Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:35 AM - electronic ignition (Rob Kermanj)
2. 05:38 AM - Re: electronic ignition (Tcwtech)
3. 05:45 AM - Re: electronic ignition (Kelly McMullen)
4. 06:11 AM - Re: electronic ignition (Tcwtech)
5. 06:35 AM - Re: electronic ignition (Kelly McMullen)
6. 06:48 AM - Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10 (Danny Riggs)
7. 06:48 AM - Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10 (dmaib@me.com)
8. 07:10 AM - Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10 (Carl Froehlich)
9. 07:22 AM - Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10 (Kelly McMullen)
10. 07:25 AM - Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10 (Kelly McMullen)
11. 07:41 AM - Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10 (Carl Froehlich)
12. 07:45 AM - Re: electronic ignition (P Reid)
13. 07:47 AM - Re: Whirlwind Propeller RV10 (Kelly McMullen)
14. 09:00 AM - Re: electronic ignition (Tcwtech)
15. 10:17 AM - Ordering Specs for Rebuilt Mags (not electronic ignition) (Bill Watson)
16. 12:42 PM - Re: Ordering Specs for Rebuilt Mags (not electronic ignition) (Kelly McMullen)
17. 02:19 PM - Re: Ordering Specs for Rebuilt Mags (not electronic ignition) (Bill Watson)
18. 03:19 PM - Re: Ordering Specs for Rebuilt Mags (not electronic ignition) (Kelly McMullen)
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: | electronic ignition |
Any one using Electroair or Surefly ignitions?
A search on the list shows discussions from 2007 on Electroair and of
course Surfly is new. Looking for recent experience.
Thanks.
Do Not archive
Rob Kermanj
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: electronic ignition |
I'm now flying the Surefly ignition. My RV-10 is now set up with one Lights
peed plasma III and one Surefly. I flew the first four years with dual mag
s. Then about 18 months ago changed one mag to lightspeed. I wanted to use
the electro-air system but at the time their crankshaft sensor would not fi
t on my narrow deck engine because of the metal retaining bracket utilized w
ith the crankshaft seal on this model engine. The light speed system has w
orked well. Then last fall I removed the last mag and installed the Surefly
. I have about 35 hours on this setup now. It works well and I've been
surprised by yet a further improvement in economy over the single electron
ic ignition setup. I did not expect to see a measurable difference. But I h
ad the opportunity to do some long flights. (3 hour legs) to benchmark befor
e and after. This is a trip I've done many times to see my daughter and I d
efinitely have picked up a few knots and dropped a few 1/10 th of a gallon f
uel burn for the exact same settings.
I used to see 167-168 knots TAS at 10k and 11.5 gph. @ 25 LOP. The same l
oading and oats now yield 170 knots and 11.1 gph. Of course I added one o
f those TCW back up batteries to the Surefly system to make it not aircraft p
ower dependent. They have done the same to their test airplane.
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies, LLC
610-928-3420
> On Feb 3, 2017, at 5:34 AM, Rob Kermanj <flysrv10@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Any one using Electroair or Surefly ignitions?
>
> A search on the list shows discussions from 2007 on Electroair and of cour
se Surfly is new. Looking for recent experience.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Do Not archive
>
> Rob Kermanj
>
>
>
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: electronic ignition |
Do you have data from the original dual mag setup to the Lightspeed only?
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Tcwtech <rnewman@tcwtech.com> wrote:
> I'm now flying the Surefly ignition. My RV-10 is now set up with one
> Lightspeed plasma III and one Surefly. I flew the first four years with
> dual mags. Then about 18 months ago changed one mag to lightspeed. I
> wanted to use the electro-air system but at the time their crankshaft
> sensor would not fit on my narrow deck engine because of the metal
> retaining bracket utilized with the crankshaft seal on this model engine.
> The light speed system has worked well. Then last fall I removed the last
> mag and installed the Surefly. I have about 35 hours on this setup now.
