Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Battery and CG

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:06 am Post subject: Battery and CG

I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but this does come up every once in a while.  I understand that some people want to fly this plane most of the time as if it were a 2-seat airplane.  As such, it does ride very close to the forward CG, especially with full tanks.  However, putting another battery in the back to help this “problem”, IMHO, is very counterproductive.  I realize that Van’s put the first battery back there for most likely this very reason, but with the stock setup, the airplane flies fine throughout all CG configurations (light/forward CG or heavy/aft CG).  If you mount a permanent battery aft of the baggage wall and want to fly the airplane like it was designed to fly (2700lbs), you better keep your speeds up, because if you stall and get into a spin, then good luck getting out of it.  Would it not be easier, when flying light, to add some ballast in the baggage area or rear seat?  It certainly doesn’t make sense to have to add ballast under the cowling when you are flying heavy.  

   

All JMHO!  

     

Jesse Saint  

Saint Aviation, Inc.  

jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)  

www.saintaviation.com  

Cell: 352-427-0285  

Fax: 815-377-3694  

  

   

       [quote][b]

jjessen

Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 285
Location: OR

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:46 am Post subject: Battery and CG

They may have a heavier engine, but they were not  saying.  Something with water sloshing around, perhaps.  However, you  raised, once again, a horse that was on my mind, as well, when I took a  look at the dual battery tray (nice job on the tray, nonetheless).  I plan  to go with either integrated battery backup, or something similar to Tim's  setup, light and cheap.  Careful with aft CG, guys.  Calculate this  one verrrrry carefully.  

  

 John J

  

 do not archive



   From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse  Saint

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06 AM

To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Battery and  CG

 

  

I feel like I am beating a dead  horse, but this does come up every once in a while.  I understand that some  people want to fly this plane most of the time as if it were a 2-seat  airplane.  As such, it does ride very close to the forward CG, especially  with full tanks.  However, putting another battery in the back to help this  “problem”, IMHO, is very counterproductive.  I realize that Van’s put the  first battery back there for most likely this very reason, but with the stock  setup, the airplane flies fine throughout all CG configurations (light/forward  CG or heavy/aft CG).  If you mount a permanent battery aft of the baggage  wall and want to fly the airplane like it was designed to fly (2700lbs), you  better keep your speeds up, because if you stall and get into a spin, then good  luck getting out of it.  Would it not be easier, when flying light, to add  some ballast in the baggage area or rear seat?  It certainly doesn’t make  sense to have to add ballast under the cowling when you are flying  heavy. 

  

All  JMHO! 

   

Jesse  Saint 

Saint Aviation,  Inc. 

jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com) 

www.saintaviation.com 

Cell:  352-427-0285 

Fax:  815-377-3694

 

 

[quote]



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com



[b]

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:51 am Post subject: Battery and CG

I want to stress to people reading this, it is a very valid  point and when adding dual batteries or any weight that far aft  serious thought should be considered. I agree with Jesse that the best way to  add and subtract weight is a collapsible water container. This way the pilot can  add weight for situations and dump it on the ramp when it is not needed and  store the flat container.

  

  

 What myself, John and others are talking about is making a  dual battery tray to support a dual electrical system to ensure redundancy  for an electrically dependant alternative engine install. What we are using for  our dual batteries are PC 625 batteries. These only weigh 12-13 pounds a piece,  and with the addition of the tray and dual contactors we are less than 1 pound  difference of the original install made by Tim with a 925 . I made the  decision to mount these at the original location of Vans battery tray  because it works there for NOW. But I will stress, we have not done a  weight and balance with an installed Eggenfellner package on a completed 10  yet. Mine will be the first and based on my equipage, we will make the  determination for the final install location of the dual batteries, as  these are the easiest items to move to balance the CG. I expect the W&B  of the RV10E will be very close to matching the Lycoming install, but we will  not know until I get the engine and cowl final  installed.

  

 I just wanted to put this out there, so people can make the  distinction between the Eggenfellner install versus trying to do a dual install  for a lycoming. We are not talking about dual 925's as this would be over 50  pounds of batteries in an aft CG location, that would be permanent. Once again  we are talking dual 625's.

