Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:15 AM - Re: Re: W&B Configuration ()
2. 05:28 AM - Re: Re: W&B Configuration ()
3. 05:54 AM - Re: Re: W&B Configuration (Tim Olson)
4. 07:10 AM - Re: Re: W&B Configuration (Kelly McMullen)
5. 07:52 AM - Re: Re: W&B Configuration (Tim Olson)
6. 08:23 AM - Re: Re: W&B Configuration (Jesse Saint)
7. 08:26 AM - Re: Re: W&B Configuration (Berck E. Nash)
8. 08:31 AM - Re: Re: W&B Configuration (John Cox)
9. 08:37 AM - Re: W&B Configuration (Rene)
10. 08:49 AM - Re: Re: W&B Configuration (Rene)
11. 08:50 AM - Re: Re: W&B Configuration (Tim Olson)
12. 09:03 AM - Re: Condition inspection (Kelly McMullen)
13. 10:16 AM - Re: W&B Configuration (Bob Turner)
14. 11:05 AM - Re: Condition inspection (Tim Olson)
15. 11:14 AM - Re: Re: W&B Configuration (Tim Olson)
16. 11:31 AM - Hooker Issues.... (Phillip Perry)
17. 12:16 PM - Re: Hooker Issues.... (Home)
18. 12:26 PM - Re: Hooker Issues.... (Shannon Hicks)
19. 12:44 PM - Re: Hooker Issues.... (Tim Olson)
20. 12:49 PM - Re: Hooker Issues.... (Carl Froehlich)
21. 01:36 PM - Re: Hooker Issues.... (Linn Walters)
22. 10:24 PM - Unuseable Full (Albert)
23. 10:44 PM - Re: Unuseable Full (Jim Beyer)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: W&B Configuration |
Volume, obviously yes. Weight? Sounds like "Trump science" to me ;-)
Keep trying, not sure I believe it yet. Fuel consumption or
expansion/contraction changing COG; changing volume with overflow; density,
I can understand. Maybe that's the deal -- does the expansion with heat
shift the weight, not change the weight? As I said, it doesn't really
matter, just curious.
Later, - Lew
Nearly all materials (water being different) expand when heated. So one
gallon of gas at some temperature might weigh exactly 6 pounds. Heat it up,
it expands and overflows the container. There is now less (by weight, or
number of molecules) gas in the one gallon container. In real life the
aluminum fuel tank will also expand, but it's an order of magnitude less
than the expansion of the gas. This is one reason jets (that carry huge
amounts of gas) usually keep track of the actual weight.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
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: W&B Configuration |
Then there's this: "Water expands about four percent when heated from room
temperature to its boiling point". Hence more issue of rising ocean levels
from global warming of ocean temperature than from melting ice caps.
Never mind, I'm just giddy from South Carolina making it into the Final Four
... who would have thunk that!!
Do NOT archive.
Later, - Lew
"Nearly all materials (water being different) expand when heated. So one
gallon of gas at some temperature might weigh exactly 6 pounds. Heat it up,
it expands and overflows the container. There is now less (by weight, or
number of molecules) gas in the one gallon container. In real life the
aluminum fuel tank will also expand, but it's an order of magnitude less
than the expansion of the gas. This is one reason jets (that carry huge
amounts of gas) usually keep track of the actual weight."
--------
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: W&B Configuration |
Don't worry Lew, it's just that many people are better pilots that they are scientists.
It is true that the fuel will expand when it is warm. But considering
there will be the same number of molecules, they will not weigh differently when
they are warm. Yes, the fuel tanks will overflow if they are all the way
full to the top, so warm fuel would weigh less in that situation If it overflowed
some of the fuel. But, if you have your fuel tanks filled to 2 inches from
the top, on a cold day, and then you take your plane out on a warm day, and the
fuel is up to the top, it will not weigh less. It may in fact weigh a minuscule
amount more, due to additional dissolved gases. The comment about Jets calculating
fuel in pounds is accurate, but that would not simply be because fuel
weighs less when it is warm. It would have more to do with that it has less
volume when it is warm , for the same given amount of fuel in molecules. So you
are not going crazy.
Either way, the warm fuel versus cold fuel is a small enough number has to be pretty
much insignificant when calculating your weight and balance. Sure, it may
weigh a few pounds more if you feel to the exact same spot on a cold day as
on a warm day, but I don't think a weight and balance needs to be calculated to
that Precision.
