Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:45 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Carl Froehlich)
2. 06:53 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Danny Riggs)
3. 08:11 AM - Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Rocketman1988)
4. 09:05 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Berck E. Nash)
5. 11:10 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Phillip Perry)
6. 01:59 PM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Kelly McMullen)
7. 03:22 PM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Tim Olson)
8. 05:21 PM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Neal George)
9. 06:07 PM - Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Rocketman1988)
10. 06:50 PM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Miller John)
11. 06:56 PM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Tim Olson)
12. 06:58 PM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (David Leikam)
13. 07:29 PM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Phillip Perry)
14. 07:53 PM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Justin Jones)
15. 08:05 PM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Ben)
16. 08:18 PM - Re: Alternate fuel and ignition (Kelly McMullen)
17. 10:54 PM - Re: Alternate fuel and ignition (Bob Turner)
18. 11:19 PM - Re: Alternate fuel and ignition (Justin Jones)
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 Return Line Location? |
There are always better ways to do anything and experimenting is encouraged.
I'm forced however to apply the "value" decision on my projects as my
pockets are not at all that deep.
At some point EFII like systems will be widely adopted - and early adopters
will provide the environment to refine, standardize and most importantly
drive the scale needed to get the price down so us working slobs can afford
it. In the meantime, and in view of the small (if any) incremental engine
efficiency gain of the EFII compared to a properly tuned standard fuel
injection system with electronic ignition, I will be sitting on the sideline
watching with interest on the progress to bring EFII systems to the masses.
I can provide you a power distribution design to support your EFII install
that is flying on four RVs for over a decade. Perhaps this will give you a
jump start on your EFII install. Contact me off list if interested.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rocketman1988
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:12 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?
I am building a -10 and WILL be using the complete EFII system.
That being said, I find it somewhat humorous how this thread is developing.
On one hand you have the "that's the way we have always done it" crowd.
On the other hand, there are the guys who want to bring our
sport/hobby/obsession into the 21st century.
There will NEVER be agreement between the two sides but consider this:
If no one ever questioned Mr. Ford, we would all be driving black cars. If
no one ever question the points and condenser system, we would not have
electronic ignition. How about carbs versus FI? Steam gauges versus EFIS?
It goes on and on. There are those that want to progress forward and there
are those who are more comfortable with the ancient technology of the last
century.
It is what is great about experimental aircraft...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441110#441110
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 Return Line Location? |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 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 Return Line Location? |
Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.
It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has their own opinion
and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.
While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always done it" crowd,
I am pretty certain improvements can and should be made to ancient tractor
engines that we are using...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119
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: Fuel Return Line Location? |
Thanks for chiming in, Rocketman. Unlike a lot of you, I'm new to this
whole homebuilt thing, but I take the the concept of "experimental"
seriously. I think that there's a strong tendency to simply want to put an
airplane together, and while that's a valid option these days, it doesn't
have to be limited to that. I'm just now struggling with diving into the
actual experimental aspects of building a kit. Up until now, everything
I've done has been pretty much verbatim following the (mostly) excellent
instructions. It's nice to be able to make progress on building an
airplane without thinking about it, but a huge part of the appeal of a
homebuilt is the ability to make my own decisions about how I think an
aircraft should be equipped. And now, as I'm making progress on the wings
I'm having to make some real decisions, and I keep trying to remind myself
that's a good thing. It drives me crazy that piston aircraft engines are
stuck with 1950's technology when so much better is available, and I hope
that by being a (somewhat) early adopter of EFI that I can help turn the
tide toward affordable, modern engine management. Buying and installing a
system from EFII is only a minor contribution, but the more of us there are
moving forward, the faster we'll get there. I wasn't around when the EAB
community started adopting things like glass panel displays, but I'm sure
there were plenty of naysayers then, too. Still, I welcome all the
comments: it's a very valid point that there's currently only one RV-10
that we know about with an EFII system, but it's a risk I'm willing to
take. At some point there were no RV-10s flying at all. I love not having
to be first; I'm glad that there were 1,534 kits sold before mine, but I'm
not afraid of building something that's actually experimental. After all,
I'm going to have to paint that word on the plane. I love that this
community exists and that, so far, everything I want to do has been done in
some form or fashion by someone else. Keep telling me I'm insane for not
priming or planning on an EFII system. Those are valid opinions, and I
like hearing them. Thanks for being out there--this is one of the first
times I've actually had to ask questions, because almost every question
I've had can be answered by a web search.
Berck
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman@etczone.com>
wrote:
>
> Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.
>
> It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has their
> own opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.
>
> While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always done
> it" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be made to
> ancient tractor engines that we are using...
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119
>
>
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 Return Line Location? |
You are touching on a few things I have been thinking about. Recognizing yo
ur newness to the experimental side of aviation is very important.
When I started my RV-10 seven years ago, I too was new to the experimental s
ide. At the time my exposure/experience was very limited. Sure, I had some
knowledge of how things work, how they should work if I modify things, and h
ow they should react. To simply put it, I had knowledge but very little r
eal world experience; my window of real-world exposure was very narrow.
At that point, I hadn't had friends who had accidents. I hadn't lost any fr
iends. As a result my eyes were wide open because I didn't know what I did
n't know.
As I sit here at lunch typing this message on my iPhone, I have 7 years of h
istory behind me.
7 years ago my personal impact record was clean and in looking in the rear v
iew mirror I now have 2 friends who managed to dead stick their airplane aft
er engine failure. One of them has gone through 7 engines in his velocity (
costing him more than a Lycoming) and he is now putting a Lycoming in it aft
er finally giving up.