 Dan

 N289DT   



   From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse  Saint

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:06 AM

To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Battery and  CG

 

  

I feel like I am beating a dead  horse, but this does come up every once in a while.  I understand that some  people want to fly this plane most of the time as if it were a 2-seat  airplane.  As such, it does ride very close to the forward CG, especially  with full tanks.  However, putting another battery in the back to help this  “problem”, IMHO, is very counterproductive.  I realize that Van’s put the  first battery back there for most likely this very reason, but with the stock  setup, the airplane flies fine throughout all CG configurations (light/forward  CG or heavy/aft CG).  If you mount a permanent battery aft of the baggage  wall and want to fly the airplane like it was designed to fly (2700lbs), you  better keep your speeds up, because if you stall and get into a spin, then good  luck getting out of it.  Would it not be easier, when flying light, to add  some ballast in the baggage area or rear seat?  It certainly doesn’t make  sense to have to add ballast under the cowling when you are flying  heavy. 

  

All  JMHO! 

   

Jesse  Saint 

Saint Aviation,  Inc. 

jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com) 

www.saintaviation.com 

Cell:  352-427-0285 

Fax:  815-377-3694

 

 

[quote]



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com



[b]

indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:14 am Post subject: Battery and CG

All understood and very important that the numbers in the end are in the CG 

range. There is a requirement for two batteries and putting both of these on 

the firewall could make for an even worse senario.



If I recal, we are looking at 25-26 pounds of batteries. Other than these 

two mentioned locations. I do not believe there are hardpoints anywhere else 

with enough strength to handle the positive and negative Gs. That is a lot 

of weight. My tray added 1 pound nine onces inaddition to the batteries. 

Don't want the batteries falling out of the tray and rolling to the tail of 

the plane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



JOhn G



 	  Quote: 	
		  From: "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com>

Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

To: <rv10-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: RE: Battery and CG

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:46:20 -0700



They may have a heavier engine, but they were not saying.  Something with

water sloshing around, perhaps.  However, you raised, once again, a horse

that was on my mind, as well, when I took a look at the dual battery tray

(nice job on the tray, nonetheless).  I plan to go with either integrated

battery backup, or something similar to Tim's setup, light and cheap.

Careful with aft CG, guys.  Calculate this one verrrrry carefully.



John J



do not archive



   _____



From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06 AM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Battery and CG



I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but this does come up every once in 

a

while.  I understand that some people want to fly this plane most of the

time as if it were a 2-seat airplane.  As such, it does ride very close to

the forward CG, especially with full tanks.  However, putting another

battery in the back to help this "problem", IMHO, is very 

counterproductive.

I realize that Van's put the first battery back there for most likely this

very reason, but with the stock setup, the airplane flies fine throughout

all CG configurations (light/forward CG or heavy/aft CG).  If you mount a

permanent battery aft of the baggage wall and want to fly the airplane like

it was designed to fly (2700lbs), you better keep your speeds up, because 

if

you stall and get into a spin, then good luck getting out of it.  Would it

not be easier, when flying light, to add some ballast in the baggage area 

or

rear seat?  It certainly doesn't make sense to have to add ballast under 

the

cowling when you are flying heavy.



All JMHO!



Jesse Saint



Saint Aviation, Inc.



jesse(at)saintaviation.com



www.saintaviation.com



Cell: 352-427-0285



Fax: 815-377-3694

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:04 am Post subject: Battery and CG

It is not that we are not saying anything about the weight,  rather no one has one on the plane yet and can discuss the true weights. Can  anyone tell me the Firewall forward weight of a Lycoming with everything  installed? No? Not even with more than 70 flying? SO how do you expect their to  be a published number of a FWF weight of an engine that has not been installed  yet? Exactly, but what Eggenfellner has done is come up with a new methodology  of weighing each and every FWF package, including the prop before shipping,  so every builder will now what it weighs, including all fluids. I will gladly  post this number for all concerned to review, once I receive my engine  package. 

 I would challenge the Lycoming users/ nay Sayers claiming  Eggenfellner has a higher weight,  to do the same thing with a complete  FWF/ Prop combo of an RV10 to post their results as well, before making such a  blanket statement. Lets keep in mind there is a whole bigger weight issue of a  IO540 versus an IO360.