> It works well and I've been surprised by yet a further improvement in
> economy over the single electronic ignition setup. I did not expect to see
> a measurable difference. But I had the opportunity to do some long
> flights. (3 hour legs) to benchmark before and after. This is a trip I've
> done many times to see my daughter and I definitely have picked up a few
> knots and dropped a few 1/10 th of a gallon fuel burn for the exact same
> settings.
> I used to see 167-168 knots TAS at 10k and 11.5 gph. @ 25 LOP. The same
> loading and oats now yield 170 knots and 11.1 gph. Of course I added
> one of those TCW back up batteries to the Surefly system to make it not
> aircraft power dependent. They have done the same to their test
> airplane.
>
>
> Bob Newman
> TCW Technologies, LLC
> 610-928-3420 <(610)%20928-3420>
>
> On Feb 3, 2017, at 5:34 AM, Rob Kermanj <flysrv10@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Any one using Electroair or Surefly ignitions?
>
> A search on the list shows discussions from 2007 on Electroair and of
> course Surfly is new. Looking for recent experience.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Do Not archive
>
> Rob Kermanj
>
>
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: electronic ignition |
Yes. The same conditions with dual mags I always saw 166 knots TAS, 12.5 gp
h. Same LOP operation. I have flow matched my injection restrictions to w
ithin 0.2 gph for all cylinders to go peak.
Other related info.
Engine: IO-540-e4b5 that started life carbureted and I changed to airflow p
erformance fuel injection.
Two blade hartzell BA alum prop with PCU5000 governor.
Everything else about the engine is stock.
Fully finished interior and niceties rounding me out to a portly 1735 empty w
eight.
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies, LLC
610-928-3420
> On Feb 3, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do you have data from the original dual mag setup to the Lightspeed only?
>
> -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
>
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Tcwtech <rnewman@tcwtech.com> wrote:
>> I'm now flying the Surefly ignition. My RV-10 is now set up with one Lig
htspeed plasma III and one Surefly. I flew the first four years with dual m
ags. Then about 18 months ago changed one mag to lightspeed. I wanted to u
se the electro-air system but at the time their crankshaft sensor would not f
it on my narrow deck engine because of the metal retaining bracket utilized w
ith the crankshaft seal on this model engine. The light speed system has w
orked well. Then last fall I removed the last mag and installed the Surefly
. I have about 35 hours on this setup now. It works well and I've been
surprised by yet a further improvement in economy over the single electron
ic ignition setup. I did not expect to see a measurable difference. But I h
ad the opportunity to do some long flights. (3 hour legs) to benchmark befor
e and after. This is a trip I've done many times to see my daughter and I d
efinitely have picked up a few knots and dropped a few 1/10 th of a gallon f
uel burn for the exact same settings.
>> I used to see 167-168 knots TAS at 10k and 11.5 gph. @ 25 LOP. The sam
e loading and oats now yield 170 knots and 11.1 gph. Of course I added o
ne of those TCW back up batteries to the Surefly system to make it not aircr
aft power dependent. They have done the same to their test airplane.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob Newman
>> TCW Technologies, LLC
>> 610-928-3420
>>
>>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 5:34 AM, Rob Kermanj <flysrv10@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Any one using Electroair or Surefly ignitions?
>>>
>>> A search on the list shows discussions from 2007 on Electroair and of co
urse Surfly is new. Looking for recent experience.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Do Not archive
>>>
>>> Rob Kermanj
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
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: electronic ignition |
Thanks Bob, that is really good information.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Tcwtech <rnewman@tcwtech.com> wrote:
> Yes. The same conditions with dual mags I always saw 166 knots TAS, 12.5
> gph. Same LOP operation. I have flow matched my injection restrictions
> to within 0.2 gph for all cylinders to go peak.
> Other related info.
> Engine: IO-540-e4b5 that started life carbureted and I changed to
> airflow performance fuel injection.
> Two blade hartzell BA alum prop with PCU5000 governor.
> Everything else about the engine is stock.
