Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:41 AM - Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating the fuel flow transducer (Dan Charrois)
2. 05:30 AM - Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating the fuel flow transducer (Kevin Belue)
3. 06:25 AM - Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating the fuel flow transducer (David Saylor)
4. 06:46 AM - Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating the fuel flow transducer (Tim Olson)
5. 07:19 AM - Re: FW: fuel flow at takeoff power (Tim Olson)
6. 07:25 AM - Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter (Tim Olson)
7. 07:30 AM - Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter (Phillip Perry)
8. 07:49 AM - Re: A lot of advice and perhaps a little help (Tim Olson)
9. 07:49 AM - Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter (Kelly McMullen)
10. 07:52 AM - Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter (Tim Olson)
11. 07:59 AM - Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter (John Miller)
12. 08:05 AM - Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter (Phillip Perry)
13. 09:07 AM - Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter (Bill Watson)
14. 09:21 AM - Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter (Tim Olson)
15. 09:22 AM - Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating the fuel flow transducer (Bill Watson)
16. 10:24 AM - Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter (Bob Turner)
17. 10:38 AM - Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating the (Bob Turner)
18. 11:38 AM - Re: Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter (Jae Chang)
19. 11:46 AM - Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing (Gordon Anderson)
20. 03:08 PM - Re: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter (John Miller)
21. 06:05 PM - Re: Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance (Bob Orre)
22. 06:17 PM - Re: Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance (Kelly McMullen)
23. 06:57 PM - Re: Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance (Outlook)
24. 08:13 PM - Re: A lot of advice and perhaps a little help (Tim Olson)
25. 11:28 PM - Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating the fuel flow transducer (dan@syz.com)
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: | Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating the |
fuel flow transducer
Hi everyone.
I thought I'd report back that I've pulled apart most of the fuel lines, including
those in the tunnel and unfortunately haven't yet found any blockage or cause
for the low pressure I'd been experiencing (the tunnel fuel filter is completely
clean, and there don't seem to be any leaks or issues with any of the fuel
connections). I'm still going to check further (and perhaps try bypassing
a gascolator), but I seem to be quickly eliminating things my low fuel pressure
problem is not likely caused by, rather than finding anything that it might
be. One suspect (however unlikely) still remains with the one way bypass valve
around the boost pump, since the boost pump seems to bring the pressure up,
and the bypass valve is only used with the engine pump. But the valve seems
to be cemented to the pump manifold with some sort of white compound, so I haven't
been easily able to remove it to check. Or perhaps the engine pump itself
could be a problem, though it's factory new, so I'm not sure how likely that
is either.
But while I have everything apart, I'm thinking of possibly relocating my fuel
flow transducer from the tunnel to somewhere after the engine pump (I'm not sure
if the transducer is the culprit either, but putting it after the engine pump
can't hurt, plus would give me more accurate readings with the boost pump on).
But where are people putting it? The most convenient location in the engine
compartment would be to mount it to a bracket on the engine mount and locate
it right after the engine pump, on the way to the throttle body. But if it's
right after the engine pump, would I really be accomplishing anything different
than its current location right after the boost pump? Would the engine pump
cause similar problems in transducer accuracy if the transducer is placed there?
Thanks!
Dan
---
Dan Charrois
President, Syzygy Research & Technology
Phone: 780-961-2213
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 pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating |
the fuel flow transducer
When I had the fuel flow sensor in the tunnel it would fluctuate a lot with
the fuel pump and I didn't like that. So I moved it so that it is between
the fuel servo and the divider and it is accurate there. I think it will
work well for you in that position.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:38 AM, Dan Charrois <dan@syz.com> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone.
>
> I thought I'd report back that I've pulled apart most of the fuel lines,
> including those in the tunnel and unfortunately haven't yet found any
> blockage or cause for the low pressure I'd been experiencing (the tunnel
> fuel filter is completely clean, and there don't seem to be any leaks or
> issues with any of the fuel connections). I'm still going to check further
> (and perhaps try bypassing a gascolator), but I seem to be quickly
> eliminating things my low fuel pressure problem is not likely caused by,
> rather than finding anything that it might be. One suspect (however
> unlikely) still remains with the one way bypass valve around the boost
> pump, since the boost pump seems to bring the pressure up, and the bypass
> valve is only used with the engine pump. But the valve seems to be
> cemented to the pump manifold with some sort of white compound, so I
> haven't been easily able to remove it to check. Or perhaps the engine pump
> itself could be a problem, though it's factory new, so I'!
> m not sure how likely that is either.
>
> But while I have everything apart, I'm thinking of possibly relocating my
> fuel flow transducer from the tunnel to somewhere after the engine pump
> (I'm not sure if the transducer is the culprit either, but putting it after
> the engine pump can't hurt, plus would give me more accurate readings with
> the boost pump on). But where are people putting it? The most convenient
> location in the engine compartment would be to mount it to a bracket on the
> engine mount and locate it right after the engine pump, on the way to the
> throttle body. But if it's right after the engine pump, would I really be
> accomplishing anything different than its current location right after the
> boost pump? Would the engine pump cause similar problems in transducer
> accuracy if the transducer is placed there?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dan
> ---
> Dan Charrois
> President, Syzygy Research & Technology
> Phone: 780-961-2213
>
>
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: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating |
the fuel flow transducer
Dan,
I think the best place for the red cube is between the servo and the fuel
distributor (spider). I like the method shown in these pics. It's an -8,
but the idea is the same. Fab a steel bracket that catches the two forward
servo-to-sump mounting bolts.
I'd be looking pretty close at your engine pump at this point, or your
pressure sender.
--Dave
[image: Inline image 2][image: Inline image 1]
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Dan Charrois <dan@syz.com> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone.