But those are the good stories because today I have 4 (other) friends who ar
e dead from 3 accidents. All of them were in alternative engine aircraft.
All of them were the direct result of the engine.
Today I now have some experience to go along with that knowledge I had when I
started. My window of exposure to experimental aviation is now wider and i
s balanced by real experience.
I'm tired of losing friends. I'm tired of seeing their wives and kids griev
e. I'm tired of all of it. It sucks.
If there's one good thing about a 7-8 year build, it's that you're given an o
pportunity to get exposure to some stuff you otherwise wouldn't.
Phil
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for chiming in, Rocketman. Unlike a lot of you, I'm new to this wh
ole homebuilt thing, but I take the the concept of "experimental" seriously.
I think that there's a strong tendency to simply want to put an airplane t
ogether, and while that's a valid option these days, it doesn't have to be l
imited to that. I'm just now struggling with diving into the actual experim
ental aspects of building a kit. Up until now, everything I've done has been
pretty much verbatim following the (mostly) excellent instructions. It's n
ice to be able to make progress on building an airplane without thinking abo
ut it, but a huge part of the appeal of a homebuilt is the ability to make m
y own decisions about how I think an aircraft should be equipped. And now, a
s I'm making progress on the wings I'm having to make some real decisions, a
nd I keep trying to remind myself that's a good thing. It drives me crazy t
hat piston aircraft engines are stuck with 1950's technology when so much be
tter is available, and I hope that by being a (somewhat) early adopter of EFI
that I can help turn the tide toward affordable, modern engine management.
Buying and installing a system from EFII is only a minor contribution, but t
he more of us there are moving forward, the faster we'll get there. I wasn'
t around when the EAB community started adopting things like glass panel dis
plays, but I'm sure there were plenty of naysayers then, too. Still, I welc
ome all the comments: it's a very valid point that there's currently only on
e RV-10 that we know about with an EFII system, but it's a risk I'm willing t
o take. At some point there were no RV-10s flying at all. I love not havin
g to be first; I'm glad that there were 1,534 kits sold before mine, but I'm
not afraid of building something that's actually experimental. After all, I
'm going to have to paint that word on the plane. I love that this community
exists and that, so far, everything I want to do has been done in some form
or fashion by someone else. Keep telling me I'm insane for not priming or p
lanning on an EFII system. Those are valid opinions, and I like hearing the
m. Thanks for being out there--this is one of the first times I've actually
had to ask questions, because almost every question I've had can be answere
d by a web search.
>
> Berck
>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman@etczone.com> wr
ote:
>>
>> Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.
>>
>> It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has their o
wn opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.
>>
>> While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always done i
t" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be made to ancient
tractor engines that we are using...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
I think you are misinterpreting some of the comments. It is not that is
how we have always done it. Yes, the IO540 has been around since the
mid-sixties. However, it was really advanced for its time. Cars were
running 4 barrel carburetors with points controlled distributors back
then. No one has shown better fuel efficiency on avgas than the IO-540
will do lean of peak, beyond what an electronic ignition does to improve
control of spark advance. That gives you 5% plus or minus a little. By
1970 there was the dual turbo charged 350+ hpTIO-540 on Chieftains and
the TIO541 on Dukes. If there is efficiency to be added by timed fuel
injection, I have not seen the data. There is efficiency available with
direct injection to the cylinders with very high fuel pressures, but
that isn't what is being discussed. Whether the fuel is delivered when
the valves are open or continuous is talking about around a 50th of a
second. To operate that unquantified benefit, you have the extra cost of
the unit plus another thousand or so in a fully redundant electrical system.
Since, as you say you still have a mixture control, you probably haven't
gained much over the engines that had altitude compensating fuel pumps
to adjust the mixture for altitude. Most of what is being considered
"new" was invented 40-50 years ago and used on race cars. Only the
volume of mass production for cars has changed the costs somewhat. Many
cars have had continuous fuel injection for a very long time. It took
the combination of unleaded fuel, closed loop feedback and higher
compression with knock sensors to make much improvement. There are
factors for cars like cold and hot start emissions and part throttle
economy that drive a lot of the choices.
The main point is that yes you can make all the experimental choices you
want, but there are costs, and not much has been proven effective and
durable at this point.
On 4/22/2015 8:07 AM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
>
> Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.
>
> It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has their own opinion
and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.
>
> While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always done it"
crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be made to ancient tractor
engines that we are using...
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
To me it gets hard to accept that many of these new engine technologies
make our engines "better" in any real way. Maybe things like roller
lifters are an improvement, but what I see is that most of the new
things come with caveats.
When you look at how the engines need to operate, there are some
things that really make it hard to deviate from the old designs
of the past.
I'll give some examples:
1) Piston size/clearance. First, we operate in a much broader temp
range than any cars do, over the course of any given hour.
We go from very hot to very cold (at altitude), and vice versa.
To do this, requires a significant amount of piston gap to compensate
for the expansion of materials. Our engines are looser than car
engines, but for good reason. You can eliminate some of the looseness
if you go with liquid cooling, but that means you now accept one more
system that can leak and bring down your plane. So air cooling is
the norm. Deviations from air cooling come with weight penalties and
potential "ruggedness" penalties like the forementioned leak worry.
