What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

TSwezey?

Tomasz said:
Check the scales and re weight?

Yes I'm kidding but hey - 500lbs out of nothing? The IO-540 engine itself weighs just about that ~540lbs and with it the bird is supposed to weigh 1500. LS2 is comparable heavy, even if Vesta's package was 100lbs heavier we still are looking for 400lbs stuffed somewhere around CG. It's really a lot of weight. Unless you soundproofed it like passenger car and added full car upholstery - then the weight is reasonable.
Click to expand...

I am starting to believe the "calibrated" scales that were used were not calibrated correctly. I was carrying out some weight to put in the baggage area , 53 lbs to be exact, and I just could not believe that my plane had almost ten more of these 53lb weights in it than Van's has. 53 lbs is heavy! My original guestimates for the engine was a 100 lbs heavier.
How did I come up with this? Simple some of moments.
It takes 250lbs on the tail to lift the nose wheel off the ground. The tail weight is 144 inches from the mains. The my nose wheel is 76" away from the mains. The weight on the nose wheel should be 476 lbs. Which is approx 118 more lbs than is on Tim Olson's nose wheel.
Now using simple math why is the weight that the IA found to be on the front wheel 59 lbs more? His weight calculation is 12% higher than using simple math. If you apply this error to his total weight for the plane the new weight is 1818 lbs!
Now I have to double check his weight and balance. If his error, if at all, is this bad he could have put us in a very dangerous situation.
Has anybody ever had such an error? I just can't find the error of my simple calculations.
 
Your calculations look right within a few pounds. The weight on each wheel is measured, though, isn't it? I don't think it's a derived number. So if it's wrong it must be coming from the scale error or weighing technique.
 
The only error I can think of is that if the plane sits tail low, the force to lift it closer to level would be less than it will be at the leveling point. The weight distribution would be different when the IA weighed it, as I am sure (or sure hope) they leveled it into the required flight attitude.

But the difference you note is pretty big...can you re-weigh it easily? Make triple sure that it is in the proper attitude.

In the pictures, it looks pretty nose heavy when I look at the nose gear...but of course my perception might be biased by the weight you have reported.

If easy I might re-weigh it to be sure.
 
TSwezey said:
Now using simple math why is the weight that the IA found to be on the front wheel 59 lbs more? His weight calculation is 12% higher than using simple math. If you apply this error to his total weight for the plane the new weight is 1818 lbs!
Now I have to double check his weight and balance. If his error, if at all, is this bad he could have put us in a very dangerous situation.
Click to expand...

Couple of pages back, you said the C/G that your IA had come up with was off ---(3 inches, IIRC).

Seems that considering the above info, plus the incorrect C/G------maybe you need to start over with the entire W/B thing??

Get a third set of eyes involved also???
 
Get a different set of scales, follow the procedure from Van's and do your own calcs to see what you get.

Don't assume that the gear is in the same place as the manual says, measure from the datum in a level attitude with plumb bobs. Put blocks under the gear to get the correct attitude.

Finally, I always stand on each scale and see if it reads right and the same on each pad.

I too can't fathom how it could weigh 2050, 1900 maybe at the outside.

I hope the scales were wrong and I'd question any part of the procedure when you found such a massive error. Stuff like this can kill you and has in the past.
 
Three different people stepped on each of the scales and all three were exact. We are going to do the poor man's weighing(four scales from Walmart) today just to see if his are really off. I will make a tray to support a wheel and disperse the weight of a wheel on the four scales and then move the scales to each wheel. We will level the plane also while doing this. I have a great laser level that also shoots a plumb line.
John-we figured there is probably a three percent error due to the plane not being level.
I will let you know my poor man's weight. If it is weigh (pun intended) off I will rent a calibrated scale and do it myself. And get my money back. Hopefully his scales are off!
Thanks for all the advice everybody!
 
Last edited:
Bad news!

The weights given to us were correct. I could verify it to within 3 lbs using Walmart's finest scales. For those who have not weighed your plane you have to make sure your plane is perfectly level. A slight pitch one way or another will vary your nose wheel weight a lot! I spent a good 3 hours checking this but now I know for sure and can deal with fatty!

Most people have names for their planes, I am thinking:Chunky Monkey.
 
Deconstruct until satisfaction?

