Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:20 AM - Re: Control Stick Vibration (Greg McFarlane)
2. 06:46 AM - RV10 Stick pulsations (Doc)
3. 07:04 AM - Re: Re: COVID-19 update MyRV10 (Bill Boyd)
4. 07:38 AM - STC for 94UL fuel (Doc)
5. 08:00 AM - MOgas vs 94UL vs 100LL (Kelly McMullen)
6. 08:03 AM - Re: STC for 94UL fuel (Kelly McMullen)
7. 08:55 AM - Re: STC for 94UL fuel (William Greenley)
8. 09:56 AM - Re: STC for 94UL fuel (Bob Turner)
9. 01:48 PM - Re: Re: STC for 94UL fuel (Kelly McMullen)
10. 01:54 PM - Re: STC for 94UL fuel (Kelly McMullen)
11. 11:01 PM - Re: STC for 94UL fuel (Bob Turner)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick Vibration |
Another RV10 guy here had the same slight stick pulsating in cruise, consensus
was that depending on loading the elevator horn (balance weight) is exposed to
the airflow over the top. He taped over the lightening holes that are exposed
at the end of the horizontal and found a reduction in the stick movement, again
the consensus was that turbulence over the horn interacted with the lightening
holes. I closed off those holes right from the start with tight fitting rubber
auto plugs and have had the same result. Now 540hours in four years. Cheers
from Western Australia
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=495311#495311
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: | RV10 Stick pulsations |
Have 2 RV10s with 500+ hours between the 2. We have not noticed any
pulsations in the stick even at Max Air Speed. We fitted the counter
balance aileron weights tightly in the aileron horns when built assuming
the aileron needed all the counter balance weight it could get. We also
fitted the aileron tips to 1/16 in clearance. I would make sure your
elevator trim tabs are properly set. Would also recommend talking to
Vans. Elevator flutter (stress) has lead to cracking a bulk head in the
tail on earlier serial numbers leading to an SD (see Vans SD List).
#41087 & 41862. Doc
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: COVID-19 update MyRV10 |
Don't have an STC because my RV-10 won't have a TC ;-)
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 5:42 PM William Greenley <wgreenley@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Just checked, at the closest air to me to buy Swift UL94, it is more than
> 100LL. Michigan City
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 5:33 PM Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No STC needed for amateur built aircraft, unless you are keeping the
>> engine in certified mode for some reason.
>> Biggest issues with Swift Fuels 94UL is that it is only available a few
>> places in the mid-west and it costs as much as 100LL.
>>
>> Sent from my TRS-80 Model 100
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 10:41 AM Alan Mekler MD <amekler@metrocast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have the swift fuel stc?
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Mar 13, 2020, at 1:28 PM, Bill Boyd <sportav8r@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> =EF=BB
>>> Makes one glad to be using mogas in the ol' Lycosaurus.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 1:33 AM Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>>> > It has been interesting to see crude prices drop to slightly more
>>>> than half of a month ago, while not seeing a penny change in mogas or
avgas
>>>> prices so far.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here in NorCal mogas has dropped noticeably in the last month. Avgas,
>>>> no. OTOH a Chevron engineer once told me that they produce a year
=99s worth
>>>> of AvGas for this area with a refinery run of one day. Since AvGas is
now a
>>>> specialty product, the cost is all labor and overhead, pretty much
>>>> unrelated to the price of crude.
>>>>
>>>> --------
>>>> Bob Turner
>>>> RV-10 QB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=495290#495290
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ==========
>>>> -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/contribu
tion
>>>> ==========
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
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: | STC for 94UL fuel |
Once a certified engine is installed in an Experimental Aircraft it is
no longer "certified". It then is governed by all "experimental"
rules. No STC needed to burn Swift Fuels 94UL. I am sure all you know
that the Lycoming IO-540s are approved for Mogas (check your engine
manual for engine variations). Since Mogas is not readily available on
most airports, we stick with 100LL. Burn 11gal/hr at 24 squared. 17+
miles per gallon. Nice machines. Doc
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: | MOgas vs 94UL vs 100LL |
While most our Lycoming engines were certified on 91/96 octane with stock
8.5 to 1 compression ratios,
I have been reluctant to use mogas unless I knew I was going to burn it all
within 24 hours. I think the current versions of Proseal are resistant to
mogas, I know some earlier versions were not. Then there is always the
concern of unadvertised ethanol making its way into the fuel, as well as
mogas aging rapidly.