Also, since we're trying to run high power levels, swinging a big
prop at sub-sonic speeds, we need engines that run lots of power
at low RPM. Sure, you can throw a gearbox on a high RPM engine, but
now you have additional parts, weight, harmonics to consider, and
all of that is more that can have an issue. So any deviation
from the bore/stroke format comes with it's own set of issues.
2) Electronic ignition. Yes, I'm a fan myself. But, think about
the goal when they made the engine... Self-sufficient power source
that doesn't require a battery. Other than the POTENTIAL of
the P-Mag, there isn't much out there that can give you that.
So while you can get benefits from EI, you now add a significant
downside that you have to compensate for. In my case, I left
one mag in place as my compensation plan. But if you drop both
mags, now you have a lot more to think and worry about that your
airplane relies on. This is significant. I hear people rave
about Auto plugs. I did too. Now I'm not so sure. I had the
bad situation of having a high mag drop on one run-up. I remembered
that the engine maybe was SLIGHTLY rougher on landing the last
flight too. I checked and sure enough, one of my auto plug
wire caps had popped off...on the TOP of the engine.
I put it on, went flying, and when I landed again, it was
once again off. After that happened, I ordered new wire and caps
for all cylinders. Mine had begun to age after being removed
many times for inspections, and were no longer as tight as before.
I now view it from a completely different perspective. I think
auto plugs are nice in that they're cheap, but I'd almost rather
have the ability for my Lightspeed ignition to use AIRPLANE
fine wire plugs instead. At least those have wrench-on wire
attachments. Yeah, they weight more, cost more, and all that,
but they don't come off on their own. Think about the guys
running auto plugs on their bottom plug sets...I personally
now have a real concern about that and would recommend if you
do that, that you actually RTV the cap right to the plug.
It will, however, make maintenance less fun. But to me, auto
plugs are not the panacea they were before.
3) Fuel injection. Well, the old lycoming injection is very
hard to have a total fuel starvation issue. Now, if you go to
electronically operated injectors, you have other things that
can take your engine out. How about this for personal experience...
I had a chevy diesel truck. It had a mechanical injection system.
No issues, and it ran forever, and got great mileage...24mpg
for my suburban I remember on one trip, loaded with maybe 8
people and towing a trailer. One day I wanted to turbo charge
it. I decided to buy a used engine and rebuild it and
put a turbo on it and swap it. I located an engine that had
only 400 miles on it. It needed to be re-sleeved on one cylinder
but otherwise needed just basic work to get it ready. Why did
it need re-sleeving? Well, it was from a newer diesel truck.
That truck had the newer electronic injection on it. Something
had gone wrong that had caused that cylinder to melt down.
Just that cylinder. Electronic injection. I was so happy
at the time that I got the engine cheap...I put on a nice rebuilt
mechanical injection system and drove it for years. That
and a few other things taught me that on my diesel truck, the
LESS electronic you make it, the more reliable it can be in
some cases. Yeah, old, but fairly bullet proof.
4) Form factor: Sure, you could probably design a better
shaped engine with a better case and everything else. But,
engines only get mass produced when there is mass market for
them. If you go significantly away from the normal engine
mount methods or shape, you now eliminate a HUGE percentage
of your potential customers for retrofits. So, given the
low sales potential, I can see why a company would stick
with tried and true. Any alternative engine would have to
use normal mounts and attachments.
5) More on electronic controls: Have you ever had a car that
had the check engine light on and it didn't run so well?
Maybe because the MAP sensor, or O2 sensor or Throttle position
sensor, or just any other sensor didn't work quite right?
Man, I would really rather just have a simple engine, with
a nice fully instrumented monitoring system. Also, I'm not
an airplane "Driver", I'm a "pilot" or "Aviator". I actually
enjoy operating the mixture lever. I like the added challenge,
as minimal as it is. I like it that if my CHT's seem high,
I can lean it out more past peak, or richen it more ROP,
and watch the temps come down. It gives me pleasure and
a feeling of security that I have the ability to change
that engine parameter, along with RPM and throttle, to
affect a change in how the engine runs. If it were all
automatic, I'd not know what's really happening in that little
black box, and my options are limited.
So I'm not saying that things can't be improved upon, but
I really don't know that there is as much as some people
think that NEEDS improving. To me, the only real thing
that I'd complain about is that the cost is too high.
I'd also like it if certified engines could come with
maybe 1/2 of the electrical system using EI, like I do,
so that you can get the benefits of EI, while maintaining
some semblance of electrical independence.
New technologies are not simply "better" or "worse", in many cases,
but in many ways, the old "tractor engine" as it's been recently
called (Not that I've ever seen one like it on a tractor, but
maybe a VW), is hard to beat from a standard reliability in
flight metric. To me, reliability in flight is probably the
SINGLE most important thing that an airplane engine needs to have,
is it not? I'm about to do another few hundred miles over
the ocean soon....I know to me it matters a lot.
Tim
On 4/22/2015 3:53 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> I think you are misinterpreting some of the comments. It is not that is
> how we have always done it. Yes, the IO540 has been around since the
> mid-sixties. However, it was really advanced for its time. Cars were
> running 4 barrel carburetors with points controlled distributors back
> then. No one has shown better fuel efficiency on avgas than the IO-540
> will do lean of peak, beyond what an electronic ignition does to improve
> control of spark advance. That gives you 5% plus or minus a little. By
> 1970 there was the dual turbo charged 350+ hpTIO-540 on Chieftains and
> the TIO541 on Dukes. If there is efficiency to be added by timed fuel
> injection, I have not seen the data. There is efficiency available with
> direct injection to the cylinders with very high fuel pressures, but
> that isn't what is being discussed. Whether the fuel is delivered when
> the valves are open or continuous is talking about around a 50th of a
> second. To operate that unquantified benefit, you have the extra cost of
> the unit plus another thousand or so in a fully redundant electrical
> system.
