Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:40 AM - Re: Baggage Area Weight (Kelly McMullen)
2. 11:53 AM - Re: Baggage Area Weight (Bob Turner)
3. 01:14 PM - Nose gear leg cutout length? (Rob Kochman)
4. 01:50 PM - Gascolator locations (Dan Charrois)
5. 02:51 PM - Re: Gascolator locations (Carl Froehlich)
6. 04:03 PM - Re: Gascolator locations (kearney)
7. 04:47 PM - Re: Nose gear leg cutout length? (Albert)
8. 06:34 PM - Re: Nose gear leg cutout length? (Rob Kochman)
9. 06:53 PM - Re: Re: Baggage Area Weight (Miller John)
10. 07:03 PM - Re: Re: Baggage Area Weight (Lyle Peterson)
11. 07:23 PM - Re: Re: Baggage Area Weight (Tim Olson)
12. 08:45 PM - Re: Baggage Area Weight (woxofswa)
13. 09:45 PM - Re: Baggage Area Weight (Bob Turner)
14. 10:47 PM - Re: Baggage Area Weight (Bob Turner)
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: Baggage Area Weight |
Bob,
I was cleaning out old email and noticed your message. Did you ever get
an answer?
I know I have had my 200lb carcass back there working in the tail cone
and never caused any problem with the baggage floor.
Kelly
On 2/15/2013 2:45 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
> The paperwork from Vans that came with my final kit recommended a maximum of
150 lbs in the baggage area.
>
> But I see Vans' web site now says 100 lbs maximum.
>
> Anyone know when this change happened? Or why?
>
> Bob
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=394373#394373
>
>
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: Baggage Area Weight |
No, I never did get an answer.
200 lbs crawling around is no issue. Remember the floor has to hold 3.8 x 100 (or
is it 150?) pounds, 3.8 being the max allowed g loading.
I wonder if the change was just because Vans was worried that people would just
shove 150 lbs back there without doing a cg calculation(!). With adults in the
back seats and low fuel, I could get aft of the aft limit.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443358#443358
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: | Nose gear leg cutout length? |
I lengthened the nose gear leg cutout in the bottom of my cowl to make it
easier to remove and replace the lower cowl. I want to construct an
aluminum panel to cover the cowl material I removed. Can someone tell me
the distance between the rear of the cowl and the front of the cutout? I
forgot to measure it before removing material from the cowl. Thanks..
-Rob
--
Rob Kochman
RV-10 Flying since March 2011
Woodinville, WA
http://kochman.net/N819K
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: | Gascolator locations |
Hi everyone.
I'm in Canada, and stuck with an obsolete regulation that we require gascolators
in homebuilt planes. Though they're pretty much pointless in a low-wing fuel
injected plane like the RV-10, I have no choice but to put one in. I've done
as much research as I can in trying to decide exactly where would be the "best"
place to do so, but wanted to post my observations and thoughts here in case
anyone can find something I've overlooked, or can assuage any of the potential
pitfalls I see in different scenarios due to your own experience. No matter
where I install it, the specific gascolator I am considering is the Andair
GAS375 - as it seems to be one of the better constructed.
I see three locations where they can be installed - in the wing roots, in the tunnel,
or on the firewall.
Firewall: Advantage - relatively straightforward to install there. Disadvantages
- If an O-ring or something starts to leak, it would spray fuel around the
engine compartment under pressure (are potential leaks of this sort a real possibility
to consider?). That can't be a good thing. Also, under the hot cowling,
would it cause an increased potential for vapour lock? It may also not
be the true "lowest" point in the fuel system, which the regulations also specify.
Tunnel: Two options here - adding it as another device in the tunnel, or replacing
the fuel filter already there with the gascolator. On first glance, replacing
the fuel filter seems to be the way to go since the addition of the gascolator
wouldn't be adding a new point of failure - just replacing one. Though
when I checked with Van's about this, they recommended against it - they would
rather see the recommended filter still in place, and the gascolator added elsewhere.
In any case, whether adding the gascolator on its own, or replacing
the existing filter, an advantage would be that it should be less likely to contribute
to vapour lock, provided that tunnel heat isn't excessive. Disadvantages
- there is still the possibility of spraying fuel under pressure if it were
to fail, and in the tunnel seems just as bad (if not worse) than the engine
compartment. Secondly, the fuel drain for the gascolator would be in the vicinity
of the exhaust pipes. I've had first-hand experience with fuel tank drains
leaking and dribbling due to debris that ended up getting into the seal.
If it were to dribble fuel into the hot exhaust gases, again that can't be a
good thing.