Tim
> On Mar 27, 2017, at 7:14 AM, <lewgall@charter.net> <lewgall@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
> Volume, obviously yes. Weight? Sounds like "Trump science" to me ;-) Keep
trying, not sure I believe it yet. Fuel consumption or expansion/contraction
changing COG; changing volume with overflow; density, I can understand. Maybe
that's the deal -- does the expansion with heat shift the weight, not change
the weight? As I said, it doesn't really matter, just curious.
>
> Later, - Lew
>
>
>
> Nearly all materials (water being different) expand when heated. So one gallon
of gas at some temperature might weigh exactly 6 pounds. Heat it up, it expands
and overflows the container. There is now less (by weight, or number of molecules)
gas in the one gallon container. In real life the aluminum fuel tank
will also expand, but it's an order of magnitude less than the expansion of the
gas. This is one reason jets (that carry huge amounts of gas) usually keep track
of the actual weight.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: W&B Configuration |
The weight per gallon of avgas varies approx. 0.1% per degree C.
So at 15C it is 6.01 lbs per gal. At -40 it is 6.41 lbs/gal, and at 35C
it is around 5.88 lb/gal. A swing of .53 lbs/gal. That would be
somewhere in the 32 lb range for full tanks. Yes, it is mostly very
close to the C.G. I wouldn't call it insignificant. Yes, the difference
between 10 and 30 C is around a 2% change, not big. Then you have
difference between individual tanks that may be a gallon or two, for
another 12 lb difference.
However, why worry about it when it is easy to weigh the plane with
tanks empty?
I don't advocate calculating weight to a couple decimals, nor c.g. by
more than about 1 decimal, but you should be aware that if you are
fueling in Phoenix in the summer, that 120 lbs of baggage will affect
c.g. more than it will at International Falls in Jan.
On 3/27/2017 5:53 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
> C.G.
> Don't worry Lew, it's just that many people are better pilots that they are scientists.
It is true that the fuel will expand when it is warm. But considering
there will be the same number of molecules, they will not weigh differently
when they are warm. Yes, the fuel tanks will overflow if they are all the way
full to the top, so warm fuel would weigh less in that situation If it overflowed
some of the fuel. But, if you have your fuel tanks filled to 2 inches from
the top, on a cold day, and then you take your plane out on a warm day, and
the fuel is up to the top, it will not weigh less. It may in fact weigh a minuscule
amount more, due to additional dissolved gases. The comment about Jets
calculating fuel in pounds is accurate, but that would not simply be because
fuel weighs less when it is warm. It would have more to do with that it has less
volume when it is warm , for the same given amount of fuel in molecules. So
you are not going crazy.
> Either way, the warm fuel versus cold fuel is a small enough number has to be
pretty much insignificant when calculating your weight and balance. Sure, it
may weigh a few pounds more if you feel to the exact same spot on a cold day as
on a warm day, but I don't think a weight and balance needs to be calculated
to that Precision.
> Tim
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: W&B Configuration |
As long as you understand that nearly the entire reason that
the fuel has a different "weight" per gallon is that the
actual QUANTITY of fuel molecules in that gallon is less
as it gets warmer, then you're right on. It's a VOLUME
issue, not a weight issue. If you took hot fuel
of a given weight, and cold fuel of a given weight, and
brought them to the same temperature, they would still
weigh the same but have different VOLUMES.
And, I will say that I do consider it to be pretty irrelevant
regarding the weight of fuel, despite the 32lbs of
difference. The reason I say it's irrelevant is because
I know of no person who flies small planes like RV's, who
would calculate their W&B for a given day of flying and
actually compensate for the weight of fuel THAT DAY
based on temperature.
But you're right, just weigh it with the tanks empty, or
if you wish, after adding some fuel and draining everything
but the unusable fuel. In the RV-10/14 the unusable fuel
is also such a small quantity that it really isn't a significant
number for practical purposes. I have flown my tanks to
dry in testing and there is about 1 cup, 2 max, left
in the tank when flown to empty.
So my personal summary is: The weight difference of fuel
is not significant in PRACTICAL terms for anything,
AFTER you have done an accurate airplane weighing. You're
not likely to ever need to consider that added or
decreased weight due to temperature when planning any
flight. And, for practical purposes, in the RV-10/14
models, useable fuel = total fuel, so you don't need to
mark your tanks with a label like "60 Gallons, 59 usable"
or anything like that.