94UL would be great, but the cost and availability just don't make it
worthwhile unless it was a local supply that you could use all the time, to
avoid lead compounds in the oil. Even if you engine is certified, as mine
is, I can't think anyone would care whether you had an STC or not.
Sent from my TRS-80 Model 100
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 7:09 AM Bill Boyd <sportav8r@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't have an STC because my RV-10 won't have a TC ;-)
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 5:42 PM William Greenley <wgreenley@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Just checked, at the closest air to me to buy Swift UL94, it is more tha
n
>> 100LL. Michigan City
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 5:33 PM Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote
:
>>
>>> No STC needed for amateur built aircraft, unless you are keeping the
>>> engine in certified mode for some reason.
>>> Biggest issues with Swift Fuels 94UL is that it is only available a few
>>> places in the mid-west and it costs as much as 100LL.
>>>
>>> Sent from my TRS-80 Model 100
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 10:41 AM Alan Mekler MD <amekler@metrocast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you have the swift fuel stc?
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 13, 2020, at 1:28 PM, Bill Boyd <sportav8r@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> =EF=BB
>>>> Makes one glad to be using mogas in the ol' Lycosaurus.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
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: STC for 94UL fuel |
Not entirely true. You all will remember that it is possible to get a 25
hour Phase 1, IF you have a certified engine and prop combination.
Installation in an experimental airframe does not affect the certificate on
the engine. OTOH, if you change one item to an uncertified component it is
no longer certified, until you return it to its certified condition.
Kelly
A&P/IA
Sent from my TRS-80 Model 100
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 7:42 AM Doc <docclv@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> Once a certified engine is installed in an Experimental Aircraft it is
> no longer "certified". It then is governed by all "experimental"
> rules. No STC needed to burn Swift Fuels 94UL. I am sure all you know
> that the Lycoming IO-540s are approved for Mogas (check your engine
> manual for engine variations). Since Mogas is not readily available on
> most airports, we stick with 100LL. Burn 11gal/hr at 24 squared. 17+
> miles per gallon. Nice machines. Doc
>
>
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: STC for 94UL fuel |
Forget the stc, i want to know how tou sent this from you trs80 model 100.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 11:07 AM Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not entirely true. You all will remember that it is possible to get a 25
> hour Phase 1, IF you have a certified engine and prop combination.
> Installation in an experimental airframe does not affect the certificate
> on the engine. OTOH, if you change one item to an uncertified component it
> is no longer certified, until you return it to its certified condition.
> Kelly
> A&P/IA
>
> Sent from my TRS-80 Model 100
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 7:42 AM Doc <docclv@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Once a certified engine is installed in an Experimental Aircraft it is
>> no longer "certified". It then is governed by all "experimental"
>> rules. No STC needed to burn Swift Fuels 94UL. I am sure all you know
>> that the Lycoming IO-540s are approved for Mogas (check your engine
>> manual for engine variations). Since Mogas is not readily available on
>> most airports, we stick with 100LL. Burn 11gal/hr at 24 squared. 17+
>> miles per gallon. Nice machines. Doc
>> ==========
>> -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 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: STC for 94UL fuel |
I believe both Doc and Kelly are correct here! Under most situations, Doc is correct.