> Since, as you say you still have a mixture control, you probably haven't
> gained much over the engines that had altitude compensating fuel pumps
> to adjust the mixture for altitude. Most of what is being considered
> "new" was invented 40-50 years ago and used on race cars. Only the
> volume of mass production for cars has changed the costs somewhat. Many
> cars have had continuous fuel injection for a very long time. It took
> the combination of unleaded fuel, closed loop feedback and higher
> compression with knock sensors to make much improvement. There are
> factors for cars like cold and hot start emissions and part throttle
> economy that drive a lot of the choices.
> The main point is that yes you can make all the experimental choices you
> want, but there are costs, and not much has been proven effective and
> durable at this point.
>
> On 4/22/2015 8:07 AM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.
>>
>> It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has
>> their own opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.
>>
>> While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always
>> done it" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be
>> made to ancient tractor engines that we are using...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119
>>
>>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
Well said, Phil...
Neal George
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You are touching on a few things I have been thinking about. Recognizing y
our newness to the experimental side of aviation is very important.
>
> When I started my RV-10 seven years ago, I too was new to the experimental
side. At the time my exposure/experience was very limited. Sure, I had so
me knowledge of how things work, how they should work if I modify things, an
d how they should react. To simply put it, I had knowledge but very littl
e real world experience; my window of real-world exposure was very narrow.
>
> At that point, I hadn't had friends who had accidents. I hadn't lost any f
riends. As a result my eyes were wide open because I didn't know what I di
dn't know.
>
> As I sit here at lunch typing this message on my iPhone, I have 7 years of
history behind me.
>
> 7 years ago my personal impact record was clean and in looking in the rear
view mirror I now have 2 friends who managed to dead stick their airplane a
fter engine failure. One of them has gone through 7 engines in his velocity
(costing him more than a Lycoming) and he is now putting a Lycoming in it a
fter finally giving up.
>
> But those are the good stories because today I have 4 (other) friends who a
re dead from 3 accidents. All of them were in alternative engine aircraft.
All of them were the direct result of the engine.
>
> Today I now have some experience to go along with that knowledge I had whe
n I started. My window of exposure to experimental aviation is now wider an
d is balanced by real experience.
>
> I'm tired of losing friends. I'm tired of seeing their wives and kids gri
eve. I'm tired of all of it. It sucks.
>
> If there's one good thing about a 7-8 year build, it's that you're given a
n opportunity to get exposure to some stuff you otherwise wouldn't.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for chiming in, Rocketman. Unlike a lot of you, I'm new to this w
hole homebuilt thing, but I take the the concept of "experimental" seriously
. I think that there's a strong tendency to simply want to put an airplane t
ogether, and while that's a valid option these days, it doesn't have to be l
imited to that. I'm just now struggling with diving into the actual experim
ental aspects of building a kit. Up until now, everything I've done has been
pretty much verbatim following the (mostly) excellent instructions. It's n
ice to be able to make progress on building an airplane without thinking abo
ut it, but a huge part of the appeal of a homebuilt is the ability to make m
y own decisions about how I think an aircraft should be equipped. And now, a
s I'm making progress on the wings I'm having to make some real decisions, a
nd I keep trying to remind myself that's a good thing. It drives me crazy t
hat piston aircraft engines are stuck with 1950's technology when so much be
tter is available, and I hope that by being a (somewhat) early adopter of EFI
that I can help turn the tide toward affordable, modern engine management.
Buying and installing a system from EFII is only a minor contribution, but t
he more of us there are moving forward, the faster we'll get there. I wasn'
t around when the EAB community started adopting things like glass panel dis
plays, but I'm sure there were plenty of naysayers then, too. Still, I welc
ome all the comments: it's a very valid point that there's currently only on
e RV-10 that we know about with an EFII system, but it's a risk I'm willing t
o take. At some point there were no RV-10s flying at all. I love not havin
g to be first; I'm glad that there were 1,534 kits sold before mine, but I'm
not afraid of building something that's actually experimental. After all, I
'm going to have to paint that word on the plane. I love that this community
exists and that, so far, everything I want to do has been done in some form
or fashion by someone else. Keep telling me I'm insane for not priming or p
lanning on an EFII system. Those are valid opinions, and I like hearing the
m. Thanks for being out there--this is one of the first times I've actually
had to ask questions, because almost every question I've had can be answere
d by a web search.
>>
>> Berck
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman@etczone.com> w
rote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.
>>>
>>> It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has their o
wn opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.
>>>
>>> While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always done
it" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be made to ancie
nt tractor engines that we are using...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> ==========
>>> FORUMS -
>>> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> b Site -
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> //forums.matronics.com
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
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 Return Line Location? |
The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology of the ancient
times but VW works, too.
Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion. Everyone has their
own OPINION, and each is entitled to it. It doesn't make any opinion correct
or incorrect but it does serve to circulate more information...and that is
good.
Still going with the EFII system :D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441145#441145
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: Fuel Return Line Location? |
Tim.
Well stated!