I personally have never, other than during fuel tank
capacity testing, ever flown with less than 5 gallons in
a tank. I think the risk of fuel unporting during
turns in the pattern would be too high if you get much
lower than that.
And, I think weighing with tanks empty is the way to go.
Tim
On 03/27/2017 09:08 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> The weight per gallon of avgas varies approx. 0.1% per degree C.
> So at 15C it is 6.01 lbs per gal. At -40 it is 6.41 lbs/gal, and at 35C
> it is around 5.88 lb/gal. A swing of .53 lbs/gal. That would be
> somewhere in the 32 lb range for full tanks. Yes, it is mostly very
> close to the C.G. I wouldn't call it insignificant. Yes, the difference
> between 10 and 30 C is around a 2% change, not big. Then you have
> difference between individual tanks that may be a gallon or two, for
> another 12 lb difference.
> However, why worry about it when it is easy to weigh the plane with
> tanks empty?
> I don't advocate calculating weight to a couple decimals, nor c.g. by
> more than about 1 decimal, but you should be aware that if you are
> fueling in Phoenix in the summer, that 120 lbs of baggage will affect
> c.g. more than it will at International Falls in Jan.
>
> On 3/27/2017 5:53 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>> C.G.
>> Don't worry Lew, it's just that many people are better pilots that
>> they are scientists. It is true that the fuel will expand when it is
>> warm. But considering there will be the same number of molecules, they
>> will not weigh differently when they are warm. Yes, the fuel tanks
>> will overflow if they are all the way full to the top, so warm fuel
>> would weigh less in that situation If it overflowed some of the fuel.
>> But, if you have your fuel tanks filled to 2 inches from the top, on a
>> cold day, and then you take your plane out on a warm day, and the fuel
>> is up to the top, it will not weigh less. It may in fact weigh a
>> minuscule amount more, due to additional dissolved gases. The comment
>> about Jets calculating fuel in pounds is accurate, but that would not
>> simply be because fuel weighs less when it is warm. It would have more
>> to do with that it has less volume when it is warm , for the same
>> given amount of fuel in molecules. So you are not going crazy.
>> Either way, the warm fuel versus cold fuel is a small enough number
>> has to be pretty much insignificant when calculating your weight and
>> balance. Sure, it may weigh a few pounds more if you feel to the exact
>> same spot on a cold day as on a warm day, but I don't think a weight
>> and balance needs to be calculated to that Precision.
>> Tim
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: W&B Configuration |
This whole discussion cracks me up. The weighing issue is that you have to do it
with empty tanks or full tanks. That's the point made that started the expansion
of fuel when heated discussion. If you use full tanks, the plane is lighter
if the fuel is warm because it's bigger. If you fill it up with cold fuel and
it warms up, the expansion will send fuel out the vents onto the ground, making
the plane lighter. At half tanks it makes no difference in weight, but you
can't weigh at half tanks because you don't know exactly how much fuel you have
to calculate it back out for an accurate empty weight.
The actual best way to get empty weight is to disconnect the fuel line at the engine
and pump it out, leaving the unusable fuel in the tanks.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:14 AM, <lewgall@charter.net> <lewgall@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
> Volume, obviously yes. Weight? Sounds like "Trump science" to me ;-) Keep
trying, not sure I believe it yet. Fuel consumption or expansion/contraction
changing COG; changing volume with overflow; density, I can understand. Maybe
that's the deal -- does the expansion with heat shift the weight, not change
the weight? As I said, it doesn't really matter, just curious.
>
> Later, - Lew
>
>
>
> Nearly all materials (water being different) expand when heated. So one gallon
of gas at some temperature might weigh exactly 6 pounds. Heat it up, it expands
and overflows the container. There is now less (by weight, or number of molecules)
gas in the one gallon container. In real life the aluminum fuel tank
will also expand, but it's an order of magnitude less than the expansion of the
gas. This is one reason jets (that carry huge amounts of gas) usually keep track
of the actual weight.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: W&B Configuration |
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> As long as you understand that nearly the entire reason that
> the fuel has a different "weight" per gallon is that the
> actual QUANTITY of fuel molecules in that gallon is less
> as it gets warmer, then you're right on. It's a VOLUME
> issue, not a weight issue. If you took hot fuel
> of a given weight, and cold fuel of a given weight, and
> brought them to the same temperature, they would still
> weigh the same but have different VOLUMES.
Uhm, no. If you take a pound of cold fuel and pound of hot fuel, they're
going to have the same volume *and* weight once you equalize the
temperature. This is one of the many reasons we fuel airliners by weight.