Todd;
You are experiencing my nightmare.
I'm installing a Mazda 13B turbo in an RV-8.
I'm trying to keep it light, and decided to leave out the nice little details that so many wish for on these forums, like extra nav radios, auto pilots, fancy interiors etc. until I get thru the weighing/testing phase.
I was almost shocked to see you develope a complete plane, with paint and everything. I am literally amazed that you got this far and did so well so fast.
My advice is now worth what you are about to pay for it. :eek:
Consider Deconstructing part of your plane.
Stay with the basic design you have. Every choice you made in the beginning limited the choices that followed. That does not mean they were bad at all. Maybe you just desired too much for the design.
Remove the items that effect the weight and ballance, but are not essential to the mission. You may have different criteria, but I'd consider the air conditioning and the supercharger. I would not consider remounting the engine.
I'm not a "P-51 Scoop" kinda guy, and I hold your side discharge radiator in high regard, I'm doing similar myself. The radiator weight you remove from the front and relocate to the void in the back would adjust the 'ballance' issue, BUT also add quite a few pounds of tube filled with coolant and related brackets, ducts controls, etc.
Don't give up, but please do keep working toward better weight and ballance.
 
Not giving up and really not changing anything besides keeping weight in the baggage area when flying with one or two people. Bump the gross up 10% but limit it for long trips only. I will try to keep all landings at Van's top gross of 2700. I will put tabs in the fuel tank and generally try to fly with about 30 -40 gals of fuel versus 60 gals. Once we get it flying and are able to evaluate everything then we will decide what if anything to change.

Scott-Are you using Tracy Crook's ECU for your engine?
 
Last edited:
Todd;
Yes, Tracy's ECU, EM2 and RG1a, limited to 200 HP. I'm 'turbo-normalizing' so I don't have an intercooler.
If weight is an issue, the turbo goes away.
 
Just an update. We have been taking care of all the little things on our list to get done. The biggest pain was the fuel tank bracket attach to the fuselage bottom bolt. The nutplate did not align properly on both sides (Maybe because the wrong sized nutplate was used!) and we had to replace the nutplate with just a bolt and nut. I don't know why they just didn't do this in the first place. There is plenty of access for the nut.
Another problem we were facing was how to pull the RPM's from the ECU to the EFIS/One. That was solved on Friday and we plotted some data points for the RPM's today.
If you have an alternative engine you need to do many hours of ground testing. Luckily I have AC and don't mind driving my plane all over the place. Two problems surfaced today after 7 hours of taxiing. The first is the set screw holding the throttle cable in place allowed the cable to move. I could not get the engine started to save my life today and once it got started I could not get it tuned right. I finally realized after it started and looked at the RPM's that the throttle when pulled all the way out it was running at 1400 RPM's.
The other thing we discovered was that is is very easy to get the prop into feather mode. The engine does not like feather mode. It starts to running extremely rough.
Today's biggest lesson was if it does not sound right then something is probably wrong. I knew when I was trying to start it that something was wrong I just couldn't figure out what it was. I also knew that something was wrong when the engine was running rough because I feathered the prop. This engine usually starts as easy as a new car and will run pretty smoothly.
One hurdle left with the electric adjustable prop control and we should be ready for inspection.
 
What exactly do you mean....

...when you say that it easily feathers, Todd? You should have to deliberately mean to feather the prop, like in my Air Tractor, you must pull the prop lever back about six inches, to the rearmost stop, not just an accidental "bump".

This sounds like a really dangerous condition from what you say... unless I missed something.

Regards,
 
pierre smith said:
...when you say that it easily feathers, Todd? You should have to deliberately mean to feather the prop, like in my Air Tractor, you must pull the prop lever back about six inches, to the rearmost stop, not just an accidental "bump".

This sounds like a really dangerous condition from what you say... unless I missed something.

Regards,
Click to expand...

Pierre,
It's a electric adjustable prop. I spoke with Jason Day and he said it will move very quickly if it is not under any pressure. There is a learning curve with all these systems and we learned something yesterday. Lots of taxiing has helped find these little issues.
 
Taxi testing

TSwezey said:
... Luckily I have AC and don't mind driving my plane all over the place. Two problems surfaced today after 7 hours of taxiing. ...
Click to expand...
Wow - that's a lot of taxiing! It's good to see you committing the time needed to ensure things are right before you fly.

