VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-10
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 03-13-2019, 10:29 AM
NicksterRV10 NicksterRV10 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-24-2019, 07:23 PM
Subwaybob's Avatar
Subwaybob Subwaybob is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 303
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Kinman View Post
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
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/
__________________
Bob
RV-10 QB on the way
RV-7
My brain shows a remarkable capacity to not willingly accept information that it considered useless.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-30-2019, 04:47 PM
kblack kblack is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Granbury, Tx
Posts: 30
Default 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.
__________________
Kliff
Granbury Texas
RV-7 QB (N74KB) - Flying
RV-10 QB - Empennage Started
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-30-2019, 07:40 PM
echozulu echozulu is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Ocean City, MD
Posts: 67
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kblack View Post
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.

Quote:
However, the FAA stripped all twin-engine aircraft and all turbo powered airframes from the submitted AML without explanation, warning or just cause.
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.
__________________
RV-10 - Empennage 90%
QB Fuse - Delivered
QB Wings - Delivered
Ocean City, MD
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-30-2019, 10:45 PM
kblack kblack is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Granbury, Tx
Posts: 30
Default

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.
__________________
Kliff
Granbury Texas
RV-7 QB (N74KB) - Flying
RV-10 QB - Empennage Started
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-30-2019, 11:32 PM
echozulu echozulu is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Ocean City, MD
Posts: 67
Default

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.
__________________
RV-10 - Empennage 90%
QB Fuse - Delivered
QB Wings - Delivered
Ocean City, MD
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-31-2019, 06:16 AM
kblack kblack is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Granbury, Tx
Posts: 30
Default

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.
__________________
Kliff
Granbury Texas
RV-7 QB (N74KB) - Flying
RV-10 QB - Empennage Started
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-31-2019, 06:45 AM
Brantel's Avatar
Brantel Brantel is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Newport, TN
Posts: 7,435
Default

Tangent alert...... bahhahaaahahha.
__________________
Brantel (Brian Chesteen),
Check out my RV-10 builder's BLOG
RV-10, #41942, N?????, Working on Emp/Tail Cone
---------------------------------------------------------------------
RV-7/TU, #72823, N159SB
Lyc. O-360 carbed, HARTZELL BA CS Prop, Dual P-MAGs, Dual Garmin G3X Touch
Track N159SB (KK4LIF)
Like EAA Chapter 1494 on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:48 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.