 Dan 

 N289DT

 RV10E



   From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John  Jessen

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:46 AM

To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Battery and  CG

 

 They may have a heavier engine, but they were not  saying.  Something with water sloshing around, perhaps.  However, you  raised, once again, a horse that was on my mind, as well, when I took a  look at the dual battery tray (nice job on the tray, nonetheless).  I plan  to go with either integrated battery backup, or something similar to Tim's  setup, light and cheap.  Careful with aft CG, guys.  Calculate this  one verrrrry carefully.  

  

 John J

  

 do not archive



   From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse  Saint

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06 AM

To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Battery and  CG

 

  

I feel like I am beating a dead  horse, but this does come up every once in a while.  I understand that some  people want to fly this plane most of the time as if it were a 2-seat  airplane.  As such, it does ride very close to the forward CG, especially  with full tanks.  However, putting another battery in the back to help this  “problem”, IMHO, is very counterproductive.  I realize that Van’s put the  first battery back there for most likely this very reason, but with the stock  setup, the airplane flies fine throughout all CG configurations (light/forward  CG or heavy/aft CG).  If you mount a permanent battery aft of the baggage  wall and want to fly the airplane like it was designed to fly (2700lbs), you  better keep your speeds up, because if you stall and get into a spin, then good  luck getting out of it.  Would it not be easier, when flying light, to add  some ballast in the baggage area or rear seat?  It certainly doesn’t make  sense to have to add ballast under the cowling when you are flying  heavy. 

  

All  JMHO! 

   

Jesse  Saint 

Saint Aviation,  Inc. 

jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com) 

www.saintaviation.com 

Cell:  352-427-0285 

Fax:  815-377-3694

 

 

[quote]



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com







href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com



[b]

jjessen

Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 285
Location: OR

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:04 am Post subject: Battery and CG

Dan, I was not trying to get into any type of engine  discussion.  You guys were being cute about not raising the engine debate,  so I thought I'd be cute back, water sloshing and all that.  We all knew  you were talking about the Eggenfeller, and more power to you!  I'm not a  nay sayer, I just wondered aloud if you had a reason for more weight in the  back, for, like Jesse, I was concerned about aft CG.  I now know that you  and John are using lighter batteries, as you've explained.  I, too, would  like to know how much everything weighs up front, in the panel, behind the  panel.  Very important to know this stuff.  Nice to know Eggenfeller  is weighing his stuff.  I'll weigh mine when the time comes and post it on  my site.  On we go.  

  

 John J

  

 do not archive



   From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel  R.

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 8:04 AM

To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Battery and  CG

 

 It is not that we are not saying anything about the weight,  rather no one has one on the plane yet and can discuss the true weights. Can  anyone tell me the Firewall forward weight of a Lycoming with everything  installed? No? Not even with more than 70 flying? SO how do you expect their to  be a published number of a FWF weight of an engine that has not been installed  yet? Exactly, but what Eggenfellner has done is come up with a new methodology  of weighing each and every FWF package, including the prop before shipping,  so every builder will now what it weighs, including all fluids. I will gladly  post this number for all concerned to review, once I receive my engine  package. 

 I would challenge the Lycoming users/ nay Sayers claiming  Eggenfellner has a higher weight,  to do the same thing with a complete  FWF/ Prop combo of an RV10 to post their results as well, before making such a  blanket statement. Lets keep in mind there is a whole bigger weight issue of a  IO540 versus an IO360.

 Dan 

 N289DT

 RV10E



   From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John  Jessen

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:46 AM

To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Battery and  CG

 

 They may have a heavier engine, but they were not  saying.  Something with water sloshing around, perhaps.  However, you  raised, once again, a horse that was on my mind, as well, when I took a  look at the dual battery tray (nice job on the tray, nonetheless).  I plan  to go with either integrated battery backup, or something similar to Tim's  setup, light and cheap.  Careful with aft CG, guys.  Calculate this  one verrrrry carefully.  

