Delete from order / Buy extra stuff RV-10
 

Little help on the 10 order please. Searched all the post that I can. Here's my list. If you can think of anything else that's cool to add or where to buy some of the (?) items please let me know.

Air frame:

Aero LED Lights
Duck Works Light install kit
Avery tools rudder cable fairing
Bonaco or TS brake and fuel lines.
Extra NACA vents for rear
Matco Brakes, maybe wheels?
Pitot sump bottle?


Interior:

Aerosport or Hendricks door latch
Andair Fuel selector
Glare Shield
Heavy duty door strut
Mcmaster Door seals
Mountain High Oxygen system
Soundproofing (How thick?)
Sun visor (Who?)
Aerosport arm rest with throttle quadrant
Aerosport overhead console
Aerosport Panel
Aerosport interior panels.
Aerosport baggage door
Aerosport carpet
Aerosport Seats?
Aerosport etc..
Rudder pedal extensions

Engine:

Airflow Performance for engine
Airflow Performance Fuel Pump
Emag Pmag
Louvers or cowl flap
Oil Cooler (Not Vans?)
Skybolt cowl fasteners
Thunderbolt Engine
MT 3 Blade prop
Vetterman Exhaust?

Instruments:

Vertical Power VP-X Pro
GTN 750
Dual G3X Touch
Garmin GMC 507
3 Axis Trim
etc? (Pretty much have this worked out)

Extra parts:

Leg fairing hinge pins
Extra angle and sheet metal .032?
excess nutplates, rivets, bolts all sizes

I think if you get the matco brakes, you'll be disappointed without the wheels. Their setup (at least the version I have) is very different than Cleveland brakes, and the parts are not interchangeable.

What are the perceived advantages of the Vetterman exhaust vs the standard version? FYI, I just installed the standard system a couple of weeks ago and had no complaints.

Pacific Oil Cooler has a "near" drop in cooler that gives a fair amount more cooling capacity than the stock setup. I was disappointed that it wasn't an exact drop-in, which was what they had indicated. FYI, the mount holes on the -10 are closer together vertically by 1/16" than the slots on the mount ears for the oil cooler. That means the normal mounting hardware won't quite fit, even after you relieve the holes in the cooler mounting flanges. I used hex head screws and had to grind a flat on edge of the washers to make it work.

Having used hinges along the horizontal seams along the cowling sides on my RV-6 and screws across the top and bottom, I used hinges in the same places on the -10 but substituted skybolts for the screws. If I got a do-over, I'd use screws again.

I'm not a fan of investing the time, cost, and weight for braided lines other than firewall forward, but that's a personal decision. Making the aluminum lines is pretty easy.

What does an aftermarket glare shield do for you that a can of semi-gloss rattle can paint won't? Just curious.

I have the vetterman on my seven and it works well. I''l have to check the cost vs vans.
I like pre-made lines because they plug and play. No issues.
I am getting a full interior so paint on top of metal inside is not a choice I would make. It was fine for my seven but not the 10. I am going to do my best to make it quiet, VERY comfortable, and IFR super capable.

My RV-10 came from Van's with a Vetterman exhaust system in the kit. Received it a couple of years ago as part of the FWF kit.

I think you want the Plane Around 180 door latch system. The outside door handle from AeroSport.

Have you considered Air Conditioning? If so, suggest you take a look at Airflow Systems unit.

As far as I am aware, the VANS exhaust is from Vetterman.

I'd definitely consider some sort of upgrade path for the brakes.

Pmag? Still not in manufacture but may be by the time you get that far - mind you, I was told that 5 years ago......

I would definitely get a supply of extra hardware such as the most used bolts (-4,-5,-6,-7,-10), washers, nuts, nutplates, #6 and #8 screws, rivets etc. Not expensive and I guarantee you will need them and find that you don't have them just when you need them. VANS supply "enough" but no spares to cater for loss or damage.