One test that I don't recall you running - perhaps I missed it - was a long, full power test on the ground with the landing gear tied down very tight, or hooked up to a truck or some other very heavy object.

The early Eggenfelleners had a problem when run at WOT for more than about a minute - the ECU thought there was a stuck throttle condition and shut the engine down. As you can imagine, this was not good timing for an engine shutdown. This was with the standard automotive ECU. I doubt you will have this particular problem, but it would probably be good to test.

Also, with the special fuel delivery system you have, I would also recommend (apologies if you have already done this) that you get the aircraft into a steep climb attitude on the ground, and ensure that fuel will still get to the engine. With the kind of power you have, it will be likely be a steep angle. You will probably need to elevate the wheels or find a place on an incline where you can get the tail below the level of the wheels.

Thanks a lot for sharing your experiences!

Mickey
 
I have never run the engine at WOT yet. I doubt if we will try to fly it at WOT right away. I just don't think 350hp of prop force on those tiedowns is a good idea. I also don't want to generate that much heat without a good amount of airflow. I have more than enough power at 23". I have had the engine at about 23" for several minutes. I can tell you you need a lot of right rudder at 23" when running up and letting the breaks go. We might try to do some high speed taxis on Friday if the airport isn't too busy.
 
Hi Todd,

First let me say that your plane looks fantastic, and I'm impressed with your Vesta install.

But...someone needs to slap you upside the head and tell you bluntly to STOP what you're doing! I truly don't mean to offend you, but do you realize that looking at your situation from the outside is like looking at Dan Lloyd's path leading up to his tradgedy all over again?

I'm imploring you to FIX the problems with your plane. Adding yet more weight as "ballast" to the baggage compartment and flying with 1/2 tanks is not even a good, wise or smart bandaid to your problem, much less a resolution to your issue. Your plane is already overweight - adding more weight isn't a fix. I know you've got a lot of Blood, Sweat and Money in your machine. It's gorgeous, but it's also NOT safe. You're not just a little out of whack here, you're grossly out of acceptable CG limits (regardless of your weight issue) and doing nothing to rectify the core issue of the CG. If you're absolutely set on adding weight - why pick the baggage compartment and reduce it's use? Why not put the weight back in the tail where it can do some good, and use a lot less of it than 100lbs? I'm not advocating it, just wondering why you've chosen to do what you're doing. No need to justify yourself to me or others as this is your project - but at least stop for some time and take a good, hard look at what you're doing. If I'm not mistaken you have a new child. You owe it to your family to at least do everything within your ability to do it right the first time, not ad-hoc "as you go"!

From the standpoint of an outsider looking in, your current path of "dealing" with your issues is not wise and is not showing good judgement. A prop that will easily feather with no physical stops is not something you "need to learn to deal with" - it's a dangerous issue that should be fixed - no if, and, or, buts about it!

All the taxi testing in the world isn't fixing your problems. Like I said, I respect the heck out of what you've done, and have watched your entire progress with enthusiasm and admiration. I REALLY don't want to see something end negatively because of your desire to get it flying.

Everyone else has been politely trying to urge you to slow down, take a stop back and look at this from a rational standpoint (which is hard to do when you're in the middle of it). I'm just being a bit more blunt.

It's nothing personal at all...Dan Lloyd was a good friend - and there were others previous to him over the past many years where someone should have just blatantly told them that their current course of action is just not good. We're all so afraid of hurting someones feelings and not wanting to tell them they are being unsafe. I'm doing just that. If I hurt your feelings I apologize, but you are not being safe.

Sorry for the rant - I truly do wish you the best because I have other friends putting V8's in their RV10's so I obviously have an interest in seeing how it all plays out. You're breaking new ground here, and with that comes the responsibility of acting wisely and showing good judgement. At the moment you are not showing good judgement, and this could end up affecting your desired outcome in a way that none of us want to see.

I'm hope you don't just shrug this post off as me being egotistical or thinking I'm better than you because that's not the point at all. You may very well go out and fly, be ok, and prove me wrong. I'm ok with that, but please just take some time to ask others here what they think and how they see it. I know for sure I'm not the only one thinking this, I'm just the first (usually am) to be so blunt about it. Try and see your situation from our eyes, outside looking in. I really and sincerely respect what you've done so far. Please don't diminish that respect by acting unwisely.