As I get closer to the time to overhaul my 2 slick mags, Ill be watching the data
on the P-mags..also want to put them on the RV8 Im building.
grumpy
do not archive
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 5:18 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
>
>
> To me it gets hard to accept that many of these new engine technologies
> make our engines "better" in any real way. Maybe things like roller
> lifters are an improvement, but what I see is that most of the new
> things come with caveats.
>
> When you look at how the engines need to operate, there are some
> things that really make it hard to deviate from the old designs
> of the past.
>
> I'll give some examples:
>
> 1) Piston size/clearance. First, we operate in a much broader temp
> range than any cars do, over the course of any given hour.
> We go from very hot to very cold (at altitude), and vice versa.
> To do this, requires a significant amount of piston gap to compensate
> for the expansion of materials. Our engines are looser than car
> engines, but for good reason. You can eliminate some of the looseness
> if you go with liquid cooling, but that means you now accept one more
> system that can leak and bring down your plane. So air cooling is
> the norm. Deviations from air cooling come with weight penalties and
> potential "ruggedness" penalties like the forementioned leak worry.
> Also, since we're trying to run high power levels, swinging a big
> prop at sub-sonic speeds, we need engines that run lots of power
> at low RPM. Sure, you can throw a gearbox on a high RPM engine, but
> now you have additional parts, weight, harmonics to consider, and
> all of that is more that can have an issue. So any deviation
> from the bore/stroke format comes with it's own set of issues.
>
> 2) Electronic ignition. Yes, I'm a fan myself. But, think about
> the goal when they made the engine... Self-sufficient power source
> that doesn't require a battery. Other than the POTENTIAL of
> the P-Mag, there isn't much out there that can give you that.
> So while you can get benefits from EI, you now add a significant
> downside that you have to compensate for. In my case, I left
> one mag in place as my compensation plan. But if you drop both
> mags, now you have a lot more to think and worry about that your
> airplane relies on. This is significant. I hear people rave
> about Auto plugs. I did too. Now I'm not so sure. I had the
> bad situation of having a high mag drop on one run-up. I remembered
> that the engine maybe was SLIGHTLY rougher on landing the last
> flight too. I checked and sure enough, one of my auto plug
> wire caps had popped off...on the TOP of the engine.
> I put it on, went flying, and when I landed again, it was
> once again off. After that happened, I ordered new wire and caps
> for all cylinders. Mine had begun to age after being removed
> many times for inspections, and were no longer as tight as before.
> I now view it from a completely different perspective. I think
> auto plugs are nice in that they're cheap, but I'd almost rather
> have the ability for my Lightspeed ignition to use AIRPLANE
> fine wire plugs instead. At least those have wrench-on wire
> attachments. Yeah, they weight more, cost more, and all that,
> but they don't come off on their own. Think about the guys
> running auto plugs on their bottom plug sets...I personally
> now have a real concern about that and would recommend if you
> do that, that you actually RTV the cap right to the plug.
> It will, however, make maintenance less fun. But to me, auto
> plugs are not the panacea they were before.
>
> 3) Fuel injection. Well, the old lycoming injection is very
> hard to have a total fuel starvation issue. Now, if you go to
> electronically operated injectors, you have other things that
> can take your engine out. How about this for personal experience...
> I had a chevy diesel truck. It had a mechanical injection system.
> No issues, and it ran forever, and got great mileage...24mpg
> for my suburban I remember on one trip, loaded with maybe 8
> people and towing a trailer. One day I wanted to turbo charge
> it. I decided to buy a used engine and rebuild it and
> put a turbo on it and swap it. I located an engine that had
> only 400 miles on it. It needed to be re-sleeved on one cylinder
> but otherwise needed just basic work to get it ready. Why did
> it need re-sleeving? Well, it was from a newer diesel truck.
> That truck had the newer electronic injection on it. Something
> had gone wrong that had caused that cylinder to melt down.
> Just that cylinder. Electronic injection. I was so happy
> at the time that I got the engine cheap...I put on a nice rebuilt
> mechanical injection system and drove it for years. That
> and a few other things taught me that on my diesel truck, the
> LESS electronic you make it, the more reliable it can be in
> some cases. Yeah, old, but fairly bullet proof.
>
> 4) Form factor: Sure, you could probably design a better
> shaped engine with a better case and everything else. But,
> engines only get mass produced when there is mass market for
> them. If you go significantly away from the normal engine
> mount methods or shape, you now eliminate a HUGE percentage
> of your potential customers for retrofits. So, given the
> low sales potential, I can see why a company would stick
> with tried and true. Any alternative engine would have to
> use normal mounts and attachments.
>
> 5) More on electronic controls: Have you ever had a car that
> had the check engine light on and it didn't run so well?
> Maybe because the MAP sensor, or O2 sensor or Throttle position
> sensor, or just any other sensor didn't work quite right?
> Man, I would really rather just have a simple engine, with
> a nice fully instrumented monitoring system. Also, I'm not
> an airplane "Driver", I'm a "pilot" or "Aviator". I actually
> enjoy operating the mixture lever. I like the added challenge,
> as minimal as it is. I like it that if my CHT's seem high,
> I can lean it out more past peak, or richen it more ROP,
> and watch the temps come down. It gives me pleasure and
> a feeling of security that I have the ability to change
> that engine parameter, along with RPM and throttle, to
> affect a change in how the engine runs. If it were all
> automatic, I'd not know what's really happening in that little
> black box, and my options are limited.
>
> So I'm not saying that things can't be improved upon, but
> I really don't know that there is as much as some people
> think that NEEDS improving. To me, the only real thing
> that I'd complain about is that the cost is too high.
