH link I
included previously and also my post(s) on exactly what I said about how
much power is available following a mechanical fuel pump failure in each
type of aircraft.
The only reason I responded to this thread initially was because you
made the following statement:
You are correct. Every Lycoming powered fuel injected aircraft
I have worked on, with Bendix RSA injection called for pump on for
takeoff and landing.
Since I knew this not to be the case, I sought to correct the
statement. At this point I am unsure what you are still defending but
alas, I will concede.
Lastly, I see you are now an accident investigator. Can you cite for
me the 210 accident that you have concluded was brought down 10 days ago
due to not running the fuel pump on takeoff?
W.
On Jan 11, 2013, at 0:44, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
wrote:
<kellym@aviating.com>
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?RV1
0-List=======================
====; - List Contribution Web Site
-*http://www.m====================
====
*
*
*
*
*
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
=bsp; - The RV10-List Email Forum
-http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
_ &n-->
http://www.matronic==================
====
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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! --
|