Best Regards,
Stein

PS - Quick question for you DAR's out there (Mel, et.al) how many of you would sign off a plane that is 3" out of CG at EOW as airworthy? I'm truly curious as to how that could remotely be considered safe!
 
Stein,
I do appreciate your concern. I have been more than taking my time to get things right before we fly. My engine was hanging on my plane probably before Dan's was. It has been on there over a year and a half. It does not fly until everything is working and we know how to properly work everything. I would imagine 90% of my flying will be below Van's gross for the RV-10.
The reason I am putting weight in the baggage compartment is because I am only out of C.G. when flying with one or two people. Once I add a third person or real baggage I can take the ballast out. I do not want to permanently add something that I do not always need. If I have 100 lbs of baggage why would I need to keep 100lbs of ballast? I wouldn't. So I take the weight out. I would have to put about 35 lbs in the rear to compensate for the forward CG. That would permanently reduce my load by 35 lbs.

The Grumman Tiger I fly is always filled only to the tabs, not all the way. Only on long trips and light loadings do you fill it all the way. Why do I have to fly with full fuel all the time?

The prop issue came about because we have not put the fine pitch stop in yet. That is Friday's task. I thought I was at fine pitch and I wasn't. The pitch problem came about because the RPMs were not being displayed on the EFIS and I had to guess at the pitch. We now have the RPM's working correctly. I want to keep the feather ability for increased glide should the engine die.
Trust me we are in no hurry and it will fly when it is ready and safe. I would like to go to LOE but I can always wait until Sun-n-Fun.
 
Hi Todd,

I believe you and appreciate the response. Dan's accident was a tough one for a few of us so we're a bit more sensitive than others. I'm was (and am) just concerned that you don't put the desire to see it fly in front of doing what is smart.

I still don't agree with you on the fuel tanks and CG issue in general. Tanks are there to be used. The reason that Pipers, Grummans, etc.. have tabs to begin with is because they are rarely able to utilize their tanks at full fuel... ergo the situation you're in and part of my point about fixing the issue, not handicapping it based on using other planes for comparison. The beautiful thing about RV's is that when built to spec they are RV's (NOT cessnas, nor Grummans, nor Pipers, etc..) and in general they are very capable planes all the way around the envelope. Start hamstringing parts of the envelope purely to mitigate an outstanding problem isn't a solution. Nor is the hyperbole about not needing full fuel....it doesn't change the core issue.

Good to hear the solution to the prop and that you'll have it fixed before you fly.

Keep us updated and keep it safe. Lots of people are watching your progress with a keen eye! I'm glad you didn't take my post the wrong way and you're listening to other peoples opinion...remember, it's just my opinion and not necessarily worth any more than you paid for it.

Cheers,
Stein
 
Brotherly love.....

......is what Stein's about, Todd......a genuinely concerned friend.

Are your battery/batteries in the back? Years ago, Grumman Ag Cats were very nose heavy when they went to 1340 cu.in Pratts from the 985's so they added lead weights to the tailspring and needed a lot less that far back. As Stein mentioned, see what you could temporarily add to the tiedown threaded area in place of 100 lbs in baggage.

Regards,
 
I know Stein is concerned and did not take it any other way. I can tell you I would rather be nose heavy than tail heavy! Which was one of Dan's problems.
We have nice lead weights that lay down flat and will be easily fastened to our hold downs in the baggage area. It really doesn't get any easier and I think safer. I don't want anything back that has the potential tocome loose or move and jamb a control rod or cable. I am also afraid of something coming lose in flight and falling from the plane. My batteries, EFIS/One, autopilot, and two inverters are in the back.
 
Experimentation is good when done correctly.

SteinAir said:
PS - Quick question for you DAR's out there (Mel, et.al) how many of you would sign off a plane that is 3" out of CG at EOW as airworthy? I'm truly curious as to how that could remotely be considered safe!
Click to expand...
Stein,
Your question is timely. Just yesterday I assisted in the accident investigation of a particular model of Light-Sport aircraft that has had problems. After seeing the wreckage up close, I will look MUCH closer at this particular model before signing it off.

As a matter of fact, I may even refuse to do this particular model until I see some "fixes" that satisfy me.