>
> I thought I'd report back that I've pulled apart most of the fuel lines,
> including those in the tunnel and unfortunately haven't yet found any
> blockage or cause for the low pressure I'd been experiencing (the tunnel
> fuel filter is completely clean, and there don't seem to be any leaks or
> issues with any of the fuel connections). I'm still going to check further
> (and perhaps try bypassing a gascolator), but I seem to be quickly
> eliminating things my low fuel pressure problem is not likely caused by,
> rather than finding anything that it might be. One suspect (however
> unlikely) still remains with the one way bypass valve around the boost
> pump, since the boost pump seems to bring the pressure up, and the bypass
> valve is only used with the engine pump. But the valve seems to be
> cemented to the pump manifold with some sort of white compound, so I
> haven't been easily able to remove it to check. Or perhaps the engine pump
> itself could be a problem, though it's factory new, so I'!
> m not sure how likely that is either.
>
> But while I have everything apart, I'm thinking of possibly relocating my
> fuel flow transducer from the tunnel to somewhere after the engine pump
> (I'm not sure if the transducer is the culprit either, but putting it after
> the engine pump can't hurt, plus would give me more accurate readings with
> the boost pump on). But where are people putting it? The most convenient
> location in the engine compartment would be to mount it to a bracket on the
> engine mount and locate it right after the engine pump, on the way to the
> throttle body. But if it's right after the engine pump, would I really be
> accomplishing anything different than its current location right after the
> boost pump? Would the engine pump cause similar problems in transducer
> accuracy if the transducer is placed there?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dan
> ---
> Dan Charrois
> President, Syzygy Research & Technology
> Phone: 780-961-2213
>
>
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 pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating |
the fuel flow transducer
Hi Dan,
I did not reply to your email a couple days ago but will
quick jump in now.
First, when you said your engine died on you, nobody
at that point will give you the guidance to not investigate
that. My engine has never once died when giving throttle,
and if yours did, everything should probably be checked out
unless you can find a legitimate cause. That said, this
all happened right after you tore some things apart,
which would leave areas of fuel lines with air in them.
I would expect unusual engine response until you get this
air out of the system. If you pull apart fuel lines,
you should disconnect the fuel lines after the fuel
pumps, and run the boost pump into a container for
a while and make sure to purge any air out of the lines,
before starting. That would minimize this a little.
Beyond that, nothing you stated in that email is
highly unusual. If you climb lower than 120kts or
so, and do an extended climb to 10,000', in my experience,
you have a high chance that after about 8,000'
at some point you may start to see a reduction in
fuel pressure. Some people say they never see it.
I know many who have. Unless you are looking for it
and have an audible alarm set you may never even know.
I set my yellow alert for 16psi, and red for 10 or 11,
and I never get a red alert, but I do stare at it
when it gets below 16. I usually let it go
and don't hit the boost right away, but first
lower the nose and climb at a higher speed, and make
sure I've leaned for climb. A reduction in fuel
requirement and temperature helps it. If not, the
boost goes on. I have no leaks in any fuel lines,
and nothing for blockages.
Now your other point was that you advanced the throttle
and the fuel pressure dropped. If you saw that video
that was going around on the forums a couple weeks ago,
this makes perfect sense. It also happens to me
many times. If I try a takeoff without boost pump,
within 1 second of going full throttle I may get a
warning, but by the time I can glance to the fuel
pressure gauge, the warning is gone. First, this is
good because it's a reminder that we should be using
the boost pump during takeoff. We should try to correct
our form if we aren't doing that. But second, just
like the video says, you can have high flow and low
pressure, or high pressure and low flow, but you're
going to get one or the other and that is determined
by the fuel servo. When you rapidly advance the
throttle, the fuel servo demands instantaneous
fuel flow. This flow causes lowered pressure in
the line after the engine pump, where the pressure
transducer is located. The pump stroke of course,
as the video shows, is variable because of the way
the arm and spring interact, so it may take a couple
of pump cycles for that diaphragm to move up and
down enough to start flowing more fuel to meet
this need. The pump has limits to how quickly it
can fill this reduction in pressure. In your situation
it was still worth checking for air leaks around the
pump inlet, but as these are factory built hoses and
steel fittings on the pump, you're not likely to find
a bad flare or something be the cause, so the
probability is low that you'll find something other than
a loose fuel hose. Anyway, without the boost pump on,
I would absolutely expect a very short term, momentary
loss of fuel pressure when quickly advancing the throttle.
The quicker the advance, the more likely you'll see it.
So none of that shocked me and caused me to think
you had an issue.
I doubt you do have any unusual issue, personally, but
as I said, with your engine stoppage, it's probably
the time to do as you did and tear it apart. But,
after not finding anything, prime those fuel lines
and put it together and see where you're at again.
The gascolators are something most of us don't have,
so perhaps you can look into those for flow
restriction. I wouldn't expect it there though.
Regarding your flow transducer, yes, when it's in the
tunnel it won't read accurately with the boost pump
on. It may fluctuate more too during operation. You
didn't mention which type you have. Mine is the FlowScan
in the RV-10 and the red cube in the RV-14. I don't
know how much restriction the FlowScan causes, but
if you have the same, maybe that is why we see
some of this where others don't. The thing is,
with the RV-10 fleet, you can't count on all of us
having everything 100% the same. Mine is 100% per
plans...except for the braided lines, which I DO
find have more restriction than solid lines, as well.
When building the RV-14 I compared the effort to blow
air thru solid lines vs braided and there is definitely
a difference. All these things can account for
small differences in what people report.
Moving your transducer may improve it's stability, but
I would find it unlikely to change your fuel
pressure reduction issues. It may, but I would be
skeptical until you try it and say it did. Personally,
I don't see enough variation (fluctuation) to worry
about it much, and my boost pump is off by 1000' on
takeoff so the effect on my totalizer value is minimal
and I don't worry about it. Beside that, by using
the boost pump and the reading being higher, it just
gives me that tiny bit of extra margin on remaining
fuel. Were it the other way, where it reduced my
margin by showing lower flow, I'd definitely change
it because I want more, not less, fuel than indicated
on the totalizer. But if you are motivated to move
the transducer, I say go for it. Do it, and let
us know how it goes. Just don't do it expecting it
to fix the pressure drop....let that be a benefit
if you get lucky.
I've only had mine flying for 11 years and 1230+ hours,
and only have experience with my RV-10 that is first
hand, so my info is only worth 1.5 cents with inflation.