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: W&B Configuration |
On the long cross country flights from the West Coast to AirVenture I would
swear the bugs get bigger and their weight becomes a factor as we approach
Wisconsin.
Will need to tweak my W&B formula.
John
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> As long as you understand that nearly the entire reason that
> the fuel has a different "weight" per gallon is that the
> actual QUANTITY of fuel molecules in that gallon is less
> as it gets warmer, then you're right on. It's a VOLUME
> issue, not a weight issue. If you took hot fuel
> of a given weight, and cold fuel of a given weight, and
> brought them to the same temperature, they would still
> weigh the same but have different VOLUMES.
>
> And, I will say that I do consider it to be pretty irrelevant
> regarding the weight of fuel, despite the 32lbs of
> difference. The reason I say it's irrelevant is because
> I know of no person who flies small planes like RV's, who
> would calculate their W&B for a given day of flying and
> actually compensate for the weight of fuel THAT DAY
> based on temperature.
>
> But you're right, just weigh it with the tanks empty, or
> if you wish, after adding some fuel and draining everything
> but the unusable fuel. In the RV-10/14 the unusable fuel
> is also such a small quantity that it really isn't a significant
> number for practical purposes. I have flown my tanks to
> dry in testing and there is about 1 cup, 2 max, left
> in the tank when flown to empty.
>
> So my personal summary is: The weight difference of fuel
> is not significant in PRACTICAL terms for anything,
> AFTER you have done an accurate airplane weighing. You're
> not likely to ever need to consider that added or
> decreased weight due to temperature when planning any
> flight. And, for practical purposes, in the RV-10/14
> models, useable fuel = total fuel, so you don't need to
> mark your tanks with a label like "60 Gallons, 59 usable"
> or anything like that.
>
> I personally have never, other than during fuel tank
> capacity testing, ever flown with less than 5 gallons in
> a tank. I think the risk of fuel unporting during
> turns in the pattern would be too high if you get much
> lower than that.
>
> And, I think weighing with tanks empty is the way to go.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 03/27/2017 09:08 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>>
>> The weight per gallon of avgas varies approx. 0.1% per degree C.
>> So at 15C it is 6.01 lbs per gal. At -40 it is 6.41 lbs/gal, and at 35C
>> it is around 5.88 lb/gal. A swing of .53 lbs/gal. That would be
>> somewhere in the 32 lb range for full tanks. Yes, it is mostly very
>> close to the C.G. I wouldn't call it insignificant. Yes, the difference
>> between 10 and 30 C is around a 2% change, not big. Then you have
>> difference between individual tanks that may be a gallon or two, for
>> another 12 lb difference.
>> However, why worry about it when it is easy to weigh the plane with
>> tanks empty?
>> I don't advocate calculating weight to a couple decimals, nor c.g. by
>> more than about 1 decimal, but you should be aware that if you are
>> fueling in Phoenix in the summer, that 120 lbs of baggage will affect
>> c.g. more than it will at International Falls in Jan.
>>
>> On 3/27/2017 5:53 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>>> C.G.
>>> Don't worry Lew, it's just that many people are better pilots that
>>> they are scientists. It is true that the fuel will expand when it is
>>> warm. But considering there will be the same number of molecules, they
>>> will not weigh differently when they are warm. Yes, the fuel tanks
>>> will overflow if they are all the way full to the top, so warm fuel
>>> would weigh less in that situation If it overflowed some of th
e fuel.
>>> But, if you have your fuel tanks filled to 2 inches from the top, on a
>>> cold day, and then you take your plane out on a warm day, and the fuel
>>> is up to the top, it will not weigh less. It may in fact weigh a
>>> minuscule amount more, due to additional dissolved gases. The comment
>>> about Jets calculating fuel in pounds is accurate, but that would not
>>> simply be because fuel weighs less when it is warm. It would have more
>>> to do with that it has less volume when it is warm , for the same
>>> given amount of fuel in molecules. So you are not going crazy.
>>> Either way, the warm fuel versus cold fuel is a small enough number
>>> has to be pretty much insignificant when calculating your weight and
>>> balance. Sure, it may weigh a few pounds more if you feel to the exact
>>> same spot on a cold day as on a warm day, but I don't think a weight
>>> and balance needs to be calculated to that Precision.