I have never been known for "lax" inspections, but I will probably tighten up my own requirements in the future.
Recently I'm beginning to see people cutting corners during some of my tech counselor inspections.

Don't take this the wrong way, there is nothing wrong with experimentation. That's what we're all about. But do it with some "educated" guidance.
 
Last edited:
Todd, I also fear you are running down a path that is not going to have a happy ending, be it an airplane that does not perform well due to W&B restrictions, or even perhaps an ending that is less than desirable for all. I am one of the few Prescott Pusher survivors from the 80's. I and others begged a number of guys to not fly their airplanes with their particular engines. They didn't listen, and paid in full with their lives. good people were lost, and families destroyed. Yes, we are here for experimental aviation. But today is a whole lot different than it used to be. Lot's of good information out there, and lots of flags that get thrown up early and that we should stop and heed.
Stein and Peirre are right on. Although I disagree with Pierre's recommendation of using less weight and moving it further back. There is another physical force that comes into play when doing that---- it's called inertia. Too much weight aft of the vertical axis and there may not be enough aerodynamic control force to stop it.
Please be careful, and remember that discretion is the better part of valor. Nothing to prove here.
Thanks for listening, and please remember that a lot of people care about you and about what you are doing.

vic
 
vic syracuse said:
Todd, I also fear you are running down a path that is not going to have a happy ending, be it an airplane that does not perform well due to W&B restrictions, or even perhaps an ending that is less than desirable for all. I am one of the few Prescott Pusher survivors from the 80's. I and others begged a number of guys to not fly their airplanes with their particular engines. They didn't listen, and paid in full with their lives. good people were lost, and families destroyed. Yes, we are here for experimental aviation. But today is a whole lot different than it used to be. Lot's of good information out there, and lots of flags that get thrown up early and that we should stop and heed.
Stein and Peirre are right on. Although I disagree with Pierre's recommendation of using less weight and moving it further back. There is another physical force that comes into play when doing that---- it's called inertia. Too much weight aft of the vertical axis and there may not be enough aerodynamic control force to stop it.
Please be careful, and remember that discretion is the better part of valor. Nothing to prove here.
Thanks for listening, and please remember that a lot of people care about you and about what you are doing.

vic
Click to expand...

This is polar momentum which several have warned about and I am fully aware of it. It is why a single can roll faster than a twin. It is what they use to get satellites to spin faster. For those who do not have engineering degrees and do not know what polar momentum is try this: Sit in a chair that spins, put a large book in each hand, extend your hands out to the side all the way, use your foot to get the chair to spin, once you develop some speed pull the books in to your sides and watch how fast you spin now. Basically my plane will not rotate around the c.g. as quickly as most RV-10's because the weight is further out from the c.g. I will have to start my rotation earlier or use more force to direct the rotation. Vic's concern is whether there is enough force to start/stop this rotation.

edit: I just went and looked at a picture of a Pusher and can see why you have concerns. Their a considerable difference between an RV-10 and a Pusher. The biggest problem for the pusher is the moment arm of the elevator. You guys are crazy to fly that thing! The horizontal is almost thirteen feet from the c.g. of the RV-10 and is bigger than the pushers. The moment arm for the pusher looks to be at about three feet.
 
Last edited:
No. We are having a backfire/rough running issue at high rpms. I will be swapping out the plugs tomorrow evening in hopes that the plugs got fouled. Everything is done except for this rough running issue. I ran it at full throttle about two weeks ago and I think we had too much pitch on the prop. The engine started running really rough because it was too rich. It was first time I ever went to full throttle. The most I had ever gone to was a MP of 24. I was out of town the past weekend and a little to busy to sneak out during the week.
 
Jconard said:
Perhaps the disconnect is which IO-540 they were comparing to, Vesta suggests that the package is the same as a continetal 550 or aa lycoming 540....the ONLY lycoming 540 which comes close to that weight (Conit 550's are heavy) is the angle valve 540 which Vans has specifically noted is way too heavy...just a thought.
Click to expand...

That is the conclusion I came up with as well. It seems that both Geardrives and Vesta compare their setups to an angle valve 540 which is to heavy for the RV-10 and also the airplane I'm building (bearhawk.)