In a few years, you will have your own first hand
experience to share when the next guy asks this question.
Tim
On 2/17/2017 5:38 AM, Dan Charrois wrote:
>
> Hi everyone.
>
> I thought I'd report back that I've pulled apart most of the fuel
> lines, including those in the tunnel and unfortunately haven't yet
> found any blockage or cause for the low pressure I'd been
> experiencing (the tunnel fuel filter is completely clean, and there
> don't seem to be any leaks or issues with any of the fuel
> connections). I'm still going to check further (and perhaps try
> bypassing a gascolator), but I seem to be quickly eliminating things
> my low fuel pressure problem is not likely caused by, rather than
> finding anything that it might be. One suspect (however unlikely)
> still remains with the one way bypass valve around the boost pump,
> since the boost pump seems to bring the pressure up, and the bypass
> valve is only used with the engine pump. But the valve seems to be
> cemented to the pump manifold with some sort of white compound, so I
> haven't been easily able to remove it to check. Or perhaps the
> engine pump itself could be a problem, though it's factory new, so
> I'! m not sure how likely that is either.
>
> But while I have everything apart, I'm thinking of possibly
> relocating my fuel flow transducer from the tunnel to somewhere after
> the engine pump (I'm not sure if the transducer is the culprit
> either, but putting it after the engine pump can't hurt, plus would
> give me more accurate readings with the boost pump on). But where
> are people putting it? The most convenient location in the engine
> compartment would be to mount it to a bracket on the engine mount and
> locate it right after the engine pump, on the way to the throttle
> body. But if it's right after the engine pump, would I really be
> accomplishing anything different than its current location right
> after the boost pump? Would the engine pump cause similar problems
> in transducer accuracy if the transducer is placed there?
>
> 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: | Re: FW: fuel flow at takeoff power |
Like Lenny recommended, when you order cables I'd ask for
an additional bit of throw. I had the same thing happen on
my RV-14. Now, the one thing you can't afford is to not get
full fuel delivery when needed, so I'd err on the side of
hitting the full-rich stop, then see if going full lean
always definitely kills the engine. If so, you should be good,
but, what I did on mine is drill the arm and make sure I could
hit both stops. On my RV-14 it isn't quite as pretty as my
RV-10. On the -10, things are drilled so well that most
controls go stop to stop and are almost exactly at the
end of the slots on the quadrant. On the RV-14, the throw
of the cables wasn't enough, so I have at least one that
stops about 1/2" from the end of the slot when you pull it
all the way back. But, they all go stop to stop on the
far end. I did have to drill holes in arms to get it that
way. Don't forget, you can also drill higher or lower
holes in the quadrant levers where the clevis attaches.
Tim
On 2/16/2017 6:28 AM, David wrote:
>
>
> I have been adjusting the mixture control cable attempting to make the
> control hit both the full rich stop and the idle cutoff stop. It appears
> that the cable (AS custom with Teflon cores) is about .050 inch shorter
> in the throw than expected. The result is that the adjustment is close
> but not exact. Although I can adjust the rich stop within .030 and the
> idle cut off stop within .010, I still wonder whether fuel flow is
> sufficient for takeoff power. Current fuel flow gauge says about 24 +-
> .5 gph and idle cutoff requires that the control be fully aft. Anyone
> have any numbers that they use to confirm proper fuel flow for takeoff.
> The IO540 book seems to say that 24-25 gph is correct. I am now
> determining whether to re make the hole in the mixture control arm or
> order a new cable ($200); the cable cost is not the problem but the
> labor (lots?) necessary to re install another cable. I have also been
> told by Precision Air Motive (PAM) that sufficient fuel flow is certain
> when leaning to peak at full power shows at least 100f rich of peak is
> obtained. Any comments or suggestions?
>
>
> David McNeill
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
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: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter |
Just following up on this.
Today I bought a 2nd NL starter. So I'm going to just put them on
both planes. I'll have a 149-12LS and 149-12PM on the shelf
as spares I guess.
I asked Sky-Tec about the rebuild option. She said that is
not an option any longer and went away when Hartzell bought
Sky-Tec. They only have one option now. You can buy a
new starter, from them ($499 vs $436 street price), then
after you pull your old one send the receipt and old starter
in, and get your credit. Current credit for the old is
$154 for the LS or PM. So a delta of about $90. But,
you have to pay shipping in both directions...for the new
starter, and the old starter, and I'm assuming for the
replaced starter. With shipping costs where it is, that
$90 will get cut to almost nothing by 3 shipments at $25.
So, by buying 2 from spruce, I got free shipping on the new
ones, and now I'll have 2 that I can either shelf for
spares, or sell, or whatever.
BTW: The NL starter can only be wired (without modification)
by using the single-wire method. I have both planes wired
per Van's where you pull the jumper wire. Just wanted to
note that there is that difference.
I opted for the NL for the 14 primarily for expedience in
getting it fixed, but also to add that 1lb to the engine.
It will assist in keeping my CG forward for aerobatic envelope
purposes.
Tim
On 2/16/2017 5:02 PM, Jesse Saint wrote:
> Skytec has an option where you can send your starter to them for
> "rebuild" and get a different model back. Cheaper than buying a new one.
> I think the "rebuilt" is just a new unit.
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
> C: 352-427-0285
> F: 815-377-3694
>
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: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter |
Tim,
I'm not familiar with the 149-12PM, so I can't comment on the differences
between the fit. However I have the NL, and can't imagine that you would
have any fit issues. It tucks away into the engine nicely. Perhaps you
could have a scat tube, cable, or wire in the way, but I doubt it.
Here's some photos with a straight edge to help put things into perspective.
For the record, I have a dual alt/battery setup with dual PC-680's on the
backend. I also have 9:1 pistons and a the NL starter doesn't even blink
at spinning the MT on a single battery. Plenty of torque off a 680 for
the 9:1 pistons. Your PC-925 and 8.5 pistons (IIRC) won't have any issues
at all.