For tires I went with the dresser retreads along with the match brakes.
Sound proofing don’t remember the type but I used 1/2 inch thickness.
For sun visors I mounted a set of Rosens made for Cessna 310/340’s.

The exhaust you get from Vans is from vetterman. I would also maybe suggest working the add/deletes on a per kit basis. There are a lot of options out there.

I'd recommend step bushings from http://www.tcwtech.com.

Also recommend the Vans ADAHRS tray and the side shelf for ELT/Whelen mount. Much easier to install WHILE building the tailcone than after the fact.

Pmag?
 

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Been waiting for that almost a decade!

Avoiding magnetos, PMAG or otherwise
 

For Matco wheels, don't forget to get their axles and spacers too and then delete wheels, brakes and axles from the kit. It's a very nice setup and I like 'em.

Why not just go with an EFII setup? It's not much more than a mechanical fuel injection system and certainly less hassle than magnetos...and, bonus tip, you can buy one right now {think SDS}.

Although it's always great to continue to discuss these topics, you might also look at the many previous threads on the topic too.

I just spoke to him. Suppose to be ready in about a month. So sometime in April/May. He said a lot of new engineering went into these and they will be available for certified as well, hence the delay. So get ready....

I thought he said shipping in October... just hasn't mentioned a year for the last 8 years.

SSDD
 

I have been hearing that line for almost a decade...

Shipping next month...

Ready by Oshkosh...

blah, blah, blah...

I waited for YEARS to get a set of these for my -10...never happened. At some point, you just let go and move on.

I will believe it when I see it. They will be ready by April/May of 2XXX.

We should start a pool...

Not sure how you can trust someone who is either incapable of estimating or incapable of delivering. Additionally, I would be pretty concerned about using a pmag on a 540. Slick has had a lot of problems on the 540's with failures attributed to the vibrations encountered in the accessory case or idler gears and has reduced their inspection times for this engine series. I would have great reservations about hanging delicate electronics, like a circuit board/microchips here.

Larry

I'm trying to put time proven products into my -10. There will be 4 souls aboard and I'd rather have reliability than efficiency. I'll let someone else beta test newfangled ignitions and I'll adopt once the product is mature.

<Sez the guy with one eMag, that has performed flawlessly, on his RV-6.>

Larry I have twin PMAG's in my 7. When I switch over to one or the other mag I can't even tell it drops. They performance of these over the last 6 years have been flawless.

I wasn't knocking the pmag. Only mentioning that the 540 has a lot more vibration in that area than the 320/360. Therefore, you can't assume past success will apply here. May not be an issue, but they are not the same environment. The 540 vibration issue back there is generally common knowledge.

Larry

great list! I am going to copy this when I place my order too!

RV-10 Throttle Quadrant
 

Bob,

You will need one of these and I happen to have a new, never installed one that I need to sell at a seriously discounted price. Call or email if interested. (or fly over to T67, have lunch and pick it up.

https://shop.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bi...ct=10-quadrant

817-913-1499
rv8r@mac.com

Bob,

Be sure to check out South Florida Sport Aviation's Interior as well.

PMAG
 

I have high confidence that they are almost ready with the PMAG and even more high confidence that it will be an awesome product once it is out. I know it has been a long journey for some. Luckily for me I?ve only been seeking them since November 2018 so if they are ready by June/July I?ll be a happy customer.

I am installing the South Florida Sports interior. I like it a lot. I like their overhead better than Aerosports because the way the bad lighting and vents distributed

Jerry, I think I'm going with the Aerosport version. I like the console... Thant's good thinking though!

http://www.aerosportproducts.com/pro...quad-arm-rest/

SureFly Electronic Ignition
 

I'm going w/ the relatively new SureFly electronic ignition for at least one side, probably both: https://www.surefly.aero/. The SureFly folks are the same core team who developed PlanePower alternators and SkyTec starters.

I may install an EMag (if a 6 cyl is ever released) on the other. On my 7, I have one EMag and one Slick. Nearing 500 hours at which time I will retire the Slick and install a SureFly.