When I was looking at alternative engines I settled on the subaru EG33 which I believe can be the same 430lbs or very close at a similar 230hp. The plan was to build one, but then an opportunity came to buy a IO-540 for a very good deal so I grabbed it.

schu
 
akschu said:
That is the conclusion I came up with as well. It seems that both Geardrives and Vesta compare their setups to an angle valve 540 which is to heavy for the RV-10 and also the airplane I'm building (bearhawk.)

When I was looking at alternative engines I settled on the subaru EG33 which I believe can be the same 430lbs or very close at a similar 230hp. The plan was to build one, but then an opportunity came to buy a IO-540 for a very good deal so I grabbed it.

schu
Click to expand...

I cannot stress it enough that right now running an auto engine is truly experimenting. If you do not want to tinker and do not have the patience then the IO-540 is the choice for you. But there will come a day when auto engines will be just as easy to install as an aircraft engine.
 
We have found out there is something misprogrammed in my computer or something wrong with it hardware wise. Another Vesta customer has been having the exact same problem that I have, engine runs fine then starts to run rough at high speeds. Jason Day sent him a new computer to run his engine. His engine runs perfectly now and has put ten hours in the air on it. The biggest problem for me is getting my computer repaired/replaced. Tracy Crooks the maker of the computer, is out of town until Oct. 7. Jason is trying to get one for me from one of his customers that is not using it yet.
 
TSwezey said:
I cannot stress it enough that right now running an auto engine is truly experimenting. If you do not want to tinker and do not have the patience then the IO-540 is the choice for you. But there will come a day when auto engines will be just as easy to install as an aircraft engine.
Click to expand...

Todd,

I respect and acknowledge your enthusiasm for what you are doing and anyone else who is doing it. But persons sitting on the fence reading this thread must be aware of the reality of what this is all about. I have come full circle and literally feel an obligation to share my feelings on the subject. The experience was fun at times but in total, no cake walk and it cost one heck of a lot of money with not much to show for it.

The first sentence of the above quote is true and the last sentence may be true so far as installation is concerned, but reliability and long life are not on the radar in my book.

I really tried to get a Subaru engine to work in terms of not having to baby it for cooling or running with 100LL or simply getting 0360 performance or having confidence in the psru or wondering if the vapor pressure reading before take off was accurate. The experimental part is interesting up to a point - but once you wreck an airplane, the question what am I doing here is ever present.

It is one thing for a developer to do this, but for the average guy who just wants to fly from point a to b, what's in it for him? Even if he does succeed the only person who really makes out is the developer. There is no dollar advantage in terms of fuel consumption, maintenance, insurance or after market value. There are those who insist there are dollar advantages but I do not believe it. The money I spent on 2 engines, 3 psru's and 3 different propellers and rebuilding a wrecked airplane far exceeded what a new Lycoming would cost.

If you feel adventurous, I did some 5 years ago, go for it. But if your cup of tea is simply flying, skip it.
 
Robby- I don't see it as a personal attack. I know you and Ron are stern aircraft engine types. Are you heading out to LOE again? Our trip was by far my best RV/airplane adventure I have ever taken. How is the house coming?
 
Let see how long this one lasts!

Todd:

Thanks my friend for understanding, I just wish my last post could have survived to stimulate more debate and elicit forthright opinion. It fathoms me that I said anything that could be interpreted as a violation of forum rules. I received nothing from anyone explaining why it was pulled. You are right, and I don't speak for Ron, about my vocal position on the overall topic, but I do support Corvair and VW conversions on lighter aircraft. I dare invite more censorship by commenting more on the subject in my in your face manner.

No LOE this year, but already planning next year, if not suspended from RV Nation. The wife and I are leaving on 10/9 for a long 25th anniversary trip/cruise. A little marlin fishing, a little sailfish fishing and a day on the peacock bass, interrupted by a 7 day cruise put LOE out of the picture this year. Our trip out was the best RV cross county I've ever done in one day. The trip back was indeed an adventure, including the deluxe hotel outside of Dallas. You missed the express trip back the next week with the 80 kt tail wind. The lot has been cleared, but on hold due to changes in the wife's company. Looks like it may be starting up shortly.

Lets grab a bite when I return from the trip and catch up. Be safe and good luck.

Hope this is acceptable.
 
Todd, link no workie.

Am I to deduce, by your cryptic message, that the 10 is now empirically proven to be functionally an airplane??
 