Wing roots: Advantage - they'd be cool out there so wouldn't contribute to vapour
lock. Also, if they started leaking (either through O-rings failing or the
drain dribbling), it's less of an issue. Plus, since there would have to be
two, if one did start to leak in a spectacular fashion, there is the redundancy
of two, so at least the fuel in one of the wings would stick around. And they
wouldn't be pressurized there, so leaks should be less dramatic. Disadvantages
- Cost would be twice as much, since two would be needed. There would be
no way to shut off the fuel prior to the gascolators for cleaning the filter,
so the tanks would have to be drained to do so (I wouldn't want to introduce
yet another point of failure by installing shutoff valves before them) Also,
the gascolator would have fuel sucked through it rather than pushed through it,
so it would be under a small amount of negative pressure rather than positive
pressure (more so when the filter starts to get dirty) - would this cause potential
problems with air possibly be introduced through the drain port? Or
is the seal and spring on the drain port more than strong enough to maintain a
seal against the outside even when being sucked up with the negative pressure?
I hate having to install a gascolator in the first place, and it doesn't help to
have not come up with a clear winner with regards to location. Any advice anybody
could give would be greatly appreciated. Am I overlooking anything, or
equally, overstating the likelihood of certain failure scenarios?
Thanks!
Dan
---
Dan Charrois
President, Syzygy Research & Technology
Phone: 780-961-2213
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: | Gascolator locations |
Before I understood gascolators I put an Andair gascolator on my first
plane, an RV-8A with an IO-360 engine. I mounted it using a piece of angle
on the lower left corner of the firewall such that a push drain valve
(identical to the ones on the wing tanks) on the bottom of the gascolator
could be accessed with the cowl on (the cowl had a 1/2" hole for this
purpose). The angle held the gascolator off the firewall enough such that
the drain valve was forward of the lower cowl attach hinge. The bottom of
the drain valve was just inside the cowl so a standard sump glass with a
sump rod could sump the gascolator. 12 years of flying and I never had an
issue or a problem with vapor lock.
Two other recommendations:
- plumb the fuel system with the inline filter in the tunnel per plans.
While the filter in the Andair gascolator meets the specs for the fuel
system, it is after the fuel pump and small compared to the inline fuel
filter.
- get an Andair gascolator - if you have to have it then get one that is
well made (so you can worry less about leaks and such)
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Charrois
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:47 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Gascolator locations
Hi everyone.
I'm in Canada, and stuck with an obsolete regulation that we require
gascolators in homebuilt planes. Though they're pretty much pointless in a
low-wing fuel injected plane like the RV-10, I have no choice but to put one
in. I've done as much research as I can in trying to decide exactly where
would be the "best" place to do so, but wanted to post my observations and
thoughts here in case anyone can find something I've overlooked, or can
assuage any of the potential pitfalls I see in different scenarios due to
your own experience. No matter where I install it, the specific gascolator
I am considering is the Andair GAS375 - as it seems to be one of the better
constructed.
I see three locations where they can be installed - in the wing roots, in
the tunnel, or on the firewall.
Firewall: Advantage - relatively straightforward to install there.
Disadvantages - If an O-ring or something starts to leak, it would spray
fuel around the engine compartment under pressure (are potential leaks of
this sort a real possibility to consider?). That can't be a good thing.
Also, under the hot cowling, would it cause an increased potential for
vapour lock? It may also not be the true "lowest" point in the fuel system,
which the regulations also specify.
Tunnel: Two options here - adding it as another device in the tunnel, or
replacing the fuel filter already there with the gascolator. On first
glance, replacing the fuel filter seems to be the way to go since the
addition of the gascolator wouldn't be adding a new point of failure - just
replacing one. Though when I checked with Van's about this, they
recommended against it - they would rather see the recommended filter still
in place, and the gascolator added elsewhere. In any case, whether adding
the gascolator on its own, or replacing the existing filter, an advantage
would be that it should be less likely to contribute to vapour lock,
provided that tunnel heat isn't excessive. Disadvantages - there is still
the possibility of spraying fuel under pressure if it were to fail, and in
the tunnel seems just as bad (if not worse) than the engine compartment.
Secondly, the fuel drain for the gascolator would be in the vicinity of the
exhaust pipes. I've had first-hand ex!
perience with fuel tank drains leaking and dribbling due to debris that
ended up getting into the seal. If it were to dribble fuel into the hot
exhaust gases, again that can't be a good thing.
