Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:43 AM - Re: Fuel pump use (William Curtis)
2. 07:12 AM - Re: Fuel pump use (Linn)
3. 07:15 AM - Re: Fuel pump use (Kelly McMullen)
4. 09:42 AM - Re: Fuel pump use (Ben Westfall)
5. 11:13 AM - Re: Fuel pump use (Linn)
6. 02:02 PM - Cable runs (woxofswa)
7. 02:11 PM - Re: Cable runs (Rob Kermanj)
8. 02:34 PM - Re: Cable runs (Pascal)
9. 02:37 PM - Backup alternator. (Jesse Saint)
10. 04:07 PM - Re: Cable runs (Dave Saylor)
11. 06:06 PM - Re: Backup alternator. (Bob-TCW)
12. 06:09 PM - Re: Cable runs (Bob-TCW)
13. 06:33 PM - Re: Re: Another RV-10 down? (Miller John)
14. 07:49 PM - Re: Backup alternator. (Dick & Vicki Sipp)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel pump use |
Kelly,
Apologies to list members but below is a link to the POH of a G1000 equipped
Cessna 182T (2005) - all 450 pages of it. The new 182 and 172 are fuel inje
cted Lycoming powered. Have you "not personally worked on" these aircraft? T
his and the current POH are not 38 years old. Cessna has still not found re
ason to add boost pump ON during takeoff and landings for the new fuel injec
ted 172 & 182. Are the Lawyers to blame for this?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a2ijokdsmdvs8vl/C182_POH.pdf
W.
On Jan 11, 2013, at 21:31, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
> My statement was correct. I have not personally worked on a C177RG, only f
lown 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 crash
ed, 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 i
s 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. =46rom
personal experience that timeframe is about right on Lyc IO-360 as well, bu
t at least the pump I have on my Mooney will provide enough fuel for full po
wer, and using it has no impact on mixture, whether the mechanical pump is w
orking or not.
> Just recognize your POH is 38 years old and there is far better informatio
n 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 perfec
t.
>
> 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 RV
10 list, I won't drag this out further. I would suggest however that you rev
iew section 3 (Emergency Procedures) of the POH link I included previously a
nd also my post(s) on exactly what I said about how much power is available f
ollowing 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 wor
ked 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. A
t this point I am unsure what you are still defending but alas, I will conce
de.
>>
>> Lastly, I see you are now an accident investigator. Can you cite for me t
he 210 accident that you have concluded was brought down 10 days ago due to n
ot 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 Bend
ix fuel injected, Lycoming engined high wing Cessna. I haven't looked at lat
er 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 boo
st pump. Period.
>>> The models you cite are all carbureted, and most do not have a boost pum
p or mechanical pump because it isn't needed as it takes almost no pressure t
o feed fuel past the needle valve when the fuel in bowl drops and lets the v
alve open. Totally different than the Bendix fuel injection that requires ne
arly 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, an
d 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 b
een enough documented cases of mechanical fuel pump failure that resulted in
an AD on Lycoming high pressure mechanical pumps, is simply negligence on C
essna's part, and yes, if it came to testifying at a litigation trial, that i
s exactly what I would say.
>>> Cessna in the early 210s also did not recognize the problem and didn't e
ven put in boost pumps adequate to run the engine after mechanical pump fail
ure.
>>>
>>> All you are doing is pointing out the deficiencies of the 38 year old PO
H. 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 cruis
e altitude if the engine quits at 2000 ft????? Yes, I would ignore the POH a
nd use the boost pump for takeoff and landing, just as the low wing planes w
ith the same engine and injection system recommend, because the wing positio
n can't make enough a difference to generate the pressure needed. Would you r
ather follow POH and risk an off airport landing if your mechanical pump fai
ls at 100 ft in the air, or be more informed and keep flying until you are a
t altitude you can return to runway when engine quits as you turn off the bo
ost 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 w
ing." 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 f
ine 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 t
he Vans suggested recommendation of *running the boost pump during takeoff a
nd 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 Ces
sna 150/152/172, DO NOT specify in the POH running the boost pump during tak
eoff and landings.
>>>>
>>>> W.
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 10, 2013, at 16:51, Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net <mailto:deej@deej.
net>> wrote:
>>>>
j@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" w
ith
>>>>>> 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-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
>>>
>>> ========================
==bsp; - The RV10-List Email Forum -http://www.matronics.com/Navig
ator?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
>>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel pump use |
Bill and Kelly ..... This food fight has filled our inbox for so long
..... what's your point? Anything meaningful from this discussion has
been lost ... at least on me. I, for one, could give a rat's ass what's
on a high wing POH. It's relevance is totally lost on me. I'm building
a low-wing fuel-injected airplane with both mechanical and electrical
boost pumps. If there's a POH out there that calls for boost pump on
take off and landing ...... or one that doesn't ...... they have no
relevance to our RV-10s. Nobody in this food fight has any special
knowledge about WHY a manufacturer does something one way or another so
it's time to cut the crap. If you want to use your boost pump during
takeoff and landing, by all means do it. If some anomaly rears it's
ugly head during boost pump use and you're not comfortable with the
change ..... then shut the darn thing off!