> I'd also like it if certified engines could come with
> maybe 1/2 of the electrical system using EI, like I do,
> so that you can get the benefits of EI, while maintaining
> some semblance of electrical independence.
>
> New technologies are not simply "better" or "worse", in many cases,
> but in many ways, the old "tractor engine" as it's been recently
> called (Not that I've ever seen one like it on a tractor, but
> maybe a VW), is hard to beat from a standard reliability in
> flight metric. To me, reliability in flight is probably the
> SINGLE most important thing that an airplane engine needs to have,
> is it not? I'm about to do another few hundred miles over
> the ocean soon....I know to me it matters a lot.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4/22/2015 3:53 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>> I think you are misinterpreting some of the comments. It is not that is
>> how we have always done it. Yes, the IO540 has been around since the
>> mid-sixties. However, it was really advanced for its time. Cars were
>> running 4 barrel carburetors with points controlled distributors back
>> then. No one has shown better fuel efficiency on avgas than the IO-540
>> will do lean of peak, beyond what an electronic ignition does to improve
>> control of spark advance. That gives you 5% plus or minus a little. By
>> 1970 there was the dual turbo charged 350+ hpTIO-540 on Chieftains and
>> the TIO541 on Dukes. If there is efficiency to be added by timed fuel
>> injection, I have not seen the data. There is efficiency available with
>> direct injection to the cylinders with very high fuel pressures, but
>> that isn't what is being discussed. Whether the fuel is delivered when
>> the valves are open or continuous is talking about around a 50th of a
>> second. To operate that unquantified benefit, you have the extra cost of
>> the unit plus another thousand or so in a fully redundant electrical
>> system.
>> Since, as you say you still have a mixture control, you probably haven't
>> gained much over the engines that had altitude compensating fuel pumps
>> to adjust the mixture for altitude. Most of what is being considered
>> "new" was invented 40-50 years ago and used on race cars. Only the
>> volume of mass production for cars has changed the costs somewhat. Many
>> cars have had continuous fuel injection for a very long time. It took
>> the combination of unleaded fuel, closed loop feedback and higher
>> compression with knock sensors to make much improvement. There are
>> factors for cars like cold and hot start emissions and part throttle
>> economy that drive a lot of the choices.
>> The main point is that yes you can make all the experimental choices you
>> want, but there are costs, and not much has been proven effective and
>> durable at this point.
>>
>> On 4/22/2015 8:07 AM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.
>>>
>>> It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has
>>> their own opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.
>>>
>>> While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always
>>> done it" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be
>>> made to ancient tractor engines that we are using...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
No worries, I don't think "Tractor Engine" is even a slam. I think if
I wanted ultimate reliability out of my engine, I'd WANT a tractor
engine, a Semi Tractor engine, a UPS truck engine.... those guys
couldn't run a business if their engine broke down, so hey, if it's
a tractor engine that's fine. At least maybe it keeps running and running.
Tim
On 4/22/2015 8:03 PM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
>
> The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology of the ancient
times but VW works, too.
>
> Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion. Everyone has
their own OPINION, and each is entitled to it. It doesn't make any opinion correct
or incorrect but it does serve to circulate more information...and that
is good.
>
> Still going with the EFII system :D
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
I=99ve told non-pilot friends who ask, that my engine is like
having a big lawn mower engine on the front of the plane. Air cooled,
magneto fired and silly simple. Change the oil and it runs forever.
Just has electric start. (Obviously more to it than that but in simple
terms)
I also wonder what we would all think about an IO-540 if it just was
introduced on the market this year, and previously all aircraft engines
were liquid cooled, EFI, high RPM auto engines.
Dave Leikam
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Neal George <neal.george@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Well said, Phil...
>
> Neal George
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com
<mailto:philperry9@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> You are touching on a few things I have been thinking about.
Recognizing your newness to the experimental side of aviation is very
important.
>>
>> When I started my RV-10 seven years ago, I too was new to the
experimental side. At the time my exposure/experience was very
limited. Sure, I had some knowledge of how things work, how they should
work if I modify things, and how they should react. To simply put it,
I had knowledge but very little real world experience; my window of
real-world exposure was very narrow.
>>
>> At that point, I hadn't had friends who had accidents. I hadn't lost
any friends. As a result my eyes were wide open because I didn't know
what I didn't know.
>>
>> As I sit here at lunch typing this message on my iPhone, I have 7
years of history behind me.
>>
>> 7 years ago my personal impact record was clean and in looking in the
rear view mirror I now have 2 friends who managed to dead stick their
airplane after engine failure. One of them has gone through 7 engines
in his velocity (costing him more than a Lycoming) and he is now putting
a Lycoming in it after finally giving up.
>>
>> But those are the good stories because today I have 4 (other) friends
who are dead from 3 accidents. All of them were in alternative engine
aircraft. All of them were the direct result of the engine.
>>
>> Today I now have some experience to go along with that knowledge I
had when I started. My window of exposure to experimental aviation is
now wider and is balanced by real experience.
>>
>> I'm tired of losing friends. I'm tired of seeing their wives and
kids grieve. I'm tired of all of it. It sucks.