> Fully finished interior and niceties rounding me out to a portly 1735
> empty weight.
>
> Bob Newman
> TCW Technologies, LLC
> 610-928-3420 <(610)%20928-3420>
>
> On Feb 3, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do you have data from the original dual mag setup to the Lightspeed only?
>
> -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Tcwtech <rnewman@tcwtech.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm now flying the Surefly ignition. My RV-10 is now set up with one
>> Lightspeed plasma III and one Surefly. I flew the first four years with
>> dual mags. Then about 18 months ago changed one mag to lightspeed. I
>> wanted to use the electro-air system but at the time their crankshaft
>> sensor would not fit on my narrow deck engine because of the metal
>> retaining bracket utilized with the crankshaft seal on this model engine.
>> The light speed system has worked well. Then last fall I removed the last
>> mag and installed the Surefly. I have about 35 hours on this setup now.
>> It works well and I've been surprised by yet a further improvement in
>> economy over the single electronic ignition setup. I did not expect to see
>> a measurable difference. But I had the opportunity to do some long
>> flights. (3 hour legs) to benchmark before and after. This is a trip I've
>> done many times to see my daughter and I definitely have picked up a few
>> knots and dropped a few 1/10 th of a gallon fuel burn for the exact same
>> settings.
>> I used to see 167-168 knots TAS at 10k and 11.5 gph. @ 25 LOP. The
>> same loading and oats now yield 170 knots and 11.1 gph. Of course I
>> added one of those TCW back up batteries to the Surefly system to make it
>> not aircraft power dependent. They have done the same to their test
>> airplane.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob Newman
>> TCW Technologies, LLC
>> 610-928-3420 <(610)%20928-3420>
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 5:34 AM, Rob Kermanj <flysrv10@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Any one using Electroair or Surefly ignitions?
>>
>> A search on the list shows discussions from 2007 on Electroair and of
>> course Surfly is new. Looking for recent experience.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Do Not archive
>>
>> Rob Kermanj
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
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: Whirlwind Propeller RV10 |
Nope that's news to me. Has a 2016 date on the SB. That wasn't in the paperwork
I got with mine from three years ago. Some SB's are good and some are to cover
their a*ses.
This looks like one of the latter. To each his own however! Thanks for the update.
Danny
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 3, 2017, at 12:58 AM, Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Danny,
>
> I guess you are aware of:
>
> http://www.mt-propeller.com/pdf/sbs/sb1r1.pdf
>
> Page 6 states:
>
> MTV-12-B-(**)/(**)193-53 Lycoming (I)O-540-( ) 1800 hrs 72months
>
> Cheers Werner
>
>>> On 03.02.2017 02:00, Danny Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>> Well that's what the paper work from MT said. If you are flying part 135 then
there is a time limit for sure.
>>>
>
>
>
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: Whirlwind Propeller RV10 |
One other consideration for the MT is whether or not you are running a non-certified
ignition system. MT does not warranty their propellers if the engine is
using a non-certified ignition. I am guessing that is not an issue with Whirlwind,
but is worth checking.
--------
David Maib
RV-10 #40559
New Smyrna Beach, FL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465698#465698
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: | Whirlwind Propeller RV10 |
Kelly,
The plane has a stock engine and prop (other than injectors changed as
needed to balance the cylinders), and still flying with these !#&$ mags
as I wait for the six cylinder pMag. I tried to keep the plane light
(1659 pounds empty after a relatively heavy basecoat/clearcoat paint
job). I also spend a bunch of hours on rigging. To be fair, the top
speed run was done solo at 6500=99 with half tanks and the engine
ROP. Airframe modifications include:
=C2=B7 James cowl and plenum
=C2=B7 James wheel pants
=C2=B7 Modified air box
=C2=B7 Extra shim under the HS forward spar (not really sure if
this does much but the elevators seem to me more in trail with the shim)
=C2=B7 Not yet done is to put the damns back in front of #1 and
#2 cylinders, but much shorter than what I started with
The plane was set up from the start for high efficiency LOP cruise. The
downside is the reduced cooling drag requires 125-130 kt climb speed to
keep the jugs cool, so no pointing the nose up and hanging on the prop.
