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 09-28-2018, 07:00 PM
N941WR's Avatar
N941WR N941WR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 11,531
Default

First, pleas study aircraft building techniques. Aluminum does not rust.

I really enjoyed the four years and two months of assembling my RV-9 but when I looked at the numbers, I paid myself something like $8/hr to do it myself.

You have to ask yourself if you enjoy building or do you want to go flying.

Build the tail kit and then decide which way you want to go.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-29-2018, 12:04 AM
ledude ledude is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Seattle
Posts: 5
Talking

Wow. You guys are all very well spirited when discussing this option. I can feel the passion even by just reading your comment. I hope I haven't just started a civil war with my curiosity. Thanks everyone.

So, yes thanks as well for the input Bill. Yes I do know aluminum doesn't rust, it corrodes. It's just a lazy way of me describing corrosion. My bad. Dang, the details that you guys pick on based on my comment is amazing and I mean it in the most sincere way.

So when I said, I got bored passed 200 rivets, I don't mean it literally. I just meant to say that I'm not good at doing repetitive stuffs. My brain is just wired differently and what ended up happening most of the time is that I ended up trying to find the more efficient way to do thing (AKA: Shortcut :-)). That's all. Not shortcut in a negative way like shortcut not doing things that I have to do but I didn't do just because I'm lazy. Well the lazy part is still there but that's what drives my brain to find a way to do things more efficiently. Anyway, enough of my soapbox.

Well thanks for all of the suggestions. Very good input indeed. Bob, to answer your question whether I'll be happier buying someone else's RV, I'd say big "NO" and that's part of the reason why I asked whether I should do QB or legacy. I may not be able to build it perfectly myself but I trust what I build better than someone else's. At least I know where the potential issue that I may have when I build it, where if it's someone else's built, god knows what's behind it. I'm not saying that they don't build it right. I just don't like catching surprises that I'd have known if I built it myself.

One example. I always thought that changing brake pads and brake rotors for car in general is a pain in the ***. Out of curiosity one day, I did try to change the brake pads for my car myself. Guess what I found out. Some other mechanic who replace my brake pads in the past (which I can't remember who) install the brake pads and forgotten to put a couple of the spring back to hold the brake pads. That could end up catastrophic to me, or not but that doesn't matter. So I forced myself to learn how to change the brake pads and all the rotors for all my cars since. Annoying, yes. Pain in the ***, absolutely. But at least I live with the satisfaction of knowing that it's being done correctly. I know plane is more complex than my **** brake pads but I hope you got my point.

I'm not saying that what Vans build for the RV-10 is troublesome. I'm just saying that if I built it myself, I'd have known all of those nooks and crannies down to the details and I don't have to second guess what other people did or didn't and be paranoid about it. My challenge just like everyone else is of course, "Time". I think of myself as "do it once, do it right, or don't do it" person. Not to a point of being a perfectionist but I still would like to get it done right. Especially for something like an airplane where if I screwed it up, it could kill me and my passengers. But just like anything else in life, there's a trade off. I travel a lot and not being able to touch the building process at least an hour a day will slow down the progression of the build. Plus the most important part, my family time. We all only have 24 hours a day. No matter how we slice it, it's still 24 hours/day. Something has to give. That's the $100 million dollars question, right?

BTW, thanks Kyle for the input on single garage. I agree with you. As much as airport hangar is a bigger space, having to go there to do the work everyday will slowly diminish it to become once a week, then once a month, then once a year. Then I got frustrated that the project never get completed. So I guess I'm converting my single car space to become my lab then. :-) I can always move the other 2 cars out of the other garage spaces if needed.

Sorry I digress. So from tools perspective, I'll say it'll cost the same for me whether I do 500 hours work or 2500 hours work, so there's no saving there. I still need to buy the **** tools. But I'll try your suggestion though Bill. Try the Empennage first since there's no QB for that and I have to build it no matter what. If I could manage my time to do it, I'll continue buying the rest of the pieces. I hear you all about buying the boring part such as wing. The issue is, after watching Jason's video on his journey to build the RV-10, there's something in the wing build that I know if Vans is the one who build it in QB, I'm not going to be happy. Again, I'm not saying that the quality is not good. It's just that there are a couple of things that I want to do that's different with the way Vans build it. Such as for example, adding a conduit in the wing instead of using the grommet for example. That has always been a preference of mine, even with my home. I've always complaint that the previous home builder didn't use enough conduit in my house and when it comes time to do some upgrade, man, it's such a pain in the ***. That's just one example. But back to the question, do I want to go through all the painful 1 rivet at a time? Hmmm .

As you can tell, I'm still trying to decide whether I should just suck it up, build it the way I want it, learning everything and squeeze whatever time I have to work on the plane, or just say the **** with it, and buy the QB version.