Wing roots: Advantage - they'd be cool out there so wouldn't contribute to
vapour lock. Also, if they started leaking (either through O-rings failing
or the drain dribbling), it's less of an issue. Plus, since there would
have to be two, if one did start to leak in a spectacular fashion, there is
the redundancy of two, so at least the fuel in one of the wings would stick
around. And they wouldn't be pressurized there, so leaks should be less
dramatic. Disadvantages - Cost would be twice as much, since two would be
needed. There would be no way to shut off the fuel prior to the gascolators
for cleaning the filter, so the tanks would have to be drained to do so (I
wouldn't want to introduce yet another point of failure by installing
shutoff valves before them) Also, the gascolator would have fuel sucked
through it rather than pushed through it, so it would be under a small
amount of negative pressure rather than positive pressure (more so when the
filter starts to get d!
irty) - would this cause potential problems with air possibly be introduced
through the drain port? Or is the seal and spring on the drain port more
than strong enough to maintain a seal against the outside even when being
sucked up with the negative pressure?
I hate having to install a gascolator in the first place, and it doesn't
help to have not come up with a clear winner with regards to location. Any
advice anybody could give would be greatly appreciated. Am I overlooking
anything, or equally, overstating the likelihood of certain failure
scenarios?
Thanks!
Dan
---
Dan Charrois
President, Syzygy Research & Technology
Phone: 780-961-2213
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: Gascolator locations |
Hi Dan
I have felt your pain.....
This is what I installed prior to getting TC permission to ditch my gascolators.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/usher.php
I used these as they were a) cheap, b) simple and c) easy to install. I still have
my mounting brackets - they are your if you want them.
IMNHO opinion, gascolators serve no purpose in a low wing a/c unless the laws
of physics are repealed and water can flow up hill Gascolators, in our application
function as little more than gas bombs when placed in high heat areas or
as a source of vapour lock when placed on the suction side of the fuel pumps
Anyway, what I did to get past the MDRA inspection was to install the gascolators
in the wing roots. Using the user gascolators I installed plugs, not quick
drains as I did not want risk the suction lifting the drain and introducing air
into the fuel system. I mounted the plugs so I had access to them under neath
the wing through the bottom wing root faring. I never planned to remove the
plugs as any water would be removed using the tank sumps, which were the lowest
point in the fuel sumps. But I did have access to them which met the requirement
of the CARS exemption that MDRA requires you meet.
I would not place the gascolator on the firewall as it only serves to introduce
a volume of fuel in an aluminum container that would easily melt if there was
an engine fire.
For similar reasons, I would not use the tunnel. If I could I would have kept all
fuel lines out of the cockpit but in the -10 that is not possible. Fire in
the cockpit is the only thing about flying that scares me.
As the Usher gascolators have screens, you could use them as as additional fuel
filters located in the wing roots. I would not use quick drains on them for
the reason noted above.
Cheers
Les
Postscript for those south of the 49th parallel....
In Canada, amateur built aircraft are inspected by MD-RA, an agency delegated inspection
authority by Transport Canada (our FAA equivalent). There inspection
process is based on Appendix A of CARS 549.01. This appendix exempts amateur
built aircraft from the requirements of 549.01 but does require installation of
a gascolator. It would be interesting to see what MD-RA would do if confronted
with an electric aircraft - how would you install a gascolator and where?
When I swapped my Subaru engine for an IO-540, I was reinspected and my CofA reissued.
In this case the inspection was done by Transport Canada and not MD-RA.
For this inspection, I conformed my a/c to the requirements of CARS 549.01 and
not the exemption. As a result, I was not required to have gascolators as they
are only required by the exemption. Unfortunately this option is not available
to builders getting their initial inspection done as all initial inspections
are done by MD-RA and they only use the exemption.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443370#443370
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: | Nose gear leg cutout length? |
This is what I did for my 3 bladed prop. The measurments are from the
nose scoop heading aft even though the pics imply it was measured from
the rear. I still have to hold the tail down to let the gear leg drop as
much as possible and then protect the prop edges as I remove the lower
cowl.
Albert Gardner
N991RV
Yuma, AZ
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kochman
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 1:11 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Nose gear leg cutout length?
I lengthened the nose gear leg cutout in the bottom of my cowl to make
it easier to remove and replace the lower cowl. I want to construct an
aluminum panel to cover the cowl material I removed. Can someone tell
me the distance between the rear of the cowl and the front of the
cutout? I forgot to measure it before removing material from the cowl.
Thanks..
-Rob
--
Rob Kochman
RV-10 Flying since March 2011
Woodinville, WA
http://kochman.net/N819K
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: Nose gear leg cutout length? |
Awesome... thank you!
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Albert <ibspud@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> This is what I did for my 3 bladed prop. The measurments are from the nose
> scoop heading aft even though the pics imply it was measured from the rear.
