---------------------------------------------------------- RV10-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 10/21/16: 8 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:31 AM - Re: Re: transition (Phillip Perry) 2. 04:54 AM - Re: Looking for Tips (Bill Watson) 3. 06:44 AM - Re: Re: transition (Kelly McMullen) 4. 08:31 AM - Re: transition (Bob Turner) 5. 10:14 AM - Re: Re: transition (Phillip Perry) 6. 10:40 AM - Re: Re: transition (Berck E. Nash) 7. 01:39 PM - Re: Re: transition (Kelly McMullen) 8. 02:35 PM - Re: transition (Bob Turner) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:31:41 AM PST US From: Phillip Perry Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: transition There's been a notice of proposed rule making that, if accepted, would likely get rid of the requirement for the retract. An aircraft with a PFD and MFD would qualify as complex. Don't know the timeline of when t would be accepted, but most of our fleet would qualify. Anyone know when a decision is expected? Phil Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 20, 2016, at 11:59 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > I actually am entertaining that thought right now. Curious as to how quick I could make it happen. If I could be done by the end of the year or for sure by spring it may just work. Could save me a lot of headaches too. The kid flies real well. Would love to help her get it done. > > Tim > >> On Oct 20, 2016, at 11:47 PM, Bob Turner wrote: >> >> >> Tim, >> Ever consider getting your com/cfi? You'd have to rent an RG for some of it, but, given your daughter needs 20 hrs dual, the net cost might not be that great. >> Bob >> >> -------- >> Bob Turner >> RV-10 QB >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461500#461500 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:54:44 AM PST US Subject: Re: RV10-List: Looking for Tips From: Bill Watson More of the same.... On 10/18/2016 1:39 PM, johngoodman wrote: > > I have recently gotten partners in my RV-10, and we are converting it from my old LS1 engine, to a new IO-540 from Van. I'd like to get some input on several areas. > > First, The Red Cube - Tunnel or on the engine? I don't have the Red Cube but rather the GRT(?) transducer. First had it mounted in tunnel and experienced the inaccuracies when the pump was run. Mounted it engine compartment - very accurate. Don't put it in the tunnel. > Next, Remote Oil Filter - AirWolf, B&C, or the standard? Would like to know how messy it can be with any of them. I went with the stock mounting - no problem. Easy to mount and remove - only challenge is dripping during removal. I have a plastic angle (roughly 2"x2"x4') that I stick under the filter during removal. Drips right into waste container. Many simple solutions to drip problem. > Cables or Actuators - Any comments on these for the Oil Cooler, and the heat deflectors would be appreciated. The stock cables melt and are slightly too short for quadrant. I replace them with longer ones from California Cable - recommend them and their product highly. Very fast turn around on well priced custom cables. > Tips on what not to do on baffling also appreciated. Silicon baffling material is great stuff in all respects. I used stock oil cooler. I occasionally had problems with oil being over cooled in NC winters. Running less oil (7 quarts at change - add to maintain at least 6) and adding a small fixed baffle fixed it. Never any problems with overheating oil. I have never calibrated my oil temp sensor. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:44:01 AM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: transition Hadn't seen that. You currently can get a two fer or a three fer if you go for a single engine sea with a plane that has retractable water rudders, and possibly over 200 hp. Yes, being able to retract water rudders does qualify for complex if the plane has constant speed and flaps. A C180 on floats could meet all three needs. The rating would also substitute for flight review, complex and hp endorsements. When I got my commercial there was the requirement for complex, but no HP endorsement existed, so flight schools mostly had Arrows, Cardinal RGs, a few Mooneys. Now a 182RG would let one get HP, complex at same time. Personally, I think allowing glass panel to substitute for complex misses the point. There is nothing about viewing a glass panel that adds any skill. Where would they draw the line? There is a huge difference between a G1000 aircraft (complex only in Garmin's menu structure) and a Grand Rapids or Dynon glass panel. Would 2 screens be required, or just one that you can split? Consider the Dynon Skyview or AFS units that allow display of six pack or EFIS at any time. Does IFR certification of the GPS make the plane complex or the ability to input a flight plan? Is IFR even considered as part of the proposal? -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:31 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > > There's been a notice of proposed rule making that, if accepted, would > likely get rid of the requirement for the retract. An aircraft with a PFD > and MFD would qualify as complex. > > Don't know the timeline of when t would be accepted, but most of our fleet > would qualify. > > Anyone know when a decision is expected? > > Phil > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Oct 20, 2016, at 11:59 PM, Tim Olson wrote: > > > > > > I actually am entertaining that thought right now. Curious as to how > quick I could make it happen. If I could be done by the end of the year or > for sure by spring it may just work. Could save me a lot of headaches > too. The kid flies real well. Would love to help her get it done. > > > > Tim > > > >> On Oct 20, 2016, at 11:47 PM, Bob Turner > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Tim, > >> Ever consider getting your com/cfi? You'd have to rent an RG for some > of it, but, given your daughter needs 20 hrs dual, the net cost might not > be that great. > >> Bob > >> > >> -------- > >> Bob Turner > >> RV-10 QB > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Read this topic online here: > >> > >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461500#461500 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:31:21 AM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: transition From: "Bob Turner" Kelly, I think there's a little confusion in your post. HP and complex are endorsements given by a cfi. If going for a new rating, e.g. single engine sea, you are expected to show up for the flight test already having the endorsement (if required). I too am from the old days. But you have it backwards. 20 years ago there was no complex endorsement, only a high performance one. The latter applied to both over 200 HP and/or RG aircraft. You only needed one endorsement. So I got endorsed flying a 182, and was then go to go in an RG. Around 1995 when the rules changed, I was grandfathered in, so I have never gotten a complex endorsement although I may fly RG aircraft. -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461507#461507 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 10:14:10 AM PST US From: Phillip Perry Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: transition Here's the article on the NPRM.. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/may/12/proposed-part-61-ch anges-would-benefit-ga Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 21, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > Kelly, I think there's a little confusion in your post. HP and complex are endorsements given by a cfi. If going for a new rating, e.g. single engine s ea, you are expected to show up for the flight test already having the endor sement (if required). > I too am from the old days. But you have it backwards. 20 years ago there w as no complex endorsement, only a high performance one. The latter applied t o both over 200 HP and/or RG aircraft. You only needed one endorsement. So I got endorsed flying a 182, and was then go to go in an RG. Around 1995 when the rules changed, I was grandfathered in, so I have never gotten a complex endorsement although I may fly RG aircraft. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461507#461507 > > > > > > > ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= ========================== ========= > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 10:40:16 AM PST US From: "Berck E. Nash" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: transition Here's the actual NPRM: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2016-6142-0001 The part of the proposal regarding complex aircraft is to allow the 10 hours of "complex time" currently required of commercial pilot applicants to be acquired, instead, in a TAA (glass cockpit). If implemented as proposed, it would change nothing about the endorsements required to fly complex or high performance aircraft, just to those to get a commercial certificate. The idea is that if you're training to become a commercial pilot, time in a 1970's 172RG is probably not as beneficial as time in a modern aircraft. I suspect a big part of the motivation is the fact that so many modern, high performance aircraft are now fixed gear, and maintaining a fleet of 172 RGs (what most flight schools use for "complex" training) is a bit of a silly burden. I think it's all a bit silly. Little of the training I did to acquire my ratings and little of the thousands of hours I spent flying around as an instructor in a single engine aircraft did much to prepare me to fly jets for the airlines. The fact that I'd spent a few dozen hours in an airplane that required me to flip the gear lever after takeoff and before landing certainly didn't do much to prepare me. And, yes, it might have been nice to have seen a glass cockpit at some point in my career before the CRJ simulator, but learning to read the glass was easy. Learning to think at 10 miles per minute was the hard part, but fortunately, the airlines (with serious FAA oversight) did a pretty good job of preparing me for that. On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Phillip Perry wrote: > Here's the article on the NPRM.. > > https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/may/12/ > proposed-part-61-changes-would-benefit-ga > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 21, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Bob Turner wrote: > > > Kelly, I think there's a little confusion in your post. HP and complex are > endorsements given by a cfi. If going for a new rating, e.g. single engine > sea, you are expected to show up for the flight test already having the > endorsement (if required). > I too am from the old days. But you have it backwards. 20 years ago there > was no complex endorsement, only a high performance one. The latter applied > to both over 200 HP and/or RG aircraft. You only needed one endorsement. So > I got endorsed flying a 182, and was then go to go in an RG. Around 1995 > when the rules changed, I was grandfathered in, so I have never gotten a > complex endorsement although I may fly RG aircraft. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461507#461507 > > > http://forums.matronics.comhttp://wiki.matronics.com==========================; - > List Contribution Wnbsp; -Matt Dralle, List > Admin.<======================================================== > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 01:39:50 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: transition I don't recall, but I don't think there was a high performance endorsement at the time I did my commercial, which required 10 hours of "complex" time. I think originally 180 hp was sufficient, as both Arrows and Mooneys came that way. Later I think 200 hp was required. It was NOT over 200 hp. When I got my private I could step right from C150 to C207, PA-32 or DHC 2 or DHC3 with no endorsement. (Beaver or Otter) that were tailwheel and 450 hp or ~600? hp. Insurance and common sense were the only restrictions. I was signed off, not as a formal endorsement for complex, never for tailwhell, HP etc. Grandfathered for all of that. Have flown PA-23 with pair of C4B5 250 hp engines and Mooney 231 with TSIO-360 (210 hp). Commercial and multi-engine rating in a 150 HP Apache or 160 hp Twin Comanche was enough to make you legally eligible to fly right seat in Part 121 airliner at that time. Kelly (don't need no stinkin endorsement) Yes I know you need sign-off for checkride. Checkride gets you flight review and the training in right aircraft gets you HP and complex endorsements, all without having any wheels, much less ones that retract. -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Bob Turner wrote: > > Kelly, I think there's a little confusion in your post. HP and complex are > endorsements given by a cfi. If going for a new rating, e.g. single engine > sea, you are expected to show up for the flight test already having the > endorsement (if required). > I too am from the old days. But you have it backwards. 20 years ago there > was no complex endorsement, only a high performance one. The latter applied > to both over 200 HP and/or RG aircraft. You only needed one endorsement. So > I got endorsed flying a 182, and was then go to go in an RG. Around 1995 > when the rules changed, I was grandfathered in, so I have never gotten a > complex endorsement although I may fly RG aircraft. > > -------- > Bob Turner > RV-10 QB > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461507#461507 > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 02:35:12 PM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: transition From: "Bob Turner" It seems to me that an EFIS could easily be tied to a switch, and read "gear up" or "gear down", depending on the 'gear switch'. And if you landed "gear up" the EFIS could put out horrible scrapping sounds. Close enough to the real thing? -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461514#461514 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message rv10-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV10-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv10-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv10-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.