>>> Tim
>>>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
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: | W&B Configuration |
I did mine, full lines and 9 on the stick. I am changing my starter and will
be redoing it in May. I am going to 8 this time. I almost always run
within a Quart of that. Never over 9 and as low as 6 is what I have seen in
my 700 hours.
Rene'
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phillip Perry
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:07 PM
Subject: RV10-List: W&B Configuration
I'm about to zero in on having this thing on the scales in the next couple
of days.
Reading the FAA circular, they mention that the sumo should be full. (12 Qts
in my case). Vans Section 5 is a little more vague.
I have a hard time seeing myself ever filling the sump with 12, just to
watch it get pumped right overboard and settle in around 8-9 on the stick.
What have you all done with regards to sump capacity when running your W&B?
I'm tempted to run it with full lines and 8 on the stick.
But I'm just curious to know what most of you have done with yours?
Sent from my iPhone
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: W&B Configuration |
Great idea.
Do not archive.
Rene'
801-721-6080
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: W&B Configuration
On the long cross country flights from the West Coast to AirVenture I
would swear the bugs get bigger and their weight becomes a factor as we
approach Wisconsin.
Will need to tweak my W&B formula.
John
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com
<mailto:Tim@myrv10.com> > wrote:
<mailto:Tim@MyRV10.com> >
As long as you understand that nearly the entire reason that
the fuel has a different "weight" per gallon is that the
actual QUANTITY of fuel molecules in that gallon is less
as it gets warmer, then you're right on. It's a VOLUME
issue, not a weight issue. If you took hot fuel
of a given weight, and cold fuel of a given weight, and
brought them to the same temperature, they would still
weigh the same but have different VOLUMES.
And, I will say that I do consider it to be pretty irrelevant
regarding the weight of fuel, despite the 32lbs of
difference. The reason I say it's irrelevant is because
I know of no person who flies small planes like RV's, who
would calculate their W&B for a given day of flying and
actually compensate for the weight of fuel THAT DAY
based on temperature.
But you're right, just weigh it with the tanks empty, or
if you wish, after adding some fuel and draining everything
but the unusable fuel. In the RV-10/14 the unusable fuel
is also such a small quantity that it really isn't a significant
number for practical purposes. I have flown my tanks to
dry in testing and there is about 1 cup, 2 max, left
in the tank when flown to empty.
So my personal summary is: The weight difference of fuel
is not significant in PRACTICAL terms for anything,
AFTER you have done an accurate airplane weighing. You're
not likely to ever need to consider that added or
decreased weight due to temperature when planning any
flight. And, for practical purposes, in the RV-10/14
models, useable fuel = total fuel, so you don't need to
mark your tanks with a label like "60 Gallons, 59 usable"
or anything like that.
I personally have never, other than during fuel tank
capacity testing, ever flown with less than 5 gallons in
a tank. I think the risk of fuel unporting during
turns in the pattern would be too high if you get much
lower than that.
And, I think weighing with tanks empty is the way to go.
Tim
On 03/27/2017 09:08 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
<mailto:kellym@aviating.com> >
The weight per gallon of avgas varies approx. 0.1% per degree C.
So at 15C it is 6.01 lbs per gal. At -40 it is 6.41 lbs/gal, and at 35C
it is around 5.88 lb/gal. A swing of .53 lbs/gal. That would be
somewhere in the 32 lb range for full tanks. Yes, it is mostly very
close to the C.G. I wouldn't call it insignificant. Yes, the difference
between 10 and 30 C is around a 2% change, not big. Then you have
difference between individual tanks that may be a gallon or two, for
another 12 lb difference.
However, why worry about it when it is easy to weigh the plane with
tanks empty?
I don't advocate calculating weight to a couple decimals, nor c.g. by
more than about 1 decimal, but you should be aware that if you are
fueling in Phoenix in the summer, that 120 lbs of baggage will affect
c.g. more than it will at International Falls in Jan.
On 3/27/2017 5:53 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
<mailto:Tim@MyRV10.com> >
C.G.
Don't worry Lew, it's just that many people are better pilots that
they are scientists. It is true that the fuel will expand when it is
warm. But considering there will be the same number of molecules, they
will not weigh differently when they are warm. Yes, the fuel tanks
will overflow if they are all the way full to the top, so warm fuel
would weigh less in that situation If it overflowed some of the
fuel.