The attached screen shot is a typical cross country set up.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
Something isn't stock about your speed. You are 5 mph above Van's stated
max speed at light weight, and 15 above their stated 75% cruise speed at
light wt. I don't know whether your speed is a 3/4 course GPS speed,
EFIS calculated speed or something else.
Don't have precise charts with me at moment, but I think 25 sq is a bit
above 75%
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Carl Froehlich
<carl.froehlich@verizon.net> wrote:
<carl.froehlich@verizon.net>
Yep - add power and the fuel to get it and you go faster.
Carl
RV-10, 188 kt TAS, 25" @ 2500 RPM, stock IO-540 and Hartzell 2 bladed
prop
> On Feb 2, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Danny Riggs <jdriggs49@MSN.COM> wrote:
>
>
> There is virtually NO speed difference against a Barrett engine with
three blade and a regular engine from Van's or where ever with a two
blade. And they are very much smoother and lighter than a metal two
blade. I weighed them both.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:12 PM, Carl Froehlich
<carl.froehlich@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
<carl.froehlich@verizon.net>
>>
>> Robert,
>>
>> As you have investigated the WW prop, I assume you have decided the
650 hour tear down is worth the pain. I suggest you talk to current WW
prop owners about the logistics of shipping these props and such.
>>
>> There is a plethora of data on RV-10 props and how they perform, and
the standard Hartzell BA 2 blade prop has not been surpassed for overall
speed performance. There is also the obvious huge price bump for the
three blade options. In short, is a reported smoother prop worth all
the down side? All the weight reduction efforts you have listed would
not come close to making up the speed hit.
>>
>> But - to each his own. My point here is to make sure you have
balanced your equations for this selection.
>>
>> Carl
>> Nomex suit on as I suspect I'm stepping on toes.
>>
>>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 3:16 PM, Robert Jones <rjones560xl@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>
<rjones560xl@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> This is my first post. I have found theses pages incredibly valuable
place to get information and educate myself. Some of you serial posters
(TIM) have been extremely helpful without even knowing I exist.
>>>
>>> I need to choose a propeller in the next few months. I have a
Barrett Precision 540 with cold air induction, PCU governor, B&C light
weight starter, alternator, and standby alternator in my garrage. It
produced 288hp on the dyno. I am using Brian's (Showplanes) cowl
because it fits the Barrett with cold air induction. Brian told me I
needed a 15 spinner with his cowl and I can see why. I used the MATCO
wheels/brakes kit they sell for the RV10 including their front axle with
Goodyear Flight Custom III tires and the butyl tubes.
>>>
>>> I am thinking about using the RV10 propeller from Whirlwind and
their 200/400 Rocket spinner. It is very light and I would like to move
the battery forward if possible even if I have to buy a lithium/iron
battery to keep the weight down. I know the Whirlwind is expensive. I am
willing to pay for it if it is a good performer and it is reliable. I
should probably look at the TBO and AD situation for the current model.
I just want to know if anyone has already had any experience with it,
good or bad. The Hartzel a lot of you chose is the only other one I am
considering, and yes I looked at the MT. Three bladed props are a
little smoother and have more ground clearance. They are likely just a
little slower and make getting the bottom cowl off more difficult.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts about either of these choices would be appreciated,
even if you a pitching something I have not considered. I suspect there
may be some issues that I have not considered. I just don't know what
they might be or where to look.