Mike S said:
Todd, link no workie.

Am I to deduce, by your cryptic message, that the 10 is now empirically proven to be functionally an airplane??
Click to expand...
Yes, it flys from what Dave (my partner in the plane says) well even being fat. I haven't flown it yet though.
It worked over in my first RV-4 thread I will see whats wrong. Thanks.

It works now....Lee Logan was kind enough to give me a ride in his RV-4 to play chase plane. Jim Poe, our DAR, signed us off yesterday morning and at about 2:30 N110TD took to the skies. It was a short flight but the engine ran great. I took a bunch of pictures on Lee's camera and I haven't gotten them yet to post.
 
Last edited:
I believe you are correct about the angle valve

I've called around trying to get an accurate weight for the IO-540 parallel valve and it appears to weigh (according to the vendors):
engine dry 386 lbs.
fluids 12 qts. 24 lbs.
Vetterman exhaust 22.5 lbs.
alternator 10 lbs.
total== 442.5 lbs.

Geared Drives says theirs' is right at 489 lbs wet with accesories
difference of 46.5 lbs.

I've seen the GD setup and believe that is a pretty accurate weight with no hedging of the figures
The Vesta is over 500+ lbs. wet as I recall

I REALLY liked the GD setup as seen at Osh but am clearly concerned about the weight penulty. The CG is the biggest concern and 46 pounds negates a lot of horsepower.



akschu said:
That is the conclusion I came up with as well. It seems that both Geardrives and Vesta compare their setups to an angle valve 540 which is to heavy for the RV-10 and also the airplane I'm building (bearhawk.)

When I was looking at alternative engines I settled on the subaru EG33 which I believe can be the same 430lbs or very close at a similar 230hp. The plan was to build one, but then an opportunity came to buy a IO-540 for a very good deal so I grabbed it.

schu
Click to expand...
 
TSwezey said:
Jim Poe, our DAR, signed us off yesterday morning and at about 2:30 N110TD took to the skies. It was a short flight but the engine ran great.
Click to expand...
Congrats Todd.

Have fun, but be careful. Very, very careful. I'd spend a whole bunch of hours within easy gliding distance of an airfield if I were you guys. And another whole bunch of hours doing very detailed, regular inspections of all the FW forward stuff. Don't let your guard down now.
 
Kevin Horton said:
Congrats Todd.

Have fun, but be careful. Very, very careful. I'd spend a whole bunch of hours within easy gliding distance of an airfield if I were you guys. And another whole bunch of hours doing very detailed, regular inspections of all the FW forward stuff. Don't let your guard down now.
Click to expand...

My butt isn't going anywhere where I can't glide to a field! We have an incredibly detailed test plan that we are going to follow.
 
Congratulations, Todd,

...if you're flying this weekend, I'd sure like to come down on Saturday and watch/listen/cheer:)

Regards,
 
I am going to try Saturday morning if the weather is good. I will probably go down there about 7:30 or 8ish. James Kleen had his first flight in his 8 about a month ago and he will probably be flying also.
 
Congrats Todd! It has been a long haul with some more to go.

I wish you a safe and fun test period. Look forward to more feedback and info on the beast.
 
Todd: The pix are in a Cd on Dave's chair in his office. Dropped 'em off this afternoon. Still can't get over how cool that engine sounds.

Looking forward to getting it over to Ridgeland!

Regards,

Lee...
 
logansc said:
Todd: The pix are in a Cd on Dave's chair in his office. Dropped 'em off this afternoon. Still can't get over how cool that engine sounds.

Looking forward to getting it over to Ridgeland!

Regards,

Lee...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the pixs and the ride!
 
Congratulations!

Todd,
I think a lot of us have been following your progress with a lot of anticipation. Your -10 turned out really nice, some might say a little heavy, but I prefer "substantial" ;) I saw the video of the first flight, and now I'm eagerly waiting the test pilot reports. You have taken your time to this right, so I know you guys will continue to be methodical and careful during testing. All I can say is thanks for sharing your progress with the rest of us who have an interest in alternative engines.
 
Todd, congrats on your accomplishment.

Is it my imagination or is the nose wheel cocked? Did you notice any vibration on touch down? You might want to double check the break out force just in case. It is odd that it is angled as much as it appears.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top