But, if you have your fuel tanks filled to 2 inches from the top, on a
cold day, and then you take your plane out on a warm day, and the fuel
is up to the top, it will not weigh less. It may in fact weigh a
minuscule amount more, due to additional dissolved gases. The comment
about Jets calculating fuel in pounds is accurate, but that would not
simply be because fuel weighs less when it is warm. It would have more
to do with that it has less volume when it is warm , for the same
given amount of fuel in molecules. So you are not going crazy.
Either way, the warm fuel versus cold fuel is a small enough number
has to be pretty much insignificant when calculating your weight and
balance. Sure, it may weigh a few pounds more if you feel to the exact
same spot on a cold day as on a warm day, but I don't think a weight
and balance needs to be calculated to that Precision.
Tim
-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 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: W&B Configuration |
Hey Berck,
I, like Jesse, am getting a chuckle out of this whole discussion.
I read what you said here, and I think we're basically saying
the same thing. Of course, a pound of fuel hot and a pound
of fuel cold will have the same volume and weight, when
temperature equalizes. I think that is what I was trying
to say, but I just didn't do it eloquently enough. :)
The weight of the fuel is due to the molecular structure
of the fuel itself having that weight per fuel molecule.
It just happens to be that if you heat things up, the
molecules become further apart and less dense, so the
volume changes. But, a the number of molecules and
weight doesn't change.
Now, if you really want to get a pressure/volume/density
problem that confuses people, try explaining why moist
air is LIGHTER than dry air. Everyone always says stuff
like "the air was so heavy and wet today". The funny
thing is, moist air weighs less than dry air.
That's why the dangerous factors in flying are
"Hot, High, and Humid".... the air is less dense.
If moist air was heavier than dry air, we'd be in
a constant state of ground fog, and clouds wouldn't
be up high in the sky. ;)
Tim
(I think I just caused worse thread creep than original.)
:)
On 03/27/2017 10:25 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com
> <mailto:Tim@myrv10.com>> wrote:
>
>
> As long as you understand that nearly the entire reason that
> the fuel has a different "weight" per gallon is that the
> actual QUANTITY of fuel molecules in that gallon is less
> as it gets warmer, then you're right on. It's a VOLUME
> issue, not a weight issue. If you took hot fuel
> of a given weight, and cold fuel of a given weight, and
> brought them to the same temperature, they would still
> weigh the same but have different VOLUMES.
>
>
> Uhm, no. If you take a pound of cold fuel and pound of hot fuel,
> they're going to have the same volume *and* weight once you equalize the
> temperature. This is one of the many reasons we fuel airliners by weight.
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: Condition inspection |
Tim,
I think we are in violent agreement over the fuel.
It hardly seems like a year has gone by, but I need to do the condition
inspection.
Just wondering if you have developed or collected a checklist that is
particularly relevant to the RV-10. I'm very familiar with the Appendix
D checklist, but it is way too generic.
On 3/27/2017 7:43 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> As long as you understand that nearly the entire reason that
> the fuel has a different "weight" per gallon is that the
> actual QUANTITY of fuel molecules in that gallon is less
> as it gets warmer, then you're right on. It's a VOLUME
> issue, not a weight issue. If you took hot fuel
> of a given weight, and cold fuel of a given weight, and
> brought them to the same temperature, they would still
> weigh the same but have different VOLUMES.
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: W&B Configuration |
Tim Olson wrote:
> Hey Berck,
>
> I, like Jesse, am getting a chuckle out of this whole discussion.
>
>
> If moist air was heavier than dry air, we'd be in
> a constant state of ground fog, and clouds wouldn't
> be up high in the sky. ;)
>
> Tim
>
> (I think I just caused worse thread creep than origine]
More thread creep: Moist air doesn't rise because it's moist. In the lower atmosphere
there's very good mixing. If that weren't true all the oxygen would be
down low, and at higher altitudes it would be all nitrogen. What changes is the
amount of water in the vapor state depends on temperature. As the air cools
as it rises, you reach the dew point - where no more water can evaporate, so you
start having liquid drops.
I thought an early post was referring to Einstein's theory of special relativity:
E=mc2(squared). Strictly speaking a sealed container of anything should weigh
more as energy (heat) is added. But the speed of light squared is such a big
number that you can't measure it under most circumstances.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467694#467694
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: Condition inspection |
Hey Kelly,
The time is really flying by. Just this weekend I was working
thru mine on both airplanes. There are a few things I'd like to
revise on this, but this is the one I've used in the past.
http://www.myrv10.com/N104CD/maintenance/20070225/index.html
I should probably add in the various areas that were covered by
SB's over the past years. I just did the aileron hinge bracket
check on both planes this year and of course found no cracks.