  

 John J

  

 do not archive



   From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse  Saint

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06 AM

To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Battery and  CG

 

  

I feel like I am beating a dead  horse, but this does come up every once in a while.  I understand that some  people want to fly this plane most of the time as if it were a 2-seat  airplane.  As such, it does ride very close to the forward CG, especially  with full tanks.  However, putting another battery in the back to help this  “problem”, IMHO, is very counterproductive.  I realize that Van’s put the  first battery back there for most likely this very reason, but with the stock  setup, the airplane flies fine throughout all CG configurations (light/forward  CG or heavy/aft CG).  If you mount a permanent battery aft of the baggage  wall and want to fly the airplane like it was designed to fly (2700lbs), you  better keep your speeds up, because if you stall and get into a spin, then good  luck getting out of it.  Would it not be easier, when flying light, to add  some ballast in the baggage area or rear seat?  It certainly doesn’t make  sense to have to add ballast under the cowling when you are flying  heavy. 

  

All  JMHO! 

   

Jesse  Saint 

Saint Aviation,  Inc. 

jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com) 

www.saintaviation.com 

Cell:  352-427-0285 

Fax:  815-377-3694

 

 

[quote]



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com







href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com







href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com



[b]

james.k.hovis(at)gmail.co
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:48 am Post subject: Battery and CG

Dan,

  It's simple, get your empty weight (with coolant) and compare to the

Lyc installations. I can't find it right now (thought Tim had a link

to it), but IIRC, the IO540 weighs dry around 400 to 450 lbs. Now the

dry Subie engine may not weigh as much as the Lyc, but look at the

other things you'll need to run: Radiator, coolant tubing, couple

gallons of coolant, radiator ducting (especially if you're using a

P-51 style scoop, but that's cool!), different engine mount (may be

lighter than the Lyc?) and a reduction unit. All of that leads to the

general comment that any automotive conversion weigh more than a

standard aircraft engine when the ready to run configurations are

compared. Remember the Lyc is designed from the get-go to deliver a

high percentage of its rated power for extended periods, be reliable,

and be as light weight as possible. Car engines just aren't designed

for the same parameters. Plus, the RV-10 was designed around specific

engine installations.

  Please don't get me wrong, the trade-off of maybe 50 to 100 lbs loss

of useful load by going to an auto conversion may reap long-term

benefits - fuel cost savings and future overhaul costs. Remember too

that proper balancing is VERY important. The -10 is designed with the

tail surfaces set a specific distance from the wing and with specific

surface areas. This is to give good control authority and keep the

airplane flying stably over it's designed operating speeds. If your

empty CG results in having a full-load CG near or forward of the

designed limit will make it extremely difficult for the tail to lift

the nose wheel off the ground and to maintain level flight. CG at or

aft of the aft limit is just suicide, your control will be UNSTABLE!.

  Now, for a whole host of reasons previously discussed, if your empty

weight ends up being say 1,650 lbs, don't assume you can just up the

gross weight spec

to 2,830 lbs to keep the Van's published 1,180 lbs of useful load

without getting a SERIOUS engineering analysis. And keep away from the

published Vne.

   I'm not trying to discourage you from doing the Subie installation.

In fact I'm waiting to see how it turns out. But remember, one reason

for buying a Van's airplane is that they did the extensive engineering

legwork to determine a "good" combination of airframe and engine to

perform a specific mission. Whenever someone deviates from that

original design work, you are getting into unknown territory and you

should get serious analysis and advice from professionals so that you

can keep safe and within established aircraft standards.



Let me know how the installation goes (irt empty weight) and how well

it performs in flight!



Kevin Hovis.





On 3/30/07, Lloyd, Daniel R. <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   It is not that we are not saying anything about the weight, rather no

 one has one on the plane yet and can discuss the true weights. Can

 anyone tell me the Firewall forward weight of a Lycoming with everything

 installed? No? Not even with more than 70 flying? SO how do you expect

 their to be a published number of a FWF weight of an engine that has not

 been installed yet? Exactly, but what Eggenfellner has done is come up

 with a new methodology of weighing each and every FWF package, including

 the prop before shipping, so every builder will now what it weighs,

 including all fluids. I will gladly post this number for all concerned

 to review, once I receive my engine package.