I know some folks who have been flying the SureFly 4 and 6 cylinder models for at least a couple of years. They have not yet marketed heavily to the experimentals, since they focused first on extensive testing and certification. My understanding is that they received the engines STC last fall (2018) and the airframe STC last month. Makes no sense that the FAA required a separate airframe STC for a pure engine component, but that's typical bureaucracy BS.

Well, not really. Taking a quick look at their website and product description, this device taps into the aircraft electrical system, so yeah, not a pure engine component and there's no way they're escaping an airframe STC.

This snippet from the company's latest news post also doesn't inspire confidence in their engineering capabilities. If they don't know why the FAA said no to twin-engine aircraft or turbo powered airframes that says more about them than the FAA.

Not sure what axe you're grinding echozulu, but the quote on the SureFly news release says, "... the FAA stripped all twin-engine aircraft and all turbo powered airframes from the submitted AML without explanation, warning or just cause." Apparently nobody, including those at the FAA knows why. I don't see how that should cast any doubt on SureFly engineering capability.

The SureFly electronic ignition is pretty much a drop in replacement for a magneto with one additional wire connected directly to the battery positive terminal via a 10 amp fuse. Like any electronic ignition, it needs a power source. But an airframe STC to do that? Bureaucratic nonsense IMHO. I guess they should have connected it via the cigar lighter. :)

The ignition draws about 1 amp and will continue to operate down to 8.5 volts. So, it looks to me like a 9 volt alkaline battery installed in parallel would run the thing for another 30 minutes or so if the ships battery had a catastrophic failure. But that's not on the STC, so you couldn't do it in a certified airplane without field approval.

Similar to PMags (which I think are ingenious) and other electronic ignitions (most of which are too complicated for my taste), it also needs a source of manifold pressure to take advantage of timing advance.

Yes, not knowing that and putting that in a news release reflects badly on their engineering, because certification is a multiple month process that includes a lot of back and forth. It's not a submit and done process. To strip those things from the AML most assuredly involves the applicant (Surefly) changing the application or failing to provide the pertinent data to support their request. There is a lot of back and forth between the applicant and the FAA/ODA during these projects, nothing is out of the blue.

You need an airframe STC to tap into the electrical system. That's not bureaucratic nonsense, that's just common sense. You're changing an element of the airframe, yes you need an STC to modify the airframe. It doesn't matter if it's one wire or two or whatever, an electrical DER or engineer needs to sign off and at least approve an ELA to make sure the load added doesn't exceed what the aircraft can provide.

As far as what axe I'm grinding? I don't know the particulars of Surefly, but as someone who does cert for a living, we see a lot of smaller companies just magically expect their product to show compliance to FAA regulations and aren't even familiar with the regulations governing their products. And then they blame certification or the FAA for not issuing an STC within 2 or 3 months. It's never a short process, especially if you expect the FAA to do a lot of handholding and educate you on what data you must provide.

Common sense is to recognize the nearly nil impact that an additional 1 amp load has on an airframe and cover that w/ something more generic and less cumbersome than an STC with an AML of every possible airframe that has an approved engine. More paperwork does not safety make - unless you're a government agency. In fact, it tends to result in the important engineering and operational stuff being lost in a sea of minutia.

How are twin engine airframes any different than singles when it comes to the ignition systems? How are turbo boosted engines/airframes any different provided timing advance based on MP is disabled? Common sense tells me they are not.

You seem to assume the SureFly guys don't know what they're doing with phrases like, "smaller companies just magically expect... an STC within 2 or 3 months." Look at the company "About" page. These are the same guys who developed both SkyTec starters and PlanePower alternators. I first saw a presentation and demo of their prototype ignition system maybe 3 or 4 years ago at AirVenture. My impression is they are highly experienced and have a good understanding of the approval process and how to bring both experimental and certified aviation products to market.

I'm installing one on my -7 and one (or two) of the SureFly ignition systems on my -10.

Tangent alert...... bahhahaaahahha. :p