Back on the engine discussion. Thanks for the input Dave. Here's my comparison. Lycoming IO-540 260 HP about 47.7k per engine as of today. Aeromomentum AM20T, as of a week ago, I got quoted for 18k. Dang, the difference. Lycoming TBO normally is around 2000 hours, right? With average cost for Lycoming TBO? Around 10k, give and take a couple hundreds. Aeromomentum, TBO is currently at 1500 hours and I was told when the TBO time has come, it'll probably cost less than 5k by replacing the long block and a couple of other parts and the engine is back to almost brand new with another 1500 hours. Of course I'd expect the value of the plane to be lower. That's a reasonable assumption cuz when you use a cheaper engine, you can't expect the plane to be sold at the same price like the RV-10 with Lycoming. Just the way it is and I have no beef with that. Plus knowing myself, if I spent this much time building the **** plane, I'll probably own it till I die. By then it's my kids' problem. LOL. Plus even if I assumed I fly say 200 hours a year, that'll still take me like 7 years before I have to TBO the engine which by then, a new type and more efficient engine is going to enter the market. So I'm not too worry about the company disappearing. It's an auto conversion and any car mechanic can fix it. The way I see it, that's the beauty of auto conversion. :-) FYI, the AM20T is still in a test stage and Mark said, it will hit the alpha stage by the end of this year I believe. Not that I'm in hurry anyway. I have tons of time to think.

Anyway, sorry for the long post. I thought the least I can do is to respond to all of you kind people who have been generous with your advise by taking your valuable time away from your busy day to day life activities to answer my annoying questions. Really appreciate the thought. I learn so much from y'all. So if this has not become a civil war, please do continue with the passionate conversation. I enjoy learning from many different perspectives. Have a wonderful weekend everyone and happy flying.

Last edited by ledude : 09-29-2018 at 12:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-29-2018, 12:01 PM
lr172 lr172 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Schaumburg, IL
Posts: 3,123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rongawer View Post
I agree with most of your post, however to say automotive engines are not designed to operate at 70% power for hours at a time is not factual and contrary to the actual testing paradigm employed by most automotive engine manufacturers. If you don’t like the idea of using an automotive, that’s fine by me - everyone is entitled to their opinion. But they do work well in the role of aviation with many of them in active service on many aircraft, even ones here on VAF.
+1

Many common auto engines are put in tough duty when installed in large boats (most have stock auto auto engines with adaptions for prop drive and cooling). THey typically run around 3000-4000 RPM and high load (i.e. high MAP). The load is comparable to aggressive acceleration in a car. They run most of their lives in this state and there are no issues with longevity.

I agree with others that it is not the engine that is the issue, it is all of the adaptation, including PSRUs that cause most of the trouble. Though it does seem that many also struggle with dialing in the mixture and timing that causes problems. Engines running under higher loads are intolerant of lean mixtures and agressive timing.

Larry
__________________
N64LR
RV-6A / IO-320, Flying as of 8/2015
RV-10 in progress

Last edited by lr172 : 09-29-2018 at 12:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-29-2018, 12:13 PM
lr172 lr172 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Schaumburg, IL
Posts: 3,123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledude View Post
Back on the engine discussion. Thanks for the input Dave. Here's my comparison. Lycoming IO-540 260 HP about 47.7k per engine as of today. Aeromomentum AM20T, as of a week ago, I got quoted for 18k. Dang, the difference. Lycoming TBO normally is around 2000 hours, right? With average cost for Lycoming TBO? Around 10k, give and take a couple hundreds. Aeromomentum, TBO is currently at 1500 hours and I was told when the TBO time has come, it'll probably cost less than 5k by replacing the long block and a couple of other parts and the engine is back to almost brand new with another 1500 hours. Of course I'd expect the value of the plane to be lower. That's a reasonable assumption cuz when you use a cheaper engine, you can't expect the plane to be sold at the same price like the RV-10 with Lycoming. Just the way it is and I have no beef with that. Plus knowing myself, if I spent this much time building the **** plane, I'll probably own it till I die. By then it's my kids' problem. LOL. Plus even if I assumed I fly say 200 hours a year, that'll still take me like 7 years before I have to TBO the engine which by then, a new type and more efficient engine is going to enter the market. So I'm not too worry about the company disappearing. It's an auto conversion and any car mechanic can fix it. The way I see it, that's the beauty of auto conversion. :-) FYI, the AM20T is still in a test stage and Mark said, it will hit the alpha stage by the end of this year I believe. Not that I'm in hurry anyway. I have tons of time to think.
It appears that AMT20 is 150 #'s lighter than the 540. You will have a significant W&B problem.

Larry
__________________
N64LR
RV-6A / IO-320, Flying as of 8/2015
RV-10 in progress
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-29-2018, 04:11 PM
ledude ledude is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Seattle
Posts: 5
Default

Larry. You are correct. The AM-20T is lighter than Lycoming. I don't think it's by that much. Thus, they don't have the kit for Rv-10 yet and it needs to be built and weighted to balance the CG.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-29-2018, 11:44 PM
rongawer's Avatar
rongawer rongawer is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brentwood, CA
Posts: 335
Default What a fun problem

Quote:
Originally Posted by lr172 View Post
It appears that AMT20 is 150 #'s lighter than the 540. You will have a significant W&B problem.
Larry
Considering that the normal comment is that the alternative engine to a Lycoming weighs too much for the power, it’s a fun problem to have it “too light”. It’s dimensionally smaller than the 540, so it could be moved forward a little bit. You could skip the composite pro and go with the heavier metal prop, use a prop extension, mount batteries on the FW, yada, yada, yada. It can be done. Just need to set “builder” skills to the side for a minute and focus on “experimenter” skills.