I find the RV's really nice and easy to inspect at least from
a flight controls perspective.
Tim
On 03/27/2017 11:01 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> Tim,
> I think we are in violent agreement over the fuel.
> It hardly seems like a year has gone by, but I need to do the condition
> inspection.
> Just wondering if you have developed or collected a checklist that is
> particularly relevant to the RV-10. I'm very familiar with the Appendix
> D checklist, but it is way too generic.
>
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: W&B Configuration |
Thread creep again....water...
It's amazing when you think of the design of things as simple as
water, in our world.
Think of ice...since water hits its greatest density at above
freezing, we can drive on lakes and go ice fishing.
If water followed other molecules pattern, the ice would
form and sink to the bottom of a cold lake, and eventually the
entire lake would turn into a giant ice block.
There are so many things that were designed just perfectly,
that they amaze me all the time.
Tim
do not archive
On 03/27/2017 12:16 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>> Hey Berck,
>>
>> I, like Jesse, am getting a chuckle out of this whole discussion.
>>
>>
>> If moist air was heavier than dry air, we'd be in
>> a constant state of ground fog, and clouds wouldn't
>> be up high in the sky. ;)
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> (I think I just caused worse thread creep than origine]
>
>
> More thread creep: Moist air doesn't rise because it's moist. In the lower atmosphere
there's very good mixing. If that weren't true all the oxygen would be
down low, and at higher altitudes it would be all nitrogen. What changes is
the amount of water in the vapor state depends on temperature. As the air cools
as it rises, you reach the dew point - where no more water can evaporate, so
you start having liquid drops.
>
> I thought an early post was referring to Einstein's theory of special relativity:
E=mc2(squared). Strictly speaking a sealed container of anything should weigh
more as energy (heat) is added. But the speed of light squared is such a
big number that you can't measure it under most circumstances.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467694#467694
>
>
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: | Hooker Issues.... |
My Hookers are giving me a hard time.... Still trying to get the W&B
completed and I started the process of installing the seat belts.
1) The front seats require a 5/16 bolt and my harnesses have 1/4" bushings.
Is it common to drill that bushing out, or have some of you had to send
yours back to Hooker and have the hole enlarged and a new bushing installed.
2) Where I do have 1/4" bushings installed (like for the rear seats, etc.)
those bushings are extremely wide. When I try to slide them into the slot
on the anchors, it severely distorts them by spreading them apart. Any
ideas there?
I was hoping this week wasn't going to be full of hooker problems. But I
don't get to choose my problems, I just get to deal with the consequences.
Phil
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: Hooker Issues.... |
I don't recall any issues with the bushings. I see a note indicating to drill out
the bushing diameter to the bolt diameter if needed. The thickness just needs
to be wider than the harness attach point to allow it to rotate after tightened.
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 27, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My Hookers are giving me a hard time.... Still trying to get the W&B completed
and I started the process of installing the seat belts.
>
> 1) The front seats require a 5/16 bolt and my harnesses have 1/4" bushings.
Is it common to drill that bushing out, or have some of you had to send yours
back to Hooker and have the hole enlarged and a new bushing installed.
>
> 2) Where I do have 1/4" bushings installed (like for the rear seats, etc.) those
bushings are extremely wide. When I try to slide them into the slot on the
anchors, it severely distorts them by spreading them apart. Any ideas there?
>
> I was hoping this week wasn't going to be full of hooker problems. But I don't
get to choose my problems, I just get to deal with the consequences.
>
> Phil
>
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: Hooker Issues.... |
Phil,
I recall the bushings being a tight squeeze on mine as well. I assumed it
was to allow the belts to rotate freely when tightened. I did have to call
Hooker to get new end brackets for the upper cabin supports. This was
after I ruined a few drill bits enlarging the holes.
Shannon
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com> wrote:
> My Hookers are giving me a hard time.... Still trying to get the W&B
> completed and I started the process of installing the seat belts.
>
> 1) The front seats require a 5/16 bolt and my harnesses have 1/4"
> bushings. Is it common to drill that bushing out, or have some of you had
> to send yours back to Hooker and have the hole enlarged and a new bushing
> installed.
>
> 2) Where I do have 1/4" bushings installed (like for the rear seats, etc.)
> those bushings are extremely wide. When I try to slide them into the slot
> on the anchors, it severely distorts them by spreading them apart. Any
> ideas there?