Phil
[image: Inline image 4]
[image: Inline image 5]
[image: Inline image 6]
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>
> I chose a Hartzell (orig Kelly) ERZ-8011. I like it a lot. A bit more
> torque and slower rpm than the Nline Skytec. However, when I made the
> choice it was close to the Skytec in price. Since Hartzell took over, it
> now is priced at a $200 premium. No way I would pay that much extra now.
> One other advantage it had was a clutch to protect against kick backs. I
> understand that Skytec has since adopted that feature, instead of the shear
> pins they originally had. I was not a fan of having to remove a starter
> just to replace a shear pin. Didn't I read about Hartzell buying out both
> Skytec and Plane Power recently? Hard to say what that means in the long
> run.
>
>
> On 2/16/2017 5:02 PM, Rob Kermanj wrote:
>
>>
>> Tim,
>>
>> If the NL is the long version with planetary gear, I have one and have no
>> issues with the standard installation. I have a narrow deck 540.
>>
>> Do not archive
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:59 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey all, I'm thinking of replacing my starter on my RV-10
>>> with the NL starter. I think mine is the 149-12PM
>>> right now.
>>>
>>> Can anyone who's either swapped for an NL or has an NL
>>> comment on the fit of the starter in relation to all the
>>> other stuff... i.e. is there any realistic chance that if I
>>> swap starters its not going to fit well because of
>>> some interference somewhere else? If not, I'll go ahead
>>> and just order one.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: A lot of advice and perhaps a little help |
Jeff,
I saw your email this last week about the whole airplane and
medical situation. I'm not clear on the bottom line of
the message though. Some people replied like you beat it
all already, but from the reading I take it that you
beat the immediate threat but now have just begun the path
forward and have a chance, with no guarantees. If that's
the case then I do wish you the best. You've already been
in my prayers after reading about it, and that's about
all I can do, but I wanted you to know. I remember talking
to you at OSH, and emails over the years. You're a good
guy, and I appreciate that there are people like you.
I also appreciate that you shared your story with the list.
Heck, I don't even have a clue if I myself could potentially
have unknown medical conditions...most of us aren't aware
until there is a significant symptom. But, your story
does make me feel very good about the way I have lived my
life. I have years of suffering ahead, if I live a long
time, but it's financial suffering hopefully. Since 2003
or 2004 I've been involved in the RV community, and
in 1999 and 2001 I had my children...not much longer than
the RV scene. The choices I made...to fly places, and
enjoy time with my girls, have made a significant
negative impact on my future ability to retire and to
enjoy financial security. I spend a lot of time worrying
about that these days. But, knowing that days can be
numbered gives a person a different perspective. I've
always worried that if I didn't USE the time and enjoy
the time with my kids, and have these experiences, I would
end up being "that guy" who works hard until 65, retires,
and then has a heart attack at 66. That's definitely
not what I would feel as being as fulfilling as spending
time with your family. So I chose the latter. At this
point I've had almost too much fun and good fortune,
and I wait for the shoe to drop. :) I'm very glad that
you were part of the RV-10 community, and you followed
your dreams of flying it, and that you had fun along
the way. It is sad to see you sell the plane, but I do
understand. I want to let you know that if you are ever
around, for OSH or if I meet up with you somewhere else,
I'll be happy to take you for a flight and let you have
some fun. I am too far away to be of much use in helping
finish the plane, but I would never deny you a flight
if it becomes possible. I'm not sure if you intend to
make it to OSH in the future, but the offer is open
anytime.
Thanks again for your note and I'll keep saying the prayers.
Tim
On 2/8/2017 10:43 PM, Jeff Carpenter wrote:
> <jeff@westcottpress.com>
>
> On November 30th I was entering the company IRA deposit... 5 pairs of
> numbers... something that should take me a couple of minutes at most.
> But, on that day, there seemed to be a strong glare in my office and
> I couldn't make out the numbers. I twisted the paper, moved it around
> in my field of vision... tried just one eye, then the other. 15
> minutes later the work was done and whatever problem I was having
> with my vision seemed to have resolved itself. I went and got a big
> glass of water thinking that I might be dehydrated.
>
> The next day, I noticed a similar vision problem. It didn't last as
> long and I wasn't doing work that it interfered with... but it
> worried me a little. Later that afternoon I met with a customer in my
> office to discuss some new projects. He's a smart guy. He'd ask a
> question. I'd start in to the answer and before I could finish the
> sentence I could see that he was moving on to the next question...
> and I was having a progressively harder time actually finishing the
> sentences. Words were slightly out of order. I'd back up to get it
> right and the words kept coming out a little wrong. He didn't seem to
> notice. We finished our meeting and said our goodbyes. I immediately
> went to my office manager to tell her that something was wrong with
> me. She, with all the love and understanding of someone who has
> worked for me for almost 25 years said "well, don't tell me... tell
> you doctor... dork."
>
> So, the next morning I called my doctor on my way in to work. I
> pulled off to the side of the road as the nurse was getting the
> doctor to the phone. I explained to him what had happened the past
> couple of days. He said "I'd like you turn around and drive straight
> to the ER and get an MRI. This is the kind of stuff we don't mess
> with." So, that's what I did.
>
> By noon the MRI was complete and the results were back. I had two
> brain tumors. One rather small and one the size of a lemon. Something
> about the nature of the tumors indicated that they didn't start in
> the brain. So, a scan or two later it was determined that I have
> stage 4 lung cancer (never smoked). My GP came to the hospital and
> explained that this was the worst time of the week to discover
> something like this. We wanted to assemble the "A" team and the "A"
> team didn't work the weekends." So, I was released from the ER into
> the care of my wife with a few strong prescriptions and a few days to
> imagine all that might be before me.
>
> On Monday, as my GP was assembling his "A" team my parents were
> assembling theirs. Unbeknownst to me, good friends of theirs had
> just endowed the Chair of Oncology at The City of Hope. By Tuesday I
> was in the care of some of the very best doctors in the world. By the
> following Tuesday the large tumor was surgically removed and I was,
> somehow, still able to walk and talk... but not drive and certainly
> not fly.