One other thing, Time Before Overhaul is a regulatory construct and has no value or legal influence in the experimental world, or certified part 91 operations for that matter. Even more so, with most pilots flying much less than 100 hours per year, it’s the seals hardening and cracking that limit the age of most engines. Somewhere between 12 and 20 years is the real life of your engine, irrelevant of the arbitrary assignment of TBO. If you fly your airplane several hundred hours per year and maintain it well, it will last multiple thousands of hours. I had a set of IO-520’s (TBO 1700 hours) with close to 3000 hours on them before OH’d.

I would be less concerned with a TBO assignment, which is going to be a very conservative number on a new engine package, and more on what fits your needs and installation.
__________________
Ron Gawer

- RV10, N1530G (reserved). Empennage in progress.
- RV12, N975G, Flying

Last edited by rongawer : 09-29-2018 at 11:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-30-2018, 10:31 AM
flion's Avatar
flion flion is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 2,495
Default

I came late to the discussion. The old wisdom for homebuilts has always been "if you want to fly, buy. If you want to build, build." That covers the people who regret that their aircraft can't be built in X timeframe because LIFE. So they often give up when it's going to take longer to get in the air than they had anticipated. In the OPs case, it sounds like he partially enjoys the building, except that some of the tasks are boring. We all have that problem and building a QB is not going to entirely alleviate it. You will still have thousands of holes to drill, deburr, and rivet. You will still have to do all the glass work, including the sanding, priming, sanding, etc. Building an aircraft is detail oriented and many of those details are boring at best and frustrating at worst (says the man who is having to disassemble his entire mid fuselage section). But if you don't have the strength of will to push through those details, then building may not be for you. One idea may be to get yourself a building partner who can ease some of the burden and help motivate you.

As for the engine question, unless you really want to spend the time to engineer and build, there really is no choice. The RV-10 is currently only produced for the Lycoming IO-540. That's not to say there are no alternatives, but they require modification to the kit and extra time and effort to install, not to mention any operating issues that may arise. Again, if your object is to build and experiment, then by all means do. But if you want to shorten the time to get it airworthy, then you will want to minimize deviations from the plans.
__________________
Patrick Kelley - Flagstaff, AZ
RV-6A N156PK - Flying too much to paint
RV-10 14MX(reserved) - Fuselage on gear
http://www.mykitlog.com/flion/
EAA Technical Counselor #5357
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-30-2018, 12:09 PM
lr172 lr172 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Schaumburg, IL
Posts: 3,123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledude View Post
Larry. You are correct. The AM-20T is lighter than Lycoming. I don't think it's by that much. .

Came right off there website. They compare their weight to other common engines.
__________________
N64LR
RV-6A / IO-320, Flying as of 8/2015
RV-10 in progress
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-30-2018, 12:20 PM
PilotjohnS PilotjohnS is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 539
Default Alternate engine

Unless you were born with a box wrench in your hand, I would not consider an alternate engine for the RV10. JMHO. I worked race cars for years, and still would not consider it due to the work involved it making the firewall forward stuff all play nice.
__________________
John S

WARNING! Information presented in this post is my opinion. All users of info have sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for their use.

Extra dues paid 2018, worth every penny

RV9A- Status: tail feathers done less tips
Wings done less tips and avionics
Fuselage 30%
www.pilotjohnsrv9.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-30-2018, 12:40 PM
N941WR's Avatar
N941WR N941WR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 11,531
Default

LeDude,

When I raced cars, we always said, if you build it light, you can add weight where you want. That is a GREAT position to be in. However, if you build it heavy, you have no idea where to remove the extra weight from.

The members of this board have seen auto conversions come and go over the years with the same promises as you have mentioned. Thus, we are always a bit more than skeptical.

Remember, auto engines are not designed to run at 75 or even 55 percent power all the time. The normal duty cycle for an auto engine is up and down, never continuous at one power setting. Even on the highway, with the cruise set, an engine is very lightly loaded.

Aircraft engines, on the other hand, are designed to make TBO while spinning on the redline at 75% power. That is a HUGE difference in duty cycles.

Yes, the IO-540 is expensive but so is building. I was stunned to realize I spent well north of $10,000 just on tools by the time I was finished and I'm still buying tools AND I've been flying for over 11 years now.

This airplane building thing is a lifestyle more than anything. Either you embrace it or you don't. Hopefully your spouse is on board because if she isn't she won't be your spouse much longer. As for your friends, you will be exchanging them for others who are builders and/or fliers. That is just the way it seems to go.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
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 10:02 AM.


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.