As an EAB anyone can work on the engine, and no records are required to
be kept. The paper trail assuring that it conforms to its original type certificate
is lost. It can be restored by having an AI inspect the engine (presumably
internal parts too) and state that it conforms to its type certificate. Now,
Kelly holds an AI, so as long as he keeps the required records, and states
that no one else has worked on the engine (except another A&P or qualified person),
he may state that his engine is in conformance with its TC. But for most
of us, no.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=495318#495318
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: STC for 94UL fuel |
Slight misinterpretation of regs. I just taught a class to A&Ps a week ago
on regs concerning experimental aircraft and condition inspections.
ALL y'all know that experimental amateur built aircraft are exempt from
Part 43 (mostly anyway), BUT your operating limitations require the same
inspection as outlined in Part 43 Appendix D for an annual inspection. Only
the wording of the sign-off and who is authorized to do it are different.
In a similar manner, while 43.9 tells you what is supposed to be in an
aircraft maintenance entry, which you are sorta exempt from; FAR 91.417
requires maintenance of aircraft records, including all maintenance and
inspections. I teach A&P's to expect there to be no records because of the
beliefs among some owners that they are exempt.
The non-regulatory side of the fence is that the better records you have,
the more saleable and valuable your aircraft is to a prospective buyer.
How comfortable would you be if you were the buyer and an aircraft showed
80-90 hours a year of flying, with no oil or filter changes, no tire
changes, no brake pad changes, etc. And the condition inspection sign-off
only said it was inspected, with no maintenance listed?
Of course it is strictly up to you what records you make and keep.
Kelly
Sent from my TRS-80 Model 100
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 10:00 AM Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> I believe both Doc and Kelly are correct here! Under most situations, Doc
> is correct. As an EAB anyone can work on the engine, and no records are
> required to be kept. The paper trail assuring that it conforms to its
> original type certificate is lost. It can be restored by having an AI
> inspect the engine (presumably internal parts too) and state that it
> conforms to its type certificate. Now, Kelly holds an AI, so as long as he
> keeps the required records, and states that no one else has worked on the
> engine (except another A&P or qualified person), he may state that his
> engine is in conformance with its TC. But for most of us, no.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=495318#495318
>
>
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: STC for 94UL fuel |
I have forgotten whether the trash 80s I had were equipped with a modem or
if had to have one external, but they had a keyboard, rudimentary text
handling, etc. I figure better than advertising for Apple or Samsung.
Perhaps I should switch to my old Compaq Deskpro with 1200 baud modem.
Or IBM Displaywriter.
Sent from my TRS-80 Model 100
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 8:59 AM William Greenley <wgreenley@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Forget the stc, i want to know how tou sent this from you trs80 model 100.
>
>
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: STC for 94UL fuel |
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> . In a similar manner, while 43.9 tells you what is supposed to be in an aircraft
maintenance entry, which you are sorta exempt from; FAR 91.417 requires maintenance
of aircraft records, including all maintenance and inspections.
> 0
I'm not a lawyer. But I read the above quote to say "91.4xx says you must keep
all the maintenance records which part 43 required you to make. But part 43 said
you don't need any.
But either way: I do not believe any maintenance records I choose to make and keep
are sufficient to keep the engine in compliance with its type certificate,
because I'm not authorized to do any work on a TC'd engine (other than the usual
owner-performed stuff). So I would need an IA to return the engine to be in
compliance with its TC. As an IA, of course you can do it yourself.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 10:00 AM Bob Turner wrote:
>
> I believe both Doc and Kelly are correct here! Under most situations, Doc is
correct. As an EAB anyone can work on the engine, and no records are required
to be kept. The paper trail assuring that it conforms to its original type certificate
is lost. It can be restored by having an AI inspect the engine (presumably
internal parts too) and state that it conforms to its type certificate.
Now, Kelly holds an AI, so as long as he keeps the required records, and states
that no one else has worked on the engine (except another A&P or qualified
person), he may state that his engine is in conformance with its TC. But for most
of us, no.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=495318#495318 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=495318#495318)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==========
> -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
> ==========
>
>
>
>
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=495324#495324
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! --
|