>
> My prognosis, now, is "up in the air" so to speak. I've finished
> radiation therapy which finished off anything that might have
> remained of the large tumor and zapped the small one. I'm lucky, if
> you can call anything about this "lucky" to have certain biomarkers
> in my cancer that make it treatable with targeted therapy... which
> has the potential to make this a chronically managed disease as
> opposed to a death sentence. While targeted therapy drugs are a
> godsend... giving me a shot at watching my kids grow up... they are
> not allowed by the FAA. I'm going to have to sell my RV-10. That's
> where I need your advice and, perhaps a little help.
>
> N410CF has the following squawks. In my current condition I am unable
> to address most of them without help. That being said, what should I
> make sure is taken care of before putting the plane on the market?
>
> The plane is not painted
>
> It is out of annual (would love a checklist for the annual)
>
> POH is incomplete
>
> Wheel pants and fairings are fit and finished except for the upper
> intersection fairings
>
> The parking brake valve leaks
>
> The back up battery fuse has blown twice now
>
> The 1042G wire covers are not finish painted to match the interior
>
> Door locks are not installed
>
> AOA is not calibrated
>
> Needs a rudder trim tab
>
> An aileron trim tab wouldn't hurt
>
> 1 weeping rivet
>
>
> I'd like to thank you all for the camaraderie over the 11 plus years
> it took me to build it. It certainly would have been nice to be part
> of the flying community a bit longer but I don't regret a minute of
> the 4,874 hours I spent building it.
>
> Jeff Carpenter N410CF
>
>
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: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter |
The LS and PM starters are permanent magnet, a little lighter than the NL
and have the solenoid either on the right or left side of the motor. It is
an issue with baffle fit. They draw a lot more current than the NL and have
trouble cranking past the compression stroke if the battery is a little
down or there is any resistance in the cable connections between battery
and starter. I have one on my Mooney. Took some tracking down to replace an
old starter relay that had resistance before it would crank reliably.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> I'm not familiar with the 149-12PM, so I can't comment on the differences
> between the fit. However I have the NL, and can't imagine that you would
> have any fit issues. It tucks away into the engine nicely. Perhaps you
> could have a scat tube, cable, or wire in the way, but I doubt it.
>
>
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: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter |
That's kind of what I figured Phil. The photos all make it
look much longer than the LS/PM versions. The LS and PM
seem to be almost identical, with the solenoid on the opposite
side of the main body. I may have some small wires like for
my lightspeed ignition or something that I have to
adjust but I don't expect anything major. It's just that
going from a short/wide starter to a narrow/long one
had me wondering if I was overlooking something. I guess
I'll know in a couple weeks.
I'll report back after I get them installed.
Tim
On 2/17/2017 9:26 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> I'm not familiar with the 149-12PM, so I can't comment on the
> differences between the fit. However I have the NL, and can't imagine
> that you would have any fit issues. It tucks away into the engine
> nicely. Perhaps you could have a scat tube, cable, or wire in the way,
> but I doubt it.
>
> Here's some photos with a straight edge to help put things into perspective.
>
> For the record, I have a dual alt/battery setup with dual PC-680's on
> the backend. I also have 9:1 pistons and a the NL starter doesn't even
> blink at spinning the MT on a single battery. Plenty of torque off a
> 680 for the 9:1 pistons. Your PC-925 and 8.5 pistons (IIRC) won't have
> any issues at all.
>
> Phil
>
>
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: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter |
In the FWIW area on starters, I originally had the LS starter on my 10. I had
always had difficulty starting with just 1 PC 680 battery. During my 2015 ACI
I decided to send it back to SkyTech for refurb. When discussing with them,
they told me I had the wrong starter installed since the engine was built by AeroSport
Power in 2006! They sent me an overhauled NL starter with my LS as the
core. Same fit and function as the LS.
The difference in the initial turning of blades is night and day different (MUCH
improved).
grumpy
n184jm
do not archive
> On Feb 17, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
>
>
> That's kind of what I figured Phil. The photos all make it
> look much longer than the LS/PM versions. The LS and PM
> seem to be almost identical, with the solenoid on the opposite
> side of the main body. I may have some small wires like for
> my lightspeed ignition or something that I have to
> adjust but I don't expect anything major. It's just that
> going from a short/wide starter to a narrow/long one
> had me wondering if I was overlooking something. I guess
> I'll know in a couple weeks.
>
> I'll report back after I get them installed.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 2/17/2017 9:26 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>>
>> Tim,
>>
>> I'm not familiar with the 149-12PM, so I can't comment on the
>> differences between the fit. However I have the NL, and can't imagine
>> that you would have any fit issues. It tucks away into the engine
>> nicely. Perhaps you could have a scat tube, cable, or wire in the way,
>> but I doubt it.
>>
>> Here's some photos with a straight edge to help put things into perspective.
>>
>> For the record, I have a dual alt/battery setup with dual PC-680's on
>> the backend. I also have 9:1 pistons and a the NL starter doesn't even
>> blink at spinning the MT on a single battery. Plenty of torque off a
>> 680 for the 9:1 pistons. Your PC-925 and 8.5 pistons (IIRC) won't have
>> any issues at all.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter |
I'm at the hangar now, trying to get this thing finished up, so I can give
you any measurement you want.
The back of the starter to the front of the sump is exactly 1".
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> That's kind of what I figured Phil. The photos all make it
> look much longer than the LS/PM versions. The LS and PM
> seem to be almost identical, with the solenoid on the opposite
> side of the main body. I may have some small wires like for
> my lightspeed ignition or something that I have to
> adjust but I don't expect anything major. It's just that
> going from a short/wide starter to a narrow/long one
> had me wondering if I was overlooking something. I guess
> I'll know in a couple weeks.
>
> I'll report back after I get them installed.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 2/17/2017 9:26 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>
>>
>> Tim,
>>
>> I'm not familiar with the 149-12PM, so I can't comment on the
>> differences between the fit. However I have the NL, and can't imagine
>> that you would have any fit issues. It tucks away into the engine
>> nicely. Perhaps you could have a scat tube, cable, or wire in the way,
>> but I doubt it.