IMHO, I think using the boost pump when close to your crash point is a
good thing. So far, in this discussion, (as far as I can tell) the only
downside to using the boost pump is it screws up the fuel calculations
on SOME installations. If you're calculating your fuel burn time down
to ounces ..... well, I think you have far more problems than will be
solved here on this list.
So, I recommend that we let the NTSB worry about what caused this train
wreck ..... and go back to building and flying.
Linn
On 1/12/2013 9:42 AM, William Curtis wrote:
> Kelly,
>
> Apologies to list members but below is a link to the POH of a G1000
> equipped Cessna 182T (2005) - all 450 pages of it. The new 182 and 172
> are fuel injected Lycoming powered. Have you "not personally worked
> on" these aircraft? This and the current POH are not 38 years old.
> Cessna has still not found reason to add boost pump ON during takeoff
> and landings for the new fuel injected 172 & 182. Are the Lawyers to
> blame for this?
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/a2ijokdsmdvs8vl/C182_POH.pdf
>
> W.
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: Fuel pump use |
Linn,
Apologies. I totally agree with your points.
Kelly
On 1/12/2013 8:11 AM, Linn wrote:
> Bill and Kelly ..... This food fight has filled our inbox for so long
> ..... what's your point?
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
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 |
|
Not to fan the flames (no pun intended) but because Linn stated
=9CIMHO, I think using the boost pump when close to your crash
point is a good thing=9D
I=99d agree w/Linn but I=99d add You definitely
want it off at the scene of the crash. It could be pumping fuel to a
fire if power is still making it to the pump and one forgets to turn off
the fuel during the decent.
Ben Westfall
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Linn
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fuel pump use
Bill and Kelly ..... This food fight has filled our inbox for so long
..... what's your point? Anything meaningful from this discussion has
been lost ... at least on me. I, for one, could give a rat's ass what's
on a high wing POH. It's relevance is totally lost on me. I'm building
a low-wing fuel-injected airplane with both mechanical and electrical
boost pumps. If there's a POH out there that calls for boost pump on
take off and landing ...... or one that doesn't ...... they have no
relevance to our RV-10s. Nobody in this food fight has any special
knowledge about WHY a manufacturer does something one way or another so
it's time to cut the crap. If you want to use your boost pump during
takeoff and landing, by all means do it. If some anomaly rears it's
ugly head during boost pump use and you're not comfortable with the
change ..... then shut the darn thing off!
IMHO, I think using the boost pump when close to your crash point is a
good thing. So far, in this discussion, (as far as I can tell) the only
downside to using the boost pump is it screws up the fuel calculations
on SOME installations. If you're calculating your fuel burn time down
to ounces ..... well, I think you have far more problems than will be
solved here on this list.
So, I recommend that we let the NTSB worry about what caused this train
wreck ..... and go back to building and flying.
Linn
On 1/12/2013 9:42 AM, William Curtis wrote:
Kelly,
Apologies to list members but below is a link to the POH of a G1000
equipped Cessna 182T (2005) - all 450 pages of it. The new 182 and 172
are fuel injected Lycoming powered. Have you "not personally worked on"
these aircraft? This and the current POH are not 38 years old. Cessna
has still not found reason to add boost pump ON during takeoff and
landings for the new fuel injected 172 & 182. Are the Lawyers to blame
for this?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a2ijokdsmdvs8vl/C182_POH.pdf
W.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel pump use |
The 'crash point' was a tongue-in-cheek reference to my landings. ;-)
But you definitely have a valid point. Depending on the cause of a
premature return to earth, it would be wise to shut down as many systems
as possible prior to impact. After impact you may be unable to do much
of anything. On both of my off-field landings I was too busy
controlling the airplane to even think about doing anything after the
emergency checklist. I didn't shut anything down. Great training
lesson though!
Linn
On 1/12/2013 12:41 PM, Ben Westfall wrote:
>
> Not to fan the flames (no pun intended) but because Linn stated
>
> =9CIMHO, I think using the boost pump when close to your crash po
int is
> a good thing=9D
>
> I=99d agree w/Linn but I=99d add You definitely w
ant it off at the scene
> of the crash. It could be pumping fuel to a fire if power is still
> making it to the pump and one forgets to turn off the fuel during the
> decent.
>
> Ben Westfall
>
>
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 |
|
Quick question for the brain trust. I am finishing FWF and was wondering about
issues involving securing the EGT (Dynon metal braid) lines in the same cushioned
clamps as the spark plug cables for a clean and tidy installation.
Are they respectively shielded enough that there is no issue or is it better to
secure them separately?