>>>
>>> Robert Jones
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-List" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: Whirlwind Propeller RV10 |
So far, I don't recall any replies addressing the Whirlwind prop. I was
disappointed when I went to the Whirlwind website and couldn't find any
information on a prop for the IO-540, in fact nothing except for 4 cyl and
radial engines. While I'm sure the discussion of Hartzell 2 blade vs MT 3
blade is helpful, getting details about the Whirlwind would be better. I
see that their standard RV-10 prop is an 80" 2 blade, and they also offer a
3 blade. I see the warranty is better on the 2 blade.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Robert Jones <rjones560xl@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I am thinking about using the RV10 propeller from Whirlwind and their
> 200/400 Rocket spinner. It is very light and I would like to move the
> battery forward if possible even if I have to buy a lithium/iron battery to
> keep the weight down. I know the Whirlwind is expensive. I am willing to
> pay for it if it is a good performer and it is reliable. I should probably
> look at the TBO and AD situation for the current model. I just want to know
> if anyone has already had any experience with it, good or bad. The Hartzel
> a lot of you chose is the only other one I am considering, and yes I looked
> at the MT. Three bladed props are a little smoother and have more ground
> clearance. They are likely just a little slower and make getting the bottom
> cowl off more difficult.
>
>
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: Whirlwind Propeller RV10 |
Carl,
Thanks for the detail. I can only guess that your cowl and wheel pants are
part of the difference. I too am using mags, but the more stout Bendix 1200
series, which so far have been flawless. I am convinced that aerodynamic
clean-up does a lot more for speed than adding power. I was guessing your
top speed had to be somewhere near 6500-7500 ft. You have certainly bested
the factory numbers.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich@verizon.net>
wrote:
> Kelly,
>
>
> The plane has a stock engine and prop (other than injectors changed as
> needed to balance the cylinders), and still flying with these !#&$ mags a
s
> I wait for the six cylinder pMag. I tried to keep the plane light (1659
> pounds empty after a relatively heavy basecoat/clearcoat paint job). I
> also spend a bunch of hours on rigging. To be fair, the top speed run wa
s
> done solo at 6500=99 with half tanks and the engine ROP. Airframe
> modifications include:
>
> =C2=B7 James cowl and plenum
>
> =C2=B7 James wheel pants
>
> =C2=B7 Modified air box
>
> =C2=B7 Extra shim under the HS forward spar (not really sure if t
his
> does much but the elevators seem to me more in trail with the shim)
>
> =C2=B7 Not yet done is to put the damns back in front of #1 and #
2
> cylinders, but much shorter than what I started with
>
>
> The plane was set up from the start for high efficiency LOP cruise. The
> downside is the reduced cooling drag requires 125-130 kt climb speed to
> keep the jugs cool, so no pointing the nose up and hanging on the prop.
> The attached screen shot is a typical cross country set up.
>
>
> Carl
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-
> server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Kelly McMullen
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 02, 2017 9:58 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
>
>
> Something isn't stock about your speed. You are 5 mph above Van's stated
> max speed at light weight, and 15 above their stated 75% cruise speed at
> light wt. I don't know whether your speed is a 3/4 course GPS speed, EFIS
> calculated speed or something else.
>
> Don't have precise charts with me at moment, but I think 25 sq is a bit
> above 75%
>
>
> -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich@verizon.ne
t>
> wrote:
>
> carl.froehlich@verizon.net>
>
> Yep - add power and the fuel to get it and you go faster.
>
> Carl
> RV-10, 188 kt TAS, 25" @ 2500 RPM, stock IO-540 and Hartzell 2 bladed pro
p
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Danny Riggs <jdriggs49@MSN.COM> wrote:
> >
> >
> > There is virtually NO speed difference against a Barrett engine with
> three blade and a regular engine from Van's or where ever with a two blad
e.
> And they are very much smoother and lighter than a metal two blade. I
> weighed them both.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >> On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:12 PM, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich@verizon.net
>
> wrote:
> >>
> carl.froehlich@verizon.net>
> >>
> >> Robert,
> >>
> >> As you have investigated the WW prop, I assume you have decided the 65
0
> hour tear down is worth the pain. I suggest you talk to current WW prop
> owners about the logistics of shipping these props and such.
