Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:21 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Gary)
2. 06:51 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? ()
3. 07:58 AM - Re: Re: Alternate fuel and ignition (Pascal)
4. 08:45 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Carl Froehlich)
5. 09:50 AM - Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (Rocketman1988)
6. 10:05 AM - Re: Alternate fuel and ignition (Rocketman1988)
7. 10:07 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Return Line Location? (William Greenley)
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? |
I have been building experimental planes since 1980. My list of dead friends
is a lot longerand so is the list of dead projects. The frustration of thos
e of use who have endured these losses is that "joe new guy" thinks that he i
s the first guy to think of the "new ides/new technology". Or that they are s
marter than those that went before. Many many things have been tried over th
e years and discarded because they did not live up to the hype or had hidden
dangers not apparent on first or even second look.
It is so frustrating to see an idea floated and folks respond with reasons w
hy it probably is not in the best interest of the builder to do it and the n
ew guy takes the attude that he knows better and that the veterans are a bun
ch of old fuddy duddies. Most of us who try and offer suggestions are not t
rying to show that our way is better, if we po po an idea it is because we d
on't think it will get you to where you want to be.
I would like to see an auto engine conversion be successful, but how many fo
lks have tried and tried only to eventually put in a Lycoming. If you want t
o try an auto conversion great, however you need to know that you will be in
for a very long road of frustration and failure before you succeed if you a
re lucky enough to succeed.
A friend gave me some sage advice many years ago, before the turn of the cen
tury, if you think something is a good idea for your plane, go to OSH and if
you can find 5 of that idea in a row and Most of the builders are happy wit
h the idea, go for it. If not you will be embarking on a long road of expe
rimentation. Experimentation is great, but the road is way longer and way m
ore frustrating than you can know going into it.
Gary
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 10:26 PM, 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 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? |
I promise I am reading every word of this thread with great interest.
The fuel line location has long been dealt with.
What would the appropriate label of this topic be?
Do not archive.
Later, =93 Lew
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: Alternate fuel and ignition |
"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. "
To your point Bob-
http://www.aviationinspector.com/2013/01/pilot-rescued-in-rv-10-plane-crash-near-julian/
Oil connector was loose- lost oil pressure. took it to the mountainous
terrain and walked away.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Turner
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 10:51 PM
Subject: RV10-List: 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 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? |
Perhaps =9Cmanaging risks when deviating from traditional aircraft
system design and implementation=9D.
As has been discussed, risk tolerance is as varied among builders as
paint schemes. One approach to try to bound this risk discussion would
be to first define the mission of the RV project. Here many builders
fall into just two groups; those who have to build to get an RV and
those who get to build and have an RV as a bonus. For that first group
I=99d offer the best risk mitigation is to adopt systems that have
been demonstrated by other builders. This group will end up with some
confidence that they (and their passengers) are not on the cutting edge
of experimental when doing all the wonderful trips these planes offer.
For the second group time and money spent to achieve a new level of
performance is the reward, the flying part is just a nice benefit.
15 years ago I was enthralled with the prospect of putting a Delta Hawk
diesel engine in my RV-8A project. It quickly became evident that this
was a pipe dream and went with a new engine from Van=99s. Another
example was the Blue Mountain EFIS offering. The lesson taught to me
was look beyond the marketing hype for such companies and decide if the
company would survive beyond the beta phase. My hard Lightspeed
ignition failures in the 8A also educated me on the importance of
=9Cservice after the sale=9D, and my decision to dump that
ignition for pMags.
My point being no one should ignore the experience of other builders.
Our community is small enough that few should repeat the problems others
have already encountered. New builders have responsibility to listen,
seasoned builders have responsibility to share their lessons learned.
The new builder will need to add his/her filter to reconcile conflicting
recommendations. On this last part, facts and data will always bubble
about the hype.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
lewgall@charter.net
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?
I promise I am reading every word of this thread with great interest.
The fuel line location has long been dealt with.
What would the appropriate label of this topic be?
Do not archive.
Later, =93 Lew
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? |
"This group will end up with some confidence that they (and their passengers) are
not on the cutting edge of experimental when doing all the wonderful trips
these planes offer. For the second group time and money spent to achieve a new
level of performance is the reward, the flying part is just a nice benefit."
Nicely put.
Obviously then, it is the second group that implements change causing progress,
which the first group then adopts. See, everybody wins...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441178#441178
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: Alternate fuel and ignition |
"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."
I hope you are not insinuating that just because parts are "certified" that they
are necessarily better.
Case in point: Throttle cable on 1957 Cessna 172 needed to be replaced due to
the failure of the cable about 8 inches from the carb end. As the throttle arm
is moved the cable moves through an arc and over time the cable fails. Accordingly,
the cable was being replaced but the FAA wanted a "certified" replacement
(new old stock), which was destined to fail in the same way. ACS, however,
has an "experimental" version of the cable, redesigned with a semi flexible
joint at the failure location, teflon lined, mil-spec tested, for less than half
the price.
Which is "better"?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441179#441179
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? |
I have not received any job aids for LG, should I be creating those,
normally they are provided and I just format. Job aids were not in the
requirement doc.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rocketman1988
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 12:47 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Fuel Return Line Location?
"This group will end up with some confidence that they (and their
passengers) are not on the cutting edge of experimental when doing all the
wonderful trips these planes offer. For the second group time and money
spent to achieve a new level of performance is the reward, the flying part
is just a nice benefit."
Nicely put.
Obviously then, it is the second group that implements change causing
progress, which the first group then adopts. See, everybody wins...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=441178#441178
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! --
|