Thanks in advance.
--------
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse on gear. Finishing kit and
FWF kit in progress.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392131#392131
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 |
|
Mine are tied together without any issues.
Rob Kermanj
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 12, 2013, at 5:01 PM, "woxofswa" <woxof@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Quick question for the brain trust. I am finishing FWF and was wondering about
issues involving securing the EGT (Dynon metal braid) lines in the same cushioned
clamps as the spark plug cables for a clean and tidy installation.
>
> Are they respectively shielded enough that there is no issue or is it better
to secure them separately?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --------
> Myron Nelson
> Mesa, AZ
> Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse on gear. Finishing kit
and FWF kit in progress.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392131#392131
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Using the Skyview setup, this is exactly what I did without any issues at
all. Get a CHT spike every once in a while but that is a connection issue
and not a routing issue. You will have no issues putting them all together.
-----Original Message-----
From: woxofswa
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 2:01 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Cable runs
Quick question for the brain trust. I am finishing FWF and was wondering
about issues involving securing the EGT (Dynon metal braid) lines in the
same cushioned clamps as the spark plug cables for a clean and tidy
installation.
Are they respectively shielded enough that there is no issue or is it better
to secure them separately?
Thanks in advance.
--------
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse on gear. Finishing kit
and FWF kit in progress.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392131#392131
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: | Backup alternator. |
Does anybody have a B&C oil filter adaptor installed with a Plane Power vacuum
pump drive alternator? Just trying to see if it'll fit.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
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 |
|
Myron,
It sure would seem like the very high voltage to the spark plugs vs.
the very low voltage from the thermocouples would be a bad mix--like
it would bleed over and give the EGT some kind of bizarre reading.
But, I've seen it done on lots of installations and it never seems to
be a problem. Has anyone seen any oddball EGT readings as a result?
It does make sense from a neatness/weight/convenience/hardware count
perspective to run them all together.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 2:01 PM, woxofswa <woxof@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Quick question for the brain trust. I am finishing FWF and was wondering about
issues involving securing the EGT (Dynon metal braid) lines in the same cushioned
clamps as the spark plug cables for a clean and tidy installation.
>
> Are they respectively shielded enough that there is no issue or is it better
to secure them separately?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --------
> Myron Nelson
> Mesa, AZ
> Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse on gear. Finishing kit
and FWF kit in progress.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392131#392131
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Backup alternator. |
I have the b&c right angle oil adapter and the b&c 20 amp alternator which sure
looks to be the same size as the plane power alternator. It does take a machined
riser plate for each of the adapters to get the proper clearance. B&c
has a kit to do this, but it wasn't on their web site
Bob Newman.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 12, 2013, at 5:35 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com> wrote:
>
> Does anybody have a B&C oil filter adaptor installed with a Plane Power vacuum
pump drive alternator? Just trying to see if it'll fit.
>
> Jesse Saint
> I-TEC, Inc.
> jesse@itecusa.org
> www.itecusa.org
> www.mavericklsa.com
> C: 352-427-0285
> O: 352-465-4545
> F: 815-377-3694
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Although running AFS equipment mine are neatly tied together and all readings are
rock solid. Also true of the other planes my dad and I built. It's a non
issue.
Bob Newman
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 12, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Myron,
>
> It sure would seem like the very high voltage to the spark plugs vs.
> the very low voltage from the thermocouples would be a bad mix--like
> it would bleed over and give the EGT some kind of bizarre reading.
> But, I've seen it done on lots of installations and it never seems to
> be a problem. Has anyone seen any oddball EGT readings as a result?
> It does make sense from a neatness/weight/convenience/hardware count
> perspective to run them all together.
>
> Dave Saylor
> 831-750-0284 CL
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 2:01 PM, woxofswa <woxof@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Quick question for the brain trust. I am finishing FWF and was wondering about
issues involving securing the EGT (Dynon metal braid) lines in the same cushioned
clamps as the spark plug cables for a clean and tidy installation.
>>
>> Are they respectively shielded enough that there is no issue or is it better
to secure them separately?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> --------
>> Myron Nelson
>> Mesa, AZ
>> Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse on gear. Finishing kit
and FWF kit in progress.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=392131#392131
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Another RV-10 down? |
I second Tim's assessment on Aerosport Power engines!
My IO-540 has been running like a Swiss watch and Bart & crew have always been
responsive to any issues I have had.
Grumpy
N184JM ... flying since Nov 2006!
do not archive
On Jan 11, 2013, at 9:28 AM, Tim Olson 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>
>> *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 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: Backup alternator. |
Yup, works great; Bill Bainbridge at B & C is very familiar with the
application and can supply all of the parts you need.
Dick Sipp
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse Saint
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 5:35 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Backup alternator.
Does anybody have a B&C oil filter adaptor installed with a Plane Power
vacuum pump drive alternator? Just trying to see if it'll fit.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
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! --
|