>>
>> If there's one good thing about a 7-8 year build, it's that you're
given an opportunity to get exposure to some stuff you otherwise
wouldn't.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy@gmail.com
<mailto:flyboy@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for chiming in, Rocketman. Unlike a lot of you, I'm new to
this whole homebuilt thing, but I take the the concept of "experimental"
seriously. I think that there's a strong tendency to simply want to put
an airplane together, and while that's a valid option these days, it
doesn't have to be limited to that. I'm just now struggling with diving
into the actual experimental aspects of building a kit. Up until now,
everything I've done has been pretty much verbatim following the
(mostly) excellent instructions. It's nice to be able to make progress
on building an airplane without thinking about it, but a huge part of
the appeal of a homebuilt is the ability to make my own decisions about
how I think an aircraft should be equipped. And now, as I'm making
progress on the wings I'm having to make some real decisions, and I keep
trying to remind myself that's a good thing. It drives me crazy that
piston aircraft engines are stuck with 1950's technology when so much
better is available, and I hope that by being a (somewhat) early adopter
of EFI that I can help turn the tide toward affordable, modern engine
management. Buying and installing a system from EFII is only a minor
contribution, but the more of us there are moving forward, the faster
we'll get there. I wasn't around when the EAB community started
adopting things like glass panel displays, but I'm sure there were
plenty of naysayers then, too. Still, I welcome all the comments: it's
a very valid point that there's currently only one RV-10 that we know
about with an EFII system, but it's a risk I'm willing to take. At some
point there were no RV-10s flying at all. I love not having to be
first; I'm glad that there were 1,534 kits sold before mine, but I'm not
afraid of building something that's actually experimental. After all,
I'm going to have to paint that word on the plane. I love that this
community exists and that, so far, everything I want to do has been done
in some form or fashion by someone else. Keep telling me I'm insane for
not priming or planning on an EFII system. Those are valid opinions,
and I like hearing them. Thanks for being out there--this is one of the
first times I've actually had to ask questions, because almost every
question I've had can be answered by a web search.
>>>
>>> Berck
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Rocketman1988
<Rocketman@etczone.com <mailto:Rocketman@etczone.com>> wrote:
<Rocketman@etczone.com <mailto:Rocketman@etczone.com>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, I know what you mean with the alternative engine.
>>>
>>> It is kind of like discussing politics or religion...everyone has
their own opinion and anyone that disagrees is obviously wrong.
>>>
>>> While I appreciate the comments from the "that's how we have always
done it" crowd, I am pretty certain improvements can and should be made
to ancient tractor engines that we are using...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119
<http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441119#441119>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
>>> ==========
>>> FORUMS -
>>> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>> ==========
>>> b Site -
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
>>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>>> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>>>
>>
>>
>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com/>
>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>>
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>>
>
>
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Return Line Location? |
Unfortunately for me, 4 dead friends in three accidents is fact. Not
opinion.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman@etczone.com>
wrote:
>
> The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology of the
> ancient times but VW works, too.
>
> Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion. Everyone
> has their own OPINION, and each is entitled to it. It doesn't make any
> opinion correct or incorrect but it does serve to circulate more
> information...and that is good.
>
> Still going with the EFII system :D
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441145#441145
>
>
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: Fuel Return Line Location? |
I'm sorry to hear that Phillip. I am always interested in causal factors in a
viation accident because we have a duty to learn from the mistakes of others
. Do you have any specific lessons learned that you would like to share with
the rest of us? Were any of these accidents employing the use of the EFII s
ystem specifically? Were they automotive engines adapted for aviation use?
Thanks for sharing lessons learned.
Justin
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 18:26, Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately for me, 4 dead friends in three accidents is fact. Not opin
ion.
>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman@etczone.com> wr
ote:
>>
>> The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology of the a
ncient times but VW works, too.
>>
>> Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion. Everyone h
as their own OPINION, and each is entitled to it. It doesn't make any opini
on correct or incorrect but it does serve to circulate more information...an
d that is good.
>>
>> Still going with the EFII system :D
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441145#441145
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
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: Fuel Return Line Location? |
I will add to the other side of the coin.... ALOT of alternative engine
powered experimental planes suffer from "pie in the sky" dreams and fail
in predictable ways... For example... Take the guy from Texas who was a
ble to stuff a LS Chevy into various airframes and claim is will work wi
th minimal clearance between RED hot exhaust systems radiating massive a
mounts of heat against critical fuel and oil lines...... He didn't lear
n his lesson from the first inflight fire... The second one killed him a
nd his sister... And the other example previously mentioned was poor Ch
ris from Texas who drank the P. Lamar Koolaid and spent years trying to
get into the air after numerous mistakes.... Glad he survived and picked
a Lyc to power his Velocity..To quote a movie line... " A man has to kn
ow his limitations" My experimental just had it's 11th bithday.... Over
500 hours and 100,000 + miles of safe flight.. That equals to 4 plus tim
es around the earth at the equator, and it NEVER has had a off airport e
mergency landing and still running perfectly.... All the time running a
V-8 Ford ( ALTERNATIVE) engine in it... I am dumber that a fence post a
nd I pulled it off..... So far,....The day is still young though.... I
have owned a few certified planes and now that I ventured over to the ex
perimental side, I see that as a badge to explore the uncertain side of
life... It is all of us who do the experimental thing who will move the
ball down the field, make it airframes, motors or avionics... since we a
re at the forefront of certified planes 40 years from now.... Be safe ou
t there kids.... Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?
Unfortunately for me, 4 dead friends in three accidents is fact.=C2 Not
opinion.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman@etczone.com> w
rote:
The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology of the
ancient times but VW works, too.
Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion.=C2 Ever
yone has their own OPINION, and each is entitled to it.=C2 It doesn't m
ake any opinion correct or incorrect but it does serve to circulate more
information...and that is good.