> >>
> >> There is a plethora of data on RV-10 props and how they perform, and
> the standard Hartzell BA 2 blade prop has not been surpassed for overall
> speed performance. There is also the obvious huge price bump for the thr
ee
> blade options. In short, is a reported smoother prop worth all the down
> side? All the weight reduction efforts you have listed would not come
> close to making up the speed hit.
> >>
> >> But - to each his own. My point here is to make sure you have balance
d
> your equations for this selection.
> >>
> >> Carl
> >> Nomex suit on as I suspect I'm stepping on toes.
> >>
> >>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 3:16 PM, Robert Jones <rjones560xl@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This is my first post. I have found theses pages incredibly valuable
> place to get information and educate myself. Some of you serial posters
> (TIM) have been extremely helpful without even knowing I exist.
> >>>
> >>> I need to choose a propeller in the next few months. I have a Barrett
> Precision 540 with cold air induction, PCU governor, B&C light weight
> starter, alternator, and standby alternator in my garrage. It produced
> 288hp on the dyno. I am using Brian's (Showplanes) cowl because it fits
> the Barrett with cold air induction. Brian told me I needed a 15 spinner
> with his cowl and I can see why. I used the MATCO wheels/brakes kit they
> sell for the RV10 including their front axle with Goodyear Flight Custom
> III tires and the butyl tubes.
> >>>
> >>> I am thinking about using the RV10 propeller from Whirlwind and their
> 200/400 Rocket spinner. It is very light and I would like to move the
> battery forward if possible even if I have to buy a lithium/iron battery
to
> keep the weight down. I know the Whirlwind is expensive. I am willing to
> pay for it if it is a good performer and it is reliable. I should probabl
y
> look at the TBO and AD situation for the current model. I just want to kn
ow
> if anyone has already had any experience with it, good or bad. The Hartze
l
> a lot of you chose is the only other one I am considering, and yes I look
ed
> at the MT. Three bladed props are a little smoother and have more ground
> clearance. They are likely just a little slower and make getting the bott
om
> cowl off more difficult.
> >>>
> >>> Any thoughts about either of these choices would be appreciated, even
> if you a pitching something I have not considered. I suspect there may be
> some issues that I have not considered. I just don't know what they migh
t
> be or where to look.
> >>>
> >>> Robert Jones
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ========================
===========
> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.
> matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ========================
===========
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ==========
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
> ========================
===========
>
>
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: | Whirlwind Propeller RV10 |
Try this link: http://www.whirlwindaviation.com/props/rvseries.asp
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
So far, I don't recall any replies addressing the Whirlwind prop. I was
disappointed when I went to the Whirlwind website and couldn't find any
information on a prop for the IO-540, in fact nothing except for 4 cyl
and radial engines. While I'm sure the discussion of Hartzell 2 blade
vs MT 3 blade is helpful, getting details about the Whirlwind would be
better. I see that their standard RV-10 prop is an 80" 2 blade, and they
also offer a 3 blade. I see the warranty is better on the 2 blade.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Robert Jones <rjones560xl@gmail.com>
wrote:
I am thinking about using the RV10 propeller from Whirlwind and their
200/400 Rocket spinner. It is very light and I would like to move the
battery forward if possible even if I have to buy a lithium/iron battery
to keep the weight down. I know the Whirlwind is expensive. I am willing
to pay for it if it is a good performer and it is reliable. I should
probably look at the TBO and AD situation for the current model. I just
want to know if anyone has already had any experience with it, good or
bad. The Hartzel a lot of you chose is the only other one I am
considering, and yes I looked at the MT. Three bladed props are a
little smoother and have more ground clearance. They are likely just a
little slower and make getting the bottom cowl off more difficult.
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: | electronic ignition |
Rob;
My hold out is the 15f increase in CHT one gets from the Surefly. I can not
afford that increase on takeoffs where I am at 400F normally and higher in
the summer.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=140964&highlight
=surefly&page=3
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kermanj
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 2:34 AM
Subject: RV10-List: electronic ignition
Any one using Electroair or Surefly ignitions?