>>
>> Here's some photos with a straight edge to help put things into
>> perspective.
>>
>> For the record, I have a dual alt/battery setup with dual PC-680's on
>> the backend. I also have 9:1 pistons and a the NL starter doesn't even
>> blink at spinning the MT on a single battery. Plenty of torque off a
>> 680 for the 9:1 pistons. Your PC-925 and 8.5 pistons (IIRC) won't have
>> any issues at all.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>
>
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: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter |
Okay, that does it. I'm swapping mine as well.
I too have (2) 680s and it 'should' be enough power but it isn't for the
LS. That first blade is always in question.
Thanks all!
On 2/16/2017 5:28 PM, Rene wrote:
>
> What is the ~price on the NL? How much weight does it add? I do not
> have a problem with the starter working with the 925 batter, but I
> think I am developing a dead (weak) spot and will be replacing my
> starter this annual..unless the problem goes away when it gets
> warmer and I fly more.
>
> Rene'
>
> 801-721-6080
>
> *From:*owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Kevin Belue
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:15 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter
>
> Tim,
>
> I had the 149-12PM on my RV10 and it would hardly turn it over. I have
> 2 PC680 batteries, but that's hardly enough power. Your larger battery
> must help there. I changed to the NL starter and it's great. It fits
> just fine and has much more torque. I don't have any problems now
> starting on one PC680. I think it's the best starter for the RV10.
>
> Kevin Belue
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com
> <mailto:Tim@myrv10.com>> wrote:
>
> <mailto:Tim@MyRV10.com>>
>
> Hey all, I'm thinking of replacing my starter on my RV-10
> with the NL starter. I think mine is the 149-12PM
> right now.
>
> Can anyone who's either swapped for an NL or has an NL
> comment on the fit of the starter in relation to all the
> other stuff... i.e. is there any realistic chance that if I
> swap starters its not going to fit well because of
> some interference somewhere else? If not, I'll go ahead
> and just order one.
>
> Tim
> ===================================
> -List" target="_blank"
> rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ===================================
> FORUMS -
> _blank" rel="noreferrer">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> WIKI -
> lank" rel="noreferrer">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ==========
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter |
Ok Bill, I give you permission to put in your order now. :)
I say that because I'm sure that by now mine have been
packaged for shipping so you won't take one of mine. ;)
You're absolutely right. It's the first blade that's the
problem. On my RV-14 the LS works great, but the NL
should work even better. It will turn the prop
"bigly" to quote a random buffoon I keep seeing on tv.
Tim
On 2/17/2017 11:06 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
> Okay, that does it. I'm swapping mine as well.
>
> I too have (2) 680s and it 'should' be enough power but it isn't for the
> LS. That first blade is always in question.
>
> Thanks all!
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating |
the fuel flow transducer
I relocated my Flowscan from the tunnel to between the pump and spider -
it resolved the inaccurate reading problem. (The problem was actually
pretty minor since I ran the boost pump for such limited amounts of
times but now it's just dead nuts accurate).
I simply cut the fuel line and inserted the flowscan unit wrapped in
head shield. I secured the ends of the fuel line but the flowscan unit
is floating so to speak. I just could see any reason to secure it
further. Many hours later - all okay.
Bill
> But while I have everything apart, I'm thinking of possibly relocating my fuel
flow transducer from the tunnel to somewhere after the engine pump (I'm not
sure if the transducer is the culprit either, but putting it after the engine
pump can't hurt, plus would give me more accurate readings with the boost pump
on). But where are people putting it? The most convenient location in the engine
compartment would be to mount it to a bracket on the engine mount and locate
it right after the engine pump, on the way to the throttle body. But if it's
right after the engine pump, would I really be accomplishing anything different
than its current location right after the boost pump? Would the engine
pump cause similar problems in transducer accuracy if the transducer is placed
there?
>
> 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: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter |
I guess I bought my (Vans) engine at just the right time, late 2009. Back then
you could pull the unused LS off and Skytech would swap, no charge, for the NL.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466371#466371
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: Fuel pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating |
the
I've been think of how to reply, but now Tim wrote it for me! I agree with everything
he said. My FF is in the stock position, is (by my choice) 2% high (conservative)
with boost pump off, and a little more with it on. I also get low fuel
pressure warnings approaching 10,000' in a full rich climb. But now that I'm
past break-in, it's just a reminder that I forgot to lean! The poor engine
is flooded with fuel at full rich and 10K'.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466373#466373
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: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter |
Hi Bob, you were fortunate to be early. I remember trying to get mine
swapped before first start in 2011 but got a big "negative." People were
recommending replacing the stock LS starter for NL. Once it leaves their
shop, they consider it "used" no matter what. I can't blame them really.
Thus, i kept the LS and had the issue on the first blade. The first
blade would not turn sometimes. It was slightly embarassing at times,
especially when giving rides to those who were not familiar with
"experimentals." Then one day a bad start broke the LS casing. Replaced
with NL and no more start issues whatsoever. NL starts like a race horse
instead of a donkey and all is well. ;)
Jae
On 2/17/2017 10:23 AM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
> I guess I bought my (Vans) engine at just the right time, late 2009. Back then
you could pull the unused LS off and Skytech would swap, no charge, for the
NL.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466371#466371
>
>
--
#40533 RV-10
First flight 10/19/2011
Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011
do not archive
Message 19
| 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 pressure problems continuing |
Dan,
The good fuel flow readings from your test with the electric pump are a nice health
check for the boost pump but do not necessarily prove that system upstream
of the mechanical pump is good.
The mechanical pump has to draw fuel through the gascolator, tank selector valve,
filter, non-return valve, hoses and elbows. The extra hoses and NR-valve mean
that the mechanical pump sees a lower inlet pressure than the boost pump at
the best of times. That and differences in pump design could mean that the boost
pump deals fine with the gascolators etc. and any contamination in the system,
but the mechanical pump cannot. If the mechanical pump inlet pressure is
already in the critical range at idle, then a very small reduction in inlet
pressure due to higher flows at high engine power can have a large negative effect
on outlet pressure.