Still going with the EFII system :D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441145#441145
==========
-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
==========
FORUMS -
_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
==========
b Site -
=C2 =C2 =C2 =C2 =C2 -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
=========
____________________________________________________________
1 Flat Belly Please!
Learn the 30-second Daily Trick that FLATTENS Your Belly
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/553860d1f26d960d163d2st01duc
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternate fuel and ignition |
It doesn't really matter what precipitates the crash. It appears that
the RV-10 doesn't have such a good deadstick landing record. (how many
practice power off landings from more than 1/2 mile from the runway?)
Whether it is the pilot's fault, the engine or electrics fault or the
ass-phalt, the result is the same. There is a reason homebuilt aircraft
do not have as good an accident record as production aircraft. We each
have to make choices as to how far we deviate from plans or proven
aircraft products. There is a good record of some products making it
from experimental to certified. Unfortunately probably 3-4 times that
number do not turn our as successes, vanish from the scene.
Unfortunately some of those failures spill blood.
Kelly
On 4/22/2015 7:50 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
> I'm sorry to hear that Phillip. I am always interested in causal
> factors in aviation accident because we have a duty to learn from the
> mistakes of others. Do you have any specific lessons learned that you
> would like to share with the rest of us? Were any of these accidents
> employing the use of the EFII system specifically? Were they
> automotive engines adapted for aviation use?
>
> Thanks for sharing lessons learned.
>
> Justin
>
>
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 18:26, Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com
> <mailto:philperry9@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately for me, 4 dead friends in three accidents is fact. Not
>> opinion.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman@etczone.com
>> <mailto:Rocketman@etczone.com>> wrote:
>>
>> <Rocketman@etczone.com <mailto:Rocketman@etczone.com>>
>>
>> The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology
>> of the ancient times but VW works, too.
>>
>> Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion.
>> Everyone has their own OPINION, and each is entitled to it. It
>> doesn't make any opinion correct or incorrect but it does serve
>> to circulate more information...and that is good.
>>
>> Still going with the EFII system :D
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441145#441145
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> D============================================
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> D============================================
>> //forums.matronics.com
>> D============================================
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> D============================================
>>
>> *
> *
>
>
> *
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: Alternate fuel and ignition |
Kellym wrote:
> It doesn't really matter what precipitates the crash. It appears that
> the RV-10 doesn't have such a good deadstick landing record.
> *
>
>
[/quote]
As far as I know there have been zero fatalities where RV10's were dead-sticked
to the ground under control, in some cases in less than desirable terrain. The
very first, and now latest, fatal accidents were pilots stalling 50 feet up.
This speaks well of the airframe; perhaps not so well of the pilots.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441159#441159
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: Alternate fuel and ignition |
As an aviation professional with a degree in aviation safety and a career in aviation
I stand with many many other aviation safety professionals when saying
it absolutely matters what precipitates the crash. If it didn't matter, the NTSB
wouldn't exist and we would all still be making the same mistakes Orville and
Wilbur made. We must learn from the mistakes of others. Whether it's the DC-10
that crashed in Iowa after a previously-considered impossible event of the
loss of all three hydraulic systems, the crash of TWA-800, or the RV-10 N62DN
that crashed in Ohio, as aviation professionals, enthusiasts, and builders we
must be vigilant of mistakes that can be made on all levels. We don't know what
we don't know, but we can learn from what others didn't know. We have made
it this far in aviation by progressively learning from everyone's mistakes and
have a duty to continue doing so.
Respectfully,
Justin
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 19:15, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>
>
> It doesn't really matter what precipitates the crash. It appears that the RV-10
doesn't have such a good deadstick landing record. (how many practice power
off landings from more than 1/2 mile from the runway?) Whether it is the pilot's
fault, the engine or electrics fault or the ass-phalt, the result is the same.
There is a reason homebuilt aircraft do not have as good an accident record
as production aircraft. We each have to make choices as to how far we deviate
from plans or proven aircraft products. There is a good record of some products
making it from experimental to certified. Unfortunately probably 3-4 times
that number do not turn our as successes, vanish from the scene. Unfortunately
some of those failures spill blood.
> Kelly
>
>> On 4/22/2015 7:50 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
>> I'm sorry to hear that Phillip. I am always interested in causal factors in
aviation accident because we have a duty to learn from the mistakes of others.
Do you have any specific lessons learned that you would like to share with the
rest of us? Were any of these accidents employing the use of the EFII system
specifically? Were they automotive engines adapted for aviation use?
>>
>> Thanks for sharing lessons learned.
>>
>> Justin
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 22, 2015, at 18:26, Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com <mailto:philperry9@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Unfortunately for me, 4 dead friends in three accidents is fact. Not opinion.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman@etczone.com <mailto:Rocketman@etczone.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <Rocketman@etczone.com <mailto:Rocketman@etczone.com>>
>>>
>>> The "tractor engine" was meant as a comparison to the technology
>>> of the ancient times but VW works, too.
>>>
>>> Like I said before, it's like discussing politics or religion. Everyone
has their own OPINION, and each is entitled to it. It
>>> doesn't make any opinion correct or incorrect but it does serve
>>> to circulate more information...and that is good.
>>>
>>> Still going with the EFII system :D
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441145#441145
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> ==========
>>> FORUMS -
>>> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> b Site -
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> D============================================
>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> D============================================
>>> //forums.matronics.com
>>> D============================================
>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> D============================================
>>>
>>> *
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|