A search on the list shows discussions from 2007 on Electroair and of cours
e Surfly is new. Looking for recent experience.
Thanks.
Do Not archive
Rob Kermanj
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: Whirlwind Propeller RV10 |
Yes, I found it....curious why there are different sites for ground
adjustable series and constant speed.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich@verizon.net>
wrote:
> Try this link: http://www.whirlwindaviation.com/props/rvseries.asp
>
>
> Carl
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-
> server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Kelly McMullen
> *Sent:* Friday, February 03, 2017 10:21 AM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Whirlwind Propeller RV10
>
>
> So far, I don't recall any replies addressing the Whirlwind prop. I was
> disappointed when I went to the Whirlwind website and couldn't find any
> information on a prop for the IO-540, in fact nothing except for 4 cyl and
> radial engines. While I'm sure the discussion of Hartzell 2 blade vs MT 3
> blade is helpful, getting details about the Whirlwind would be better. I
> see that their standard RV-10 prop is an 80" 2 blade, and they also offer a
> 3 blade. I see the warranty is better on the 2 blade.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Robert Jones <rjones560xl@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I am thinking about using the RV10 propeller from Whirlwind and their
> 200/400 Rocket spinner. It is very light and I would like to move the
> battery forward if possible even if I have to buy a lithium/iron battery to
> keep the weight down. I know the Whirlwind is expensive. I am willing to
> pay for it if it is a good performer and it is reliable. I should probably
> look at the TBO and AD situation for the current model. I just want to know
> if anyone has already had any experience with it, good or bad. The Hartzel
> a lot of you chose is the only other one I am considering, and yes I looked
> at the MT. Three bladed props are a little smoother and have more ground
> clearance. They are likely just a little slower and make getting the bottom
> cowl off more difficult.
>
>
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: electronic ignition |
I'm not seeing any noticeable increase in cht. At high MP the system runs a
t 25 btdc just like the mags. At cruise running LOP, the chts are fine.
Here's a pic in cruise at 11k. If you zoom in on the AFS you can see all C
HTs below 324. 172knts TAS, 10.9 gph.
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies, LLC
610-928-3420
> On Feb 3, 2017, at 10:42 AM, P Reid <rv10flyer@live.com> wrote:
>
> Rob;
> My hold out is the 15f increase in CHT one gets from the Surefly. I can no
t afford that increase on takeoffs where I am at 400F normally and higher in
the summer.
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=140964&highlight=
surefly&page=3
>
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kermanj
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 2:34 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: electronic ignition
>
> Any one using Electroair or Surefly ignitions?
>
> A search on the list shows discussions from 2007 on Electroair and of cour
se Surfly is new. Looking for recent experience.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Do Not archive
>
> Rob Kermanj
>
>
>
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: | Ordering Specs for Rebuilt Mags (not electronic ignition) |
I have a bit over 800 hours and 5.5 years on my Slicks and am ready to
replace with a 'new' set of rebuilt units. They are operating just fine
but I'm thinking it's a good thing to do at this point.
I have a stock Lycoming/Vans IO-540-D4A5
Can anyone share the ordering information for replacements? Best sources?
I was looking a ACS and elsewhere and it seems there are multiple part
numbers used in multiple places. Just trying to cut through the paper
storm without getting smart first.
BTW, I did get versed in teardown and maintenance when I did the
excessive point wear SB at 100 hours. I'm choosing to replace.
Thanks
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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: Ordering Specs for Rebuilt Mags (not electronic ignition) |
Most of the usual suppliers of aircraft parts will stock overhauled mags.
However, if you choose to stay with Slick, as opposed to Bendix, I would
strongly consider the price delta for new Slick. Looks like extra $250-300
for a new mag over rebuilt. The irony is that overhauled Bendix mags look
to be less money than overhauled Slick.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> I have a bit over 800 hours and 5.5 years on my Slicks and am ready to
> replace with a 'new' set of rebuilt units. They are operating just fine
> but I'm thinking it's a good thing to do at this point.