First I would carefully check the system in the tunnel for any contamination.
If that shows nothing, I would try to slightly pressurise the tank through the
air vent (as you did to pressure test the tanks?) with the engine running and
the boost pump off. If an increase in tank pressure by equivalent of a few inches
of water suddenly resolves the fuel pressure problem, then you have to design
some of the pressure drop out of your system, eg. relocate gascolators or
find alternatives to any 90 elbows.
Best of luck with chasing the problem!
Gordon Anderson, Switzerland
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466380#466380
Message 20
| 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: Sky-Tec NL vs LS starter |
> On Feb 17, 2017, at 9:58 AM, John Miller <gengrumpy@aol.com> wrote:
>
> In the FWIW area on starters, I originally had the LS starter on my 10. I had
always had difficulty starting with just 1 PC 680 battery. During my 2015 ACI
I decided to send it back to SkyTech for refurb. When discussing with them,
they told me I had the wrong starter installed since the engine was built by
AeroSport Power in 2006! They sent me an overhauled NL starter with my LS as
the core. Same fit and function as the LS.
>
> The difference in the initial turning of blades is night and day different (MUCH
improved).
>
> grumpy
> n184jm
>
> do not archive
>
>> On Feb 17, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> That's kind of what I figured Phil. The photos all make it
>> look much longer than the LS/PM versions. The LS and PM
>> seem to be almost identical, with the solenoid on the opposite
>> side of the main body. I may have some small wires like for
>> my lightspeed ignition or something that I have to
>> adjust but I don't expect anything major. It's just that
>> going from a short/wide starter to a narrow/long one
>> had me wondering if I was overlooking something. I guess
>> I'll know in a couple weeks.
>>
>> I'll report back after I get them installed.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> On 2/17/2017 9:26 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>>>
>>> Tim,
>>>
>>> I'm not familiar with the 149-12PM, so I can't comment on the
>>> differences between the fit. However I have the NL, and can't imagine
>>> that you would have any fit issues. It tucks away into the engine
>>> nicely. Perhaps you could have a scat tube, cable, or wire in the way,
>>> but I doubt it.
>>>
>>> Here's some photos with a straight edge to help put things into perspective.
>>>
>>> For the record, I have a dual alt/battery setup with dual PC-680's on
>>> the backend. I also have 9:1 pistons and a the NL starter doesn't even
>>> blink at spinning the MT on a single battery. Plenty of torque off a
>>> 680 for the 9:1 pistons. Your PC-925 and 8.5 pistons (IIRC) won't have
>>> any issues at all.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Message 21
| 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: | Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance |
Contacted Van's and they provided the finish tolerance. I'm familiar with
different methods of static balancing, including measuring the weight of the
trailing edge, etc., but I don't understand how to use the data they gave
me.
Finish documents say the rudder's balance limit is 30.8 in-lb's. This is
probably simple, and I am over-thinking it. However, I'm not quite sure how
to apply the 30.8 in-lb. number in measuring the rudder balance.
Any insight is appreciated.
Tks, Bob.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance
<mailto:kellym@aviating.com> kellym@aviating.com>
The finish documents give the tolerance for rudder and other control surface
balance.
On 2/13/2017 6:22 PM, Outlook wrote:
s51flyer@wi.rr.com>
>
> Has anyone that has added rudder trim had to add any weight to the rudder
counter balance? I cut a tab into the rudder as some builders have done vs.
adding a hinge to the trailing edge. The weight difference is probably
similar, except for maybe a bit more epoxy work to seal up the rudder tab
edges.
>
> Not sure how tight the tolerance is on the counter weight and whether it's
anything to worry about.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Bob Orre...
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 22
| 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: Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance |
You are just measuring the trailing edge force when suspended on knife
edge at hinge points. Force times the distance from hinge point to
trailing edge gives you the inch pounds.
On 2/17/2017 7:04 PM, Bob Orre wrote:
> Contacted Van's and they provided the finish tolerance. I'm familiar
> with different methods of static balancing, including measuring the
> weight of the trailing edge, etc., but I don't understand how to use the
> data they gave me.
>
>
> Finish documents say the rudders balance limit is 30.8 in-lbs. This
> is probably simple, and I am over-thinking it. However, Im not quite
> sure how to apply the 30.8 in-lb. number in measuring the rudder balance.
>
>
> Any insight is appreciated.
>
>
> Tks, Bob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 8:33 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance
>
>
> <mailto:kellym@aviating.com>>
>
>
> The finish documents give the tolerance for rudder and other control
> surface balance.
>
>
> On 2/13/2017 6:22 PM, Outlook wrote:
>
> <mailto:s51flyer@wi.rr.com>>
>
>>
>
>> Has anyone that has added rudder trim had to add any weight to the
> rudder counter balance? I cut a tab into the rudder as some builders
> have done vs. adding a hinge to the trailing edge. The weight
> difference is probably similar, except for maybe a bit more epoxy work
> to seal up the rudder tab edges.
>
>>
>
>> Not sure how tight the tolerance is on the counter weight and whether
> it's anything to worry about.
>
>>
>
>> Thanks in advance.
>
>>
>
>> Bob Orre...
>
>>
>
>> Sent from my iPad
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
Message 23
| 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: Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance |
Thanks, Kelly. I was over-thinking it.
Bob...
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 17, 2017, at 8:18 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>
>
> You are just measuring the trailing edge force when suspended on knife edge at
hinge points. Force times the distance from hinge point to trailing edge gives
you the inch pounds.
>
>> On 2/17/2017 7:04 PM, Bob Orre wrote:
>> Contacted Van's and they provided the finish tolerance. I'm familiar
>> with different methods of static balancing, including measuring the
>> weight of the trailing edge, etc., but I don't understand how to use the
>> data they gave me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finish documents say the rudders balance limit is 30.8 in-lbs. This
>> is probably simple, and I am over-thinking it. However, Im not quite
>> sure how to apply the 30.8 in-lb. number in measuring the rudder balance.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any insight is appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tks, Bob
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
>> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 8:33 PM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Rudder Trim and Rudder Counter-Balance
>>
>>
>>
>> <mailto:kellym@aviating.com>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The finish documents give the tolerance for rudder and other control
>> surface balance.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 2/13/2017 6:22 PM, Outlook wrote:
>>>
>> <mailto:s51flyer@wi.rr.com>>
>>
>>
>>> Has anyone that has added rudder trim had to add any weight to the
>> rudder counter balance? I cut a tab into the rudder as some builders
>> have done vs. adding a hinge to the trailing edge. The weight
>> difference is probably similar, except for maybe a bit more epoxy work
>> to seal up the rudder tab edges.