> I still have to hold the tail down to let the gear leg drop as much as
> possible and then protect the prop edges as I remove the lower cowl.
>
> Albert Gardner
>
> N991RV
>
> Yuma, AZ
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rob Kochman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 1:11 PM
> *To:* rv10-list
> *Subject:* RV10-List: Nose gear leg cutout length?
>
>
> I lengthened the nose gear leg cutout in the bottom of my cowl to make it
> easier to remove and replace the lower cowl. I want to construct an
> aluminum panel to cover the cowl material I removed. Can someone tell me
> the distance between the rear of the cowl and the front of the cutout? I
> forgot to measure it before removing material from the cowl. Thanks..
>
>
> -Rob
>
>
> --
>
> Rob Kochman
> RV-10 Flying since March 2011
>
> Woodinville, WA
>
> http://kochman.net/N819K
>
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>*
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>*
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>*
>
>
--
Rob Kochman
RV-10 Flying since March 2011
Woodinville, WA
http://kochman.net/N819K
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: Baggage Area Weight |
For what its worth, the weight limit in the rear has been 100lbs since I bought
my kit in the spring of 2005. I have never seen anything from Vans that had
a higher weight limit there.
Grumpy
N184JM
DO NOT ARCHIVE
> On Jun 10, 2015, at 1:49 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> No, I never did get an answer.
> 200 lbs crawling around is no issue. Remember the floor has to hold 3.8 x 100
(or is it 150?) pounds, 3.8 being the max allowed g loading.
>
> I wonder if the change was just because Vans was worried that people would just
shove 150 lbs back there without doing a cg calculation(!). With adults in
the back seats and low fuel, I could get aft of the aft limit.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443358#443358
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Baggage Area Weight |
The weight limit in the baggage area has little to do with the strength
of the baggage shelf although it is a factor in high g maneuvers.
The main issue is weight and balance. As Bob Turner pointed out he can
get an aft cg with low fuel and two adults in the back.
On 6/10/2015 8:50 PM, Miller John wrote:
>
> For what its worth, the weight limit in the rear has been 100lbs since I bought
my kit in the spring of 2005. I have never seen anything from Vans that had
a higher weight limit there.
>
> Grumpy
> N184JM
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>> On Jun 10, 2015, at 1:49 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> No, I never did get an answer.
>> 200 lbs crawling around is no issue. Remember the floor has to hold 3.8 x 100
(or is it 150?) pounds, 3.8 being the max allowed g loading.
>>
>> I wonder if the change was just because Vans was worried that people would just
shove 150 lbs back there without doing a cg calculation(!). With adults in
the back seats and low fuel, I could get aft of the aft limit.
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443358#443358
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Baggage Area Weight |
I've heard some people reference 150 that they saw too, but Grumpy
has it just as I remember...I think when we were building, we were
told 100. Personally, I think that's a pretty irrelevant number.
It basically will hold what it will hold, and unless you're carrying
something ultra heavy, it's probably a non-issue, and if it
is THAT heavy, you have a much bigger problem with CG.
Tim
On 6/10/2015 8:50 PM, Miller John wrote:
>
> For what its worth, the weight limit in the rear has been 100lbs since I bought
my kit in the spring of 2005. I have never seen anything from Vans that had
a higher weight limit there.
>
> Grumpy
> N184JM
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>> On Jun 10, 2015, at 1:49 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> No, I never did get an answer.
>> 200 lbs crawling around is no issue. Remember the floor has to hold 3.8 x 100
(or is it 150?) pounds, 3.8 being the max allowed g loading.
>>
>> I wonder if the change was just because Vans was worried that people would just
shove 150 lbs back there without doing a cg calculation(!). With adults in
the back seats and low fuel, I could get aft of the aft limit.
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443358#443358
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Baggage Area Weight |
I can't remember where, but I am absolutely sure that I have seen both 100 and
150 in official Van's Aircraft produced documentia.
--------
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
Flew May 10 2014
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443381#443381
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: Baggage Area Weight |
After my first post, I looked thru my paperwork. The packet I got with the final
kit - the section on measuring weight, moment arms, and cg - is where the 150
lb number is printed.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443385#443385
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: Baggage Area Weight |
My empty cg is pretty far forward. If I were carrying bags of sand, I could put
250 lbs in the baggage area and still be within cg limits - as long as no one
sat in the rear seats. Although it's hard to imagine doing that.
As I recall I put 150 lbs back there, and more sand bags in the rear seats, during
phase 1 testing, to get the cg close to the aft limit.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=443387#443387
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! --
|