>
> I have a stock Lycoming/Vans IO-540-D4A5
>
> Can anyone share the ordering information for replacements? Best sources?
>
> I was looking a ACS and elsewhere and it seems there are multiple part
> numbers used in multiple places. Just trying to cut through the paper
> storm without getting smart first.
>
> BTW, I did get versed in teardown and maintenance when I did the excessive
> point wear SB at 100 hours. I'm choosing to replace.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
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: Ordering Specs for Rebuilt Mags (not electronic ignition) |
I want to stay with Slicks because that's what the engine came with and
I have a few tools and a little experience working with them.
I want to replace them with 'rebuilt' Slick mags and not 'overhauled'
Slick mags. And I intend to get a 'core credit' for exchanging my old ones.
Bill 'not quite overwhelmed yet by all the ignition options yet' Watson
On 2/3/2017 3:38 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> Most of the usual suppliers of aircraft parts will stock overhauled
> mags. However, if you choose to stay with Slick, as opposed to Bendix,
> I would strongly consider the price delta for new Slick. Looks like
> extra $250-300 for a new mag over rebuilt. The irony is that
> overhauled Bendix mags look to be less money than overhauled Slick.
>
> -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com
> <mailto:Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>> wrote:
>
> <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com <mailto:Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>>
>
> I have a bit over 800 hours and 5.5 years on my Slicks and am
> ready to replace with a 'new' set of rebuilt units. They are
> operating just fine but I'm thinking it's a good thing to do at
> this point.
>
> I have a stock Lycoming/Vans IO-540-D4A5
>
> Can anyone share the ordering information for replacements? Best
> sources?
>
> I was looking a ACS and elsewhere and it seems there are multiple
> part numbers used in multiple places. Just trying to cut through
> the paper storm without getting smart first.
>
> BTW, I did get versed in teardown and maintenance when I did the
> excessive point wear SB at 100 hours. I'm choosing to replace.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> ===================================
> -List" rel="noreferrer"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ===================================
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ===================================
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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: Ordering Specs for Rebuilt Mags (not electronic ignition) |
Understand. Keep in mind that IO-540s were built with Bendix mags long
before conglomerate takeover of Lycoming forced the switch to Slick.
Nothing wrong with Slicks that more frequent maintenance won't handle.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> I want to stay with Slicks because that's what the engine came with and I
> have a few tools and a little experience working with them.
>
> I want to replace them with 'rebuilt' Slick mags and not 'overhauled'
> Slick mags. And I intend to get a 'core credit' for exchanging my old ones.
>
> Bill 'not quite overwhelmed yet by all the ignition options yet' Watson
>
> On 2/3/2017 3:38 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Most of the usual suppliers of aircraft parts will stock overhauled mags.
> However, if you choose to stay with Slick, as opposed to Bendix, I would
> strongly consider the price delta for new Slick. Looks like extra $250-300
> for a new mag over rebuilt. The irony is that overhauled Bendix mags look
> to be less money than overhauled Slick.
>
> -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have a bit over 800 hours and 5.5 years on my Slicks and am ready to
>> replace with a 'new' set of rebuilt units. They are operating just fine
>> but I'm thinking it's a good thing to do at this point.
>>
>> I have a stock Lycoming/Vans IO-540-D4A5
>>
>> Can anyone share the ordering information for replacements? Best sources?
>>
>> I was looking a ACS and elsewhere and it seems there are multiple part
>> numbers used in multiple places. Just trying to cut through the paper
>> storm without getting smart first.
>>
>> BTW, I did get versed in teardown and maintenance when I did the
>> excessive point wear SB at 100 hours. I'm choosing to replace.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> ===================================
>> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navig
>> ator?RV10-List
>> ===================================
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ===================================
>> WIKI -
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>> ===================================
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ===================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo]
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
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! --
|