>
> I was hoping this week wasn't going to be full of hooker problems. But I
> don't get to choose my problems, I just get to deal with the consequences.
>
> Phil
>
>
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: Hooker Issues.... |
It's been too long for me to remember my RV-10 install of the
belts, but I had issues with the Crow harnesses on my 14
too. In the end, you can make most anything work if you
want. You can drill out or make your own bushings,
or use different aluminum tubing to make the bushings out
of, or whatever you feel is best. On my crows, I had a large
hole and needed to make it smaller, so I bought some round
delrin rod and made mine out of delrin instead of AL.
You just want to make sure the seat belt end can swivel, so
make the bushing a little wider than the belt attach end.
Regarding #2, I would just polish or grind down any spacers if
they are too wide. Again, you just want a bushing that's wide
enough so that when you bolt it up, the belt end can
swivel...so just a little wider than that gap when filled
with the buckle end.
So if you're having problems with your hookers, you can
drill them or ream them, whatever you fancy. But just
don't beat them...they're just trying to do their job.
Oh, and make sure that they swing, and that they hold on
around your waist snugly when you're cuddled with them.
I never go anywhere in my -10 without my 4 hookers.
BTW: The crows I have in my -14 are also pretty nice,
but I do prefer the hooker buckles for my RV-10 in that
airplane. I prefer the crow "knob" in the RV-14 due to
the crotch strap. So it worked out well that I have some
of each.
Tim
On 03/27/2017 01:30 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> My Hookers are giving me a hard time.... Still trying to get the W&B
> completed and I started the process of installing the seat belts.
>
> 1) The front seats require a 5/16 bolt and my harnesses have 1/4"
> bushings. Is it common to drill that bushing out, or have some of you
> had to send yours back to Hooker and have the hole enlarged and a new
> bushing installed.
>
> 2) Where I do have 1/4" bushings installed (like for the rear seats,
> etc.) those bushings are extremely wide. When I try to slide them into
> the slot on the anchors, it severely distorts them by spreading them
> apart. Any ideas there?
>
> I was hoping this week wasn't going to be full of hooker problems. But
> I don't get to choose my problems, I just get to deal with the consequences.
>
> Phil
>
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: | Hooker Issues.... |
Yep =93 call Hooker for the front seat shoulder harness brackets
and get ones with a larger hole.
Carl
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Shannon Hicks
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Hooker Issues....
Phil,
I recall the bushings being a tight squeeze on mine as well. I assumed
it was to allow the belts to rotate freely when tightened. I did have
to call Hooker to get new end brackets for the upper cabin supports.
This was after I ruined a few drill bits enlarging the holes.
Shannon
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com>
wrote:
My Hookers are giving me a hard time.... Still trying to get the W&B
completed and I started the process of installing the seat belts.
1) The front seats require a 5/16 bolt and my harnesses have 1/4"
bushings. Is it common to drill that bushing out, or have some of you
had to send yours back to Hooker and have the hole enlarged and a new
bushing installed.
2) Where I do have 1/4" bushings installed (like for the rear seats,
etc.) those bushings are extremely wide. When I try to slide them into
the slot on the anchors, it severely distorts them by spreading them
apart. Any ideas there?
I was hoping this week wasn't going to be full of hooker problems. But
I don't get to choose my problems, I just get to deal with the
consequences.
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: | Hooker Issues.... |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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 |
|
I have 8 oz in one tank and 9 in the other of unusable full when tanks were
drained while sitting on the ramp. Aircraft was in level cruise flight and
tank was used in flight until fuel pressure started to drop. Switched tanks,
landed and drained tank. Very small amount of unusable fuel but makes me
aware of the need to frequently check tanks for water/other contamination.
Anyone else have numbers?
Albert Gardner
RV-10 N991RV
Yuma, AZ
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: Unuseable Full |
How much is unusable in a takeoff/go-around attitude? Or a cross-wind slip to
landing? That's the value we all should really be seeking and using to flight
plan.
Fly safe,
Jim
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 00:23, Albert <ibspud@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>
> I have 8 oz in one tank and 9 in the other of unusable full when tanks were
> drained while sitting on the ramp. Aircraft was in level cruise flight and
> tank was used in flight until fuel pressure started to drop. Switched tanks,
> landed and drained tank. Very small amount of unusable fuel but makes me
> aware of the need to frequently check tanks for water/other contamination.
> Anyone else have numbers?
> Albert Gardner
> RV-10 N991RV
> Yuma, AZ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|