 I would challenge the Lycoming users/ nay Sayers claiming Eggenfellner

 has a higher weight,  to do the same thing with a complete FWF/ Prop

 combo of an RV10 to post their results as well, before making such a

 blanket statement. Lets keep in mind there is a whole bigger weight

 issue of a IO540 versus an IO360.

 Dan

 N289DT

 RV10E



   _____



 From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com

 [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen

 Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:46 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Battery and CG

 They may have a heavier engine, but they were not saying.  Something

 with water sloshing around, perhaps.  However, you raised, once again, a

 horse that was on my mind, as well, when I took a look at the dual

 battery tray (nice job on the tray, nonetheless).  I plan to go with

 either integrated battery backup, or something similar to Tim's setup,

 light and cheap.  Careful with aft CG, guys.  Calculate this one

 verrrrry carefully.



 John J



 do not archive



   _____



 From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com

 [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint

 Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Battery and CG



 I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but this does come up every once

 in a while.  I understand that some people want to fly this plane most

 of the time as if it were a 2-seat airplane.  As such, it does ride very

 close to the forward CG, especially with full tanks.  However, putting

 another battery in the back to help this "problem", IMHO, is very

 counterproductive.  I realize that Van's put the first battery back

 there for most likely this very reason, but with the stock setup, the

 airplane flies fine throughout all CG configurations (light/forward CG

 or heavy/aft CG).  If you mount a permanent battery aft of the baggage

 wall and want to fly the airplane like it was designed to fly (2700lbs),

 you better keep your speeds up, because if you stall and get into a

 spin, then good luck getting out of it.  Would it not be easier, when

 flying light, to add some ballast in the baggage area or rear seat?  It

 certainly doesn't make sense to have to add ballast under the cowling

 when you are flying heavy.



 All JMHO!



 Jesse Saint



 Saint Aviation, Inc.



 jesse(at)saintaviation.com



 www.saintaviation.com



 Cell: 352-427-0285



 Fax: 815-377-3694



 href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics

 .com/Navigator?RV10-List

 href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:57 am Post subject: Battery and CG

I apologize if my comments were taken that way, I was  trying to stress we did not add any weight, or at least less than a pound, what  we did was split the weight between two 625's instead of a single 900 series  like others are using.

 If my comments came across as harsh I did not mean them  too, and that is usually what is lacking in an email environment is the laughing  person at the key board!

 Dan



   From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John  Jessen

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:04 PM

To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Battery and  CG

 

 Dan, I was not trying to get into any type of engine  discussion.  You guys were being cute about not raising the engine debate,  so I thought I'd be cute back, water sloshing and all that.  We all knew  you were talking about the Eggenfeller, and more power to you!  I'm not a  nay sayer, I just wondered aloud if you had a reason for more weight in the  back, for, like Jesse, I was concerned about aft CG.  I now know that you  and John are using lighter batteries, as you've explained.  I, too, would  like to know how much everything weighs up front, in the panel, behind the  panel.  Very important to know this stuff.  Nice to know Eggenfeller  is weighing his stuff.  I'll weigh mine when the time comes and post it on  my site.  On we go.  

  

 John J

  

 do not archive



   From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel  R.

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 8:04 AM

To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Battery and  CG

 

 It is not that we are not saying anything about the weight,  rather no one has one on the plane yet and can discuss the true weights. Can  anyone tell me the Firewall forward weight of a Lycoming with everything  installed? No? Not even with more than 70 flying? SO how do you expect their to  be a published number of a FWF weight of an engine that has not been installed  yet? Exactly, but what Eggenfellner has done is come up with a new methodology  of weighing each and every FWF package, including the prop before shipping,  so every builder will now what it weighs, including all fluids. I will gladly  post this number for all concerned to review, once I receive my engine  package. 

 I would challenge the Lycoming users/ nay Sayers claiming  Eggenfellner has a higher weight,  to do the same thing with a complete  FWF/ Prop combo of an RV10 to post their results as well, before making such a  blanket statement. Lets keep in mind there is a whole bigger weight issue of a  IO540 versus an IO360.