>>
>>
>>> Not sure how tight the tolerance is on the counter weight and whether
>> it's anything to worry about.
>>
>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>>
>>> Bob Orre...
>>
>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
Message 24
| 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: A lot of advice and perhaps a little help |
Hey all, looks like today I blundered and did a personal reply but replied to the
list.
Sorry, Jeff, if that wasn't ok. Anyway, I guess better to have it accidentally
hit the list than to never send it. Sorry.
Tim
> On Feb 17, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
>
>
> Jeff,
> <snip>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 2/8/2017 10:43 PM, Jeff Carpenter wrote:
>> <jeff@westcottpress.com>
>>
>>
>> Jeff Carpenter N410CF
>>
>>
Message 25
| 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 pressure problems continuing / possibly relocating |
the fuel flow transducer
Thanks, everyone, for more great advice. I have some good ideas now (and thanks
for the photo, Dave!) as to where to move my fuel sender (red cube) - I just
wish I would have put it there in the first place!
It seems that low engine pump pressure on the takeoff roll and extended climb is
relatively common - at least I'm not the only one experiencing it. Van's tech
support wrote back to me as well to say they see similar issues with their
factory RV-10 and encouraged me (as have many of you) to not worry about it too
much if the engine pump can maintain pressure at cruise. What had me worried
more than anything was when my engine quit during my runup.
For all my flights up until now I'd had a GoPro in the cockpit which has proven
invaluable to help analyze things after the fact. As luck would have it, this
time I forgot the GoPro at home, so I have to rely on my much less reliable
memory. But with that said...
> On 2017-Feb-17, at 7:40 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
>
> That said, this
> all happened right after you tore some things apart,
> which would leave areas of fuel lines with air in them.
> I would expect unusual engine response until you get this
> air out of the system. If you pull apart fuel lines,
> you should disconnect the fuel lines after the fuel
> pumps, and run the boost pump into a container for
> a while and make sure to purge any air out of the lines,
> before starting. That would minimize this a little.
Tim, in and amongst all the other helpful things you said, I think you hit the
nail on the head here, triggering a light bulb moment for me.
I'm pretty sure I didn't purge the air out of the lines when I refuelled the plane
after having cleaned out the gascolators the first time - it never entered
my mind. When I started the plane, the initial priming with the boost pump would
have cleared out most of the air from the lines to the tank I had selected
at first, which is why it ran and acted normally initially. But now that your
comments had me second guessing the exact sequence of events, I'm pretty sure
that I changed tanks right when I turned on the boost pump in preparation for
taxiing for takeoff. When I turned off the boost pump a few seconds later
to see if the engine pump was working (likely before the air pocket in the lines
would have found its way to the engine), I saw fuel pressure start dropping
dramatically. I thought it was the fault of the engine pump pressure problem
I've been chasing, but in retrospect, I'm thinking now that since I likely had
just changed tanks, it was right about when the engine was getting a big gulp
of air from the unpurged portion of line to the other tank. For some reason,
since I wasn't suspecting the tank switch would have mattered (since both gascolator
screens were now confirmed clean), I unintentionally discounted it as
unrelated.
At least that would perfectly explain why it died during my runup. And also serves
as a classic example of my error in jumping to conclusions as to the cause,
with prior conceptions of what I expected the problem to be. I was so fixated
on judging the performance of the engine pump, I think I switched tanks without
paying attention to how it would affect things.
So with that said, now that I have everything in my tunnel pulled apart anyway,
I'm going to recheck connections, look for blockages, etc. to ensure everything
is as it's supposed to be. But I now have a probable explanation as to why
the engine quit during my runup, enough so that I'm comfortable taking the plane
up for its next flight if I find nothing else wrong (and it does the next
runup OK, of course). And naturally, I'm going to run the boost pump into a container,
from *both tanks* for awhile before I reconnect the line to the throttle
body to make sure they're properly purged for next time.
I've learned a few valuable lessons here:
- never assume that a problem is necessarily caused by what you expect it to be
caused by.
- Running the boost pump while switching tanks was something I've always been told
to do but never fully understood why it's important. Now I have a perfect
example of why... and also know that leaving it running for a bit of time after
switching tanks isn't such a bad idea either.
- Running the boost pump before going full throttle also makes a lot of sense -
we can anticipate the upcoming higher need for fuel, so that it's there before
it's needed, unlike the engine pump having to try and play catch up when it's
caught by surprise.
- the people on the Matronics RV-10 list are an incredible resource :-)
I may still bypass one of the wing gascolators so I can do an apples to apples
comparison as to if (or to what degree) gascolators affect things. If nothing
else was found to be a problem, prior to this I was reluctant to close things
up and go flying without knowing if the problem was potentially fixed. But now
that I have an explanation that makes sense to me, I'm certainly anxious to
give it another go.
Incidentally, Van's mentioned that they have a cooling shroud on the fuel pump
of their RV-10 (as some of you do too) which seems to help with pressure problems
in extended climbs. Since my climb where I saw fuel pressure dropping near
8000', I installed a blast tube to the fuel pump (like with the mags) as a quick
and simple potential improvement (not as good as a shroud, but probably better
than nothing). When I get the plane up next, I'll try another similar climb
to see if it helps at all. If not, a shroud could be another improvement...
though just running the boost pump in a higher altitude climb and leaning
the mixture in the climb might be enough.
Thanks again for all your advice, everyone!
Dan
---
Dan Charrois
President, Syzygy Research & Technology
Phone: 780-961-2213
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! --
|