 Dan 

 N289DT

 RV10E



   From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John  Jessen

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:46 AM

To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Battery and  CG

 

 They may have a heavier engine, but they were not  saying.  Something with water sloshing around, perhaps.  However, you  raised, once again, a horse that was on my mind, as well, when I took a  look at the dual battery tray (nice job on the tray, nonetheless).  I plan  to go with either integrated battery backup, or something similar to Tim's  setup, light and cheap.  Careful with aft CG, guys.  Calculate this  one verrrrry carefully.  

  

 John J

  

 do not archive



   From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse  Saint

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06 AM

To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Battery and  CG

 

  

I feel like I am beating a dead  horse, but this does come up every once in a while.  I understand that some  people want to fly this plane most of the time as if it were a 2-seat  airplane.  As such, it does ride very close to the forward CG, especially  with full tanks.  However, putting another battery in the back to help this  “problem”, IMHO, is very counterproductive.  I realize that Van’s put the  first battery back there for most likely this very reason, but with the stock  setup, the airplane flies fine throughout all CG configurations (light/forward  CG or heavy/aft CG).  If you mount a permanent battery aft of the baggage  wall and want to fly the airplane like it was designed to fly (2700lbs), you  better keep your speeds up, because if you stall and get into a spin, then good  luck getting out of it.  Would it not be easier, when flying light, to add  some ballast in the baggage area or rear seat?  It certainly doesn’t make  sense to have to add ballast under the cowling when you are flying  heavy. 

  

All  JMHO! 

   

Jesse  Saint 

Saint Aviation,  Inc. 

jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com) 

www.saintaviation.com 

Cell:  352-427-0285 

Fax:  815-377-3694

 

 

[quote]



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com







href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com







href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com







href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com



[b]

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2882

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:27 am Post subject: Battery and CG

The people that know me well know that if I'm typing away at

the keyboard, I'm almost always chuckling away while I do it.

So forgive me in advance, but take anything I say that could be

misconstrued as an attack as a feeble attempt at humor.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I apologize if my comments were taken that way, I was trying to stress 

 we did not add any weight, or at least less than a pound, what we did 

 was split the weight between two 625's instead of a single 900 series 

 like others are using.

 If my comments came across as harsh I did not mean them too, and that is 

 usually what is lacking in an email environment is the laughing person 

 at the key board!

 Dan

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:57 am Post subject: Battery and CG

And that is the point I was trying to make, that the Total weight FWF of

any engine for the RV10 is unknown, and at this time we currently do not

know any of the numbers.

What we do know is that on the Subaru side all FWF packages will be

weighed complete, with coolant radiators and prop. And my point was that

I would like to know what a wet weight with accessories, oil coolers,

hoses and prop, and wiring/probes etc a Lycoming weighs. I have the dry

weights of the engine and some accessories, but not as a complete

package for the Lycoming so it is a mute point on weight comparison

until someone does the work necessary to unbolt a complete install and

weigh it as installed.



Conversely to the smaller RV's that install the H6 and have to worry

about to much weight, I am worried about to little weight forward. I

would like nothing more than to come out with the same distribution of

weight across the gear as the Lycoming install but I do not think it

will happen, instead I will have to move the batteries forward to offset

to little engine weight, but time will tell, and that was my point. No,

and I stress no known RV10's are flying with the Eggenfellner package

yet, so anything we are saying is pure conjecture. Now in the next

several weeks I will be able to post to everyone what it weighs when it

got here and what it does to the W&B tables, but until I have it

completely installed we are just making best guesses. I guarantee I will

not fly with the CG anywhere near aft because I will be very worried

about stall recovery, matter of fact if the weight is much different

than the average RV10 install I will ballast/ move things to better

match what is the norm so I can replicate the flight parameters of the

"standard" builders plane...oh wait they are all different because we

each can do our own thing, right? (Here is an example of that poor

attempt at humor)

No offense intended just light hearted banter.

Dan 

N289DT 



--

rvbuilder(at)sausen.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:38 am Post subject: Battery and CG

Interesting proposition.  Shouldn't be too hard for someone that is prior to the FWF to weigh all the standard components for a Lyc FWF before they hang them.  I would offer but at my current rate JC might beat me.



Michael



--

indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:38 am Post subject: Battery and CG

What is appearent however is your enthusiasm at being the person at the head 

of the calvary. You are proud and excited, obviously you see the light at 

the end of the tunnel. Keep pluggin away.



get back to work!!!

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>

Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

To: <rv10-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: RE: Battery and CG

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:57:00 -0400



I apologize if my comments were taken that way, I was trying to stress

we did not add any weight, or at least less than a pound, what we did

was split the weight between two 625's instead of a single 900 series

like others are using.

If my comments came across as harsh I did not mean them too, and that is

usually what is lacking in an email environment is the laughing person

at the key board!

Dan



   _____



From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:04 PM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Battery and CG

Dan, I was not trying to get into any type of engine discussion.  You

guys were being cute about not raising the engine debate, so I thought

I'd be cute back, water sloshing and all that.  We all knew you were

talking about the Eggenfeller, and more power to you!  I'm not a nay

sayer, I just wondered aloud if you had a reason for more weight in the

back, for, like Jesse, I was concerned about aft CG.  I now know that

you and John are using lighter batteries, as you've explained.  I, too,

would like to know how much everything weighs up front, in the panel,

behind the panel.  Very important to know this stuff.  Nice to know

Eggenfeller is weighing his stuff.  I'll weigh mine when the time comes

and post it on my site.  On we go.



John J



do not archive



   _____



From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel

R.

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 8:04 AM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Battery and CG

It is not that we are not saying anything about the weight, rather no

one has one on the plane yet and can discuss the true weights. Can

anyone tell me the Firewall forward weight of a Lycoming with everything

installed? No? Not even with more than 70 flying? SO how do you expect

their to be a published number of a FWF weight of an engine that has not

been installed yet? Exactly, but what Eggenfellner has done is come up

with a new methodology of weighing each and every FWF package, including

the prop before shipping, so every builder will now what it weighs,

including all fluids. I will gladly post this number for all concerned

to review, once I receive my engine package.

I would challenge the Lycoming users/ nay Sayers claiming Eggenfellner

has a higher weight,  to do the same thing with a complete FWF/ Prop

combo of an RV10 to post their results as well, before making such a

blanket statement. Lets keep in mind there is a whole bigger weight

issue of a IO540 versus an IO360.

Dan

N289DT

RV10E



   _____



From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:46 AM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Battery and CG

They may have a heavier engine, but they were not saying.  Something

with water sloshing around, perhaps.  However, you raised, once again, a

horse that was on my mind, as well, when I took a look at the dual

battery tray (nice job on the tray, nonetheless).  I plan to go with

either integrated battery backup, or something similar to Tim's setup,

light and cheap.  Careful with aft CG, guys.  Calculate this one

verrrrry carefully.



John J



do not archive



   _____



From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06 AM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Battery and CG



I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but this does come up every once

in a while.  I understand that some people want to fly this plane most

of the time as if it were a 2-seat airplane.  As such, it does ride very

close to the forward CG, especially with full tanks.  However, putting

another battery in the back to help this "problem", IMHO, is very

counterproductive.  I realize that Van's put the first battery back

there for most likely this very reason, but with the stock setup, the

airplane flies fine throughout all CG configurations (light/forward CG

or heavy/aft CG).  If you mount a permanent battery aft of the baggage

wall and want to fly the airplane like it was designed to fly (2700lbs),

you better keep your speeds up, because if you stall and get into a

spin, then good luck getting out of it.  Would it not be easier, when

flying light, to add some ballast in the baggage area or rear seat?  It

certainly doesn't make sense to have to add ballast under the cowling

when you are flying heavy.



All JMHO!



Jesse Saint



Saint Aviation, Inc.



jesse(at)saintaviation.com



www.saintaviation.com



Cell: 352-427-0285



Fax: 815-377-3694



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics

.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com





href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics

.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com





href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics

.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

speckter(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:50 pm Post subject: Battery and CG

I appreciate your sense of humor through all of this.  Experimenting is what

homebuilding is all about.  Talk to all who are concerned and make sure you

have addressed the issues they raise, then forge forward.   Ain't the

freedom great.

Gary

41274



--

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum