Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?

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

The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:14 pm Post subject: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?

This hopefully will interest some.  N256H just made it’s longest non-stop flight on Saturday afternoon/evening.  With full standard tanks, 3 people on board and about 120 lbs of baggage (read stuff), we flew from Newton, KS (KEWK) to Dunnellon, FL (X35), with a little “swerving” around thunderstorms right at the end for a total of 1,070 statute miles.  According to Weathermeister.com, the GPS/EFIS comparison between TAS and GS, and the winds aloft info from the Flight Cheetah and Garmin 396, we averaged between 5 and 10 knot headwinds over the 7 hour 3 minute flight.  With 55 gallons burned, that averaged less than 8 gph and left 5/8’s hour of reserve.  Not bad for an “experimental” aircraft, huh?  Can anybody tell me about another 4-place that can fly over 1,000 miles nonstop averaging almost 20 mpg over the ground, into some modest winds?  Oh, that was at 17,500 the whole way with fuel flows between 6.9 and 7.4 gph in cruise.  Departed KEWK at 5:23pm Central and landed X35 at 1:26am Eastern.  I hope I’m not the only one that loves to fly at night.  That was FANTASTIC!  

   

Do not archive  

   

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]

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?

Great report Jesse.  I haven't flown that kind of non-stop distance

in the -10, but I frequently see a listed range upwards of 1000nm

once in LOP cruise at higher altitudes, so I know it's possible.

I'd probably be sweating a bit landing with 5 gallons, just in

case of having fuel unporting during a slip to crosswind

landing, but I've tested the usable fuel and found that when you're

out, there's less than 1/2 qt or so that will drain out, so

as long as there's no crosswind, and you meet the 1/2 hour

reserve, it's do able for sure.



Nope, you're not the only one that loves flying at night. 



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Jesse Saint wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   This hopefully will interest some.  N256H just made it’s longest 

 non-stop flight on Saturday afternoon/evening.  With full standard 

 tanks, 3 people on board and about 120 lbs of baggage (read stuff), we 

 flew from Newton, KS (KEWK) to Dunnellon, FL (X35), with a little 

 “swerving” around thunderstorms right at the end for a total of 1,070 

 statute miles.  According to Weathermeister.com, the GPS/EFIS comparison 

 between TAS and GS, and the winds aloft info from the Flight Cheetah and 

 Garmin 396, we averaged between 5 and 10 knot headwinds over the 7 hour 

 3 minute flight.  With 55 gallons burned, that averaged less than 8 gph 

 and left 5/8’s hour of reserve.  Not bad for an “experimental” aircraft, 

 huh?  Can anybody tell me about another 4-place that can fly over 1,000 

 miles nonstop averaging almost 20 mpg over the ground, into some modest 

 winds?  Oh, that was at 17,500 the whole way with fuel flows between 6.9 

 and 7.4 gph in cruise.  Departed KEWK at 5:23pm Central and landed X35 

 at 1:26am Eastern.  I hope I’m not the only one that loves to fly at 

 night.  That was FANTASTIC!

 

  

 

 Do not archive

 

  

 

 Jesse Saint

 

 Saint Aviation, Inc.

 

 jesse(at)saintaviation.com <mailto:jesse(at)saintaviation.com>

 

 www.saintaviation.com <http://www.saintaviation.com>

 

 Cell: 352-427-0285

 

 Fax: 815-377-3694

 

  

 

 *

 

 

 *

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?

Lovers of night flight might want to review 91.151 re min fuel. Of

course if the headwinds were not anticipated fuel requirements go out

the window.



On 9/3/07, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   


	


 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Nope, you're not the only one that loves flying at night. 



 Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

 do not archive

 Jesse Saint wrote:

   With 55 gallons burned, that averaged less than 8 gph
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   > and left 5/8's hour of reserve.    X35

 > at 1:26am Eastern.  I hope I'm not the only one that loves to fly at

 > night.  That was FANTASTIC!


	


 	  Quote: 	
		   > *

 >

 >

 > *

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:58 am Post subject: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?

Let's not increase the insurance rates. While barely legal the flight may

not be prudent. Let's see. Arriving at 2 AM with 30-54 minutes of fuel

remaining. Some deviations around weather, some headwinds. What about

aircraft mechanical problems that increase the rate of fuel flow late in the

flight? What about airport closures due too disabled aircraft or

maintenance? If using flight following, what about ATC requested deviations

due to military or other activity? Low level clouds and ground fog usually

form in the early morning hours and may not be forecast or reported;

especially at non 24 hour tower airports.



Perhaps you considered all these and still had lots of options. Good.

I too love flying at night although my night flying is now not required as I

am retired. Also I fly in the mountains where a successful off airport

landing is enhanced greatly by daylight. 



For me, unless the trip is short and over familiar territory nighttime is

IFR time. It keeps me clear of all surface obstacles and a precise route to

my destination (no deviations around clouds). There are precise distances

and altitudes to fly approaching the airport. Additionally my fuel

requirements are a minimum of 1 hour remaining at destination if good VFR or

two hours minimum if destination is IFR.



Just my two cents.

Comm CFII A&P

Flying 33 years

TT 4000+, night 600+, 300+ actual, and significant numbers of hand flown low

IFR departures and arrivals in my TC177RG 



--

rv10builder(at)verizon.ne
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:14 am Post subject: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?

I enjoyed reading the story and think the point was the capabilities of the 

RV-10, not the FAA regulations and "what if's" that governed the 5/8 fuel 

left.  I'm sure with a 496 showing weather ahead and the current level of 

instruments, that tell you to the minute, how much fuel is left, the PIC saw 

what was and wasn't possible. They landed and all is well. Jesse told us 

what they did to remain safe, and maybe he could have explained the logic 

for what they did, but why need to?

Maybe I'm missing the point, but I want others to feel encouraged to tell 

stories, if this were me I would question if it was worth sharing a story 

only to hear about the "legalities"  and how wise I was doing it. I know we 

all care about the RV-10's staying in the air and insurance rates but let's 

stick to "the most efficient 4-place" story versus responding with rules and 

prudence. I'll go to my FAR's for that information if I need it.

So I am clear, taking advice from knowledgeable members, like a CFII is 

appreciated, when someone asks for it and is the intent of discussion.  I 

read the NTSB monthly publication and in each accident review case I ask 

myself what went wrong? how would I have handled the situation and what 

could I have done to avoid being in this situation. In the end I realize 

that I am only getting part of the story to the NTSB's best knowledge, not 

necessarily all the facts (aka why the pilot did what they did- which only 

that person would know).  Jesse told us the fact that the RV-10 is quite 

capable of going far and efficiently, all some are doing is surmising why 

the pilot made the choices he made to land with less than 1 hour of fuel, 

which is not the intent of this story.

I encourage all that have cross country stories, like Tim has done well in 

covering on his webpage, to keep doing it for people like me that enjoy 

reading about places to go and see with the RV-10, it truly motivates me to 

keep working on the plane so I can start enjoying the journeys as well.

Thanks for sharing your story Jesse!



Pascal

---

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:05 am Post subject: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?

Until you have run a tank of fuel out to the point of fuel starvation

and engine silence (in straight and level), the determination of XXX.XX

gallons remaining and useable are bold actions to be used cautiously by

RV-10 builders/pilots in my same insurance pool.  Add a simple turn or

two toward the same fuel side with that fuel remaining lower and the

pickup tube on the high side and you may just learn by someone else's

boldness the phrase "Old Bold Pilots".



34 years flying, and I too love night flights.  I love it more with two

turbines and more than adequate fuel still on board at touchdown.



Stay safe, fly often, live long - don't raise my rates.



John



--

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:38 am Post subject: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?

I would say that there's benefit to not only telling the story, because

lots of good info can come from that, but also benefit from the

people nit-picking a bit.  We all just have to make sure we're

not so sensitive to the opinions that we won't share, because

pretty much all info that I've read so far on this thread was

worth people contemplating.



Personally, I've never landed with less than 10-12 gallons

available yet, and don't plan to without serious consideration.

I've flown legs at least as long as 4.8 hours, at averages of

9.5-10gph, and with airspeeds even at 160, that means

you end up over 750nm (over 875 statute) in range. Plenty for most 

people to cover 1/2 day of a long trip before you stop.  For some,

that's a whole DAY's worth of flying.  So the -10's range will

satisfy most.  One of my other things I have to keep in mind

is that when I'm up high, flying LOP, my flows are low, so

I always operate with the realization that when it's time to

descend to the destination, my fuel flows will go HIGHER

as I revert back to ROP.  So fuel planning for me is important

to ensure that I get the most out of my range, without

causing any excess risk (or stress) from trying to make

that last few miles on minimum fuel.  I always operate with

the 30 min daytime / 45 night rule in mind, but with personal

minimums that are in excess of those minimums.



I have my fuel tanks set to warn me with a red alarm at

less than 6-7 gal per side, so stretching it down to even 12

gallons means I'm well aware of the situation by the time I get

there, as I'll be getting some noisy voice alerts by then.

Fuel starvation remains one of the most popular reasons

for off-field landings, so I choose to limit myself to about

10-12 gallons remaining on landing.  When I did fly the tanks

dry, it was under a couple specific conditions, and one tank

at a time.  I had to re-calibrate my tanks, and thought it

would be an "opportunity" to verify minimum fuel.  I climbed

to 5500' with one tank full and one nearing empty, and flew

a racetrack over the field.  As soon as it stumbled (which

happens VERY suddenly, by the way), I switched the selector

and had immediate full power.  I landed, calibrated the floats,

and on a later flight when the opposite tank was nearing

exhaustion I repeated it on that tank.  I stayed above

the airport the whole time, in case for some reason the

engine didn't roar to life with a valve turn.  It was very

nice to be able to know that the absolute fuel minimum was

right at the bottom of the tank.  I think only about 1 to

2 cups of fuel came out at most.  The unnerving thing about

the test was the realization that you can indeed use ALL of

the fuel in the wing, and not be left with anything

at all for contingencies.



I'll admit to a mistake I made a while back, on the old plane...

I planned to fly very far down on one tank, and then switch,

so I'd know my halfway point well in range.  I hit the top

of the highly questionable yellow arc on the old-fashioned

float needle indicator.  The needle moved not-at-all linearly,

and after maybe 20 or 30 minutes max of not glancing it at,

the family was cruising along over Florida and the engine

suddenly died off quickly.  A turn of the valve and we

were back under full power.  But, the nasty look from my

wife, along with the WHACK! on my shoulder told me I better

not give her an unexpected startle like that again.  I

didn't intend to run it OUT of fuel, just down to 4 or 5

gallons (it was an O-360).  But, I then saw the high

value of a totalizer, and a good electronic monitoring

system (that I didn't have)....oh, and of just being maybe

a little less complacent.



On the RV-10, some of you may have read my write-up a while

back where I had a leaky sump drain, that caused an in-flight

fuel leak where I lost fuel continuously over a period of

an hour or more.  With today's monitoring systems it's very

nice to know exactly how much fuel you're burning, and know

if it jives with what you planned.  I don't remember which

tank I used at the time, but having that problem gave me

time to think about it.  Considering I'd still be

continuing the flight for whatever reason (in that case

it was the weather, and the positives and negatives involved

in a letdown to fix it vs. having only a short time to

destination), I found that it probably would have been a

good thing to USE the fuel from that tank, and save the

other fuel, for as long as possible.  The way it ended up

though, I think I used the fuel from the non-leaky tank,

and still ended up with fuel leaking out of the other side

when I landed....so I never had an empty.  Not sure which

was the best, but it was a good thinking exercise.  Using

the fuel would have perhaps given me an empty tank, and

HOPEFULLY there would be no issues when swapping tanks

later.  Using the other tank guaranteed me a well-functioning

swap-free flight, with the option to turn back to that

leaky tank if I had a water bubble or some other

problem with the good one.  Some would say that just

plain landing and fixing it would be the most prudent,

but considering the risks of an unnecessary and unplanned

IFR approach, with storms nearby, that's not always

the path of least risk either.



Anyway, I guess I rambled enough.  The point is, regardless

of what someone posts for stories, it's nice to hear not

only the story but at least the good counter-points and

critique too.  It can help us all grow as pilots and learn

from the mistakes or successes of others.  Just don't

have the attitude that "if he can do it, so can I" because

there are too many variables to actually put 2 peoples

situations at equal.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

pascal wrote:

[quote] 

 

 I enjoyed reading the story and think the point was the capabilities of 

 the RV-10, not the FAA regulations and "what if's" that governed the 5/8 

 fuel left.  I'm sure with a 496 showing weather ahead and the current 

 level of instruments, that tell you to the minute, how much fuel is 

 left, the PIC saw what was and wasn't possible. They landed and all is 

 well. Jesse told us what they did to remain safe, and maybe he could 

 have explained the logic for what they did, but why need to?

 Maybe I'm missing the point, but I want others to feel encouraged to 

 tell stories, if this were me I would question if it was worth sharing a 

 story only to hear about the "legalities"  and how wise I was doing it. 

 I know we all care about the RV-10's staying in the air and insurance 

 rates but let's stick to "the most efficient 4-place" story versus 

 responding with rules and prudence. I'll go to my FAR's for that 

 information if I need it.

 So I am clear, taking advice from knowledgeable members, like a CFII is 

 appreciated, when someone asks for it and is the intent of discussion.  

 I read the NTSB monthly publication and in each accident review case I 

 ask myself what went wrong? how would I have handled the situation and 

 what could I have done to avoid being in this situation. In the end I 

 realize that I am only getting part of the story to the NTSB's best 

 knowledge, not necessarily all the facts (aka why the pilot did what 

 they did- which only that person would know).  Jesse told us the fact 

 that the RV-10 is quite capable of going far and efficiently, all some 

 are doing is surmising why the pilot made the choices he made to land 

 with less than 1 hour of fuel, which is not the intent of this story.

 I encourage all that have cross country stories, like Tim has done well 

 in covering on his webpage, to keep doing it for people like me that 

 enjoy reading about places to go and see with the RV-10, it truly 

 motivates me to keep working on the plane so I can start enjoying the 

 journeys as well.

 Thanks for sharing your story Jesse!

 

 Pascal

 

 

 ---

indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:41 am Post subject: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?

My two cents...Go get some cross country intruction in a plane without an 

engine, aka glider. Learn the meaning of next alternal landing spot. Never 

flown my sailplane at night, but that sure would be a scary thought.



I am although putting lights on the 10, slight contradiction.



May the force be with you ALL!



John G. (returning from hiatus)

[quote]From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>

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

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

Subject: RE: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?

Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 09:05:00 -0700






Until you have run a tank of fuel out to the point of fuel starvation

and engine silence (in straight and level), the determination of XXX.XX

gallons remaining and useable are bold actions to be used cautiously by

RV-10 builders/pilots in my same insurance pool.  Add a simple turn or

two toward the same fuel side with that fuel remaining lower and the

pickup tube on the high side and you may just learn by someone else's

boldness the phrase "Old Bold Pilots".



34 years flying, and I too love night flights.  I love it more with two

turbines and more than adequate fuel still on board at touchdown.



Stay safe, fly often, live long - don't raise my rates.



John



--

scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.co
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:06 pm Post subject: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?

Do not archive 

  

 Some of my thoughts about trip write ups. 

  

 I have decreased my story writing and general comments over the past while

 on Vansairforce because of someone blasting me for a comment I made. And 

 some view write-ups as showing off.  I think we all need to remember that the 

 people who respond in that way are the minority and the majority of us love the

 write-ups, we enjoy the pictures, and the enthusiasm we all have for aviation.  

 For some reason, people have the ability to be more critical and negative on 

 a forum and e-mail system. If you had some of the discussion that ended up

 negative with all involved at Oshkosh over beers and hot dogs it would be a totally 

 different conversation and outcome. You just have to shake your head and move on.

 I think most of the time, it is not the e-mail or response that is negative, but 

 the way that it is read or interpreted.  People assume too much.   

 You cannot take any of it personally. This RV-10 list has really been great.  

 I have lost sleep after being blasted publicly on other sites as well  

 (this was a motorcycling forum). It is no fun when someone does that to you.  

 Trust me, this has happened here, it is fun to discuss the what-ifs and be reminded 

 of rules.  

  

 As for the insurance topic, I want to share one thought with you because it is a pet 

 peeve of mine. I feel we don't have the right to criticize a persons flight, or performance 

 during a flight because of the effect it has on insurance rates.  Other than publicly 

 humiliating a person you have zero control over the way a person conducts the 

 flight.  When people try to control something they have no control of is when 

 they get into trouble in relationships, in business, and on RV-10 forums.  

 If you want to spend some time worrying about insurance it should be health insurance. 

 This year the cost of health insurance increased over 20% . Luckily my

 wife and I only were hit with a 17% increase.  Many were hit with 30% increases

 and this is not going to slow down.  I don't want to discuss the cause of this because

 I have zero control over what is causing this other than who I vote for.  

 My insurance on my RV-10 will actually drop $500 this year! Yeha!  

 In fact my insurance is only 10.5% of my variable costs over the last 12 months 

 (this includes no cost of the aircraft). Find a way to get fuel to drop 5% and that 

 will pay for 1/3 of your insurance for the year.

 If we all used more fuel, it would be cheaper once new refinery's opened also. 

  

 I feel their is a standard bell curve for pilot skill levels and the aircraft design 

 over a 5-10 year period will dictate the accident rate.  I also feel that since the RV-10

 is non-aerobatic and really is a stable aircraft during takeoff, landing, and

 in weather it will have a safety record that is better than the other RV's.  I bet we 

 could even calculate the safety record right now based off the number of hours already 

 flown.  

  

 Jesse, I can't beat that distance yet but you got me thinking that I sure would like to try.  

 I think 1500 nm in an RV-10 with 50 gallons (30 mpg) would be something to shoot for.

 I'll have to study winds aloft and fuel burn rates and see what it would take.   

  

 Keep all the trip write-ups coming! Happy flying and building! 

  

Scott Schmidt

scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com  



 ---

n212pj(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:16 pm Post subject: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?

I'm glad Tim made this post.  Here's another story.  



On a recent trip from NC to OR, it was getting close to twilight and I had a

bad case of "get there itus."  I'd been flying for three hot bumpy days,

plus one day laying over to wait out thunderstorms, so I wanted home.

However, after some simple arithmetic, I decided to set down 100 miles

short.  The airport was deserted.  Tied myself down.  Got a taxi, motel and

bad meal at McDonald's.  However, I was on the ground.  I had less than 30

mins of fuel left.  You can do all the flight planning in the world, but

wind direction and velocity can change, and if all you are is day/night VFR

equipped, with nothing but a watch and bouncing fuel gauges, you might be

guess-timating most of the time.  You've got to set and abide by personal

limits, and on that section of the trip I exceeded mine.  (Might have had

something to do with not knowing I'd run out of oxygen while at 12,500,

another stupid pet trick.)  I finally made the call, but much too late for

my self imposed limits.  



A fuel totalizer is my next purchase.  Tim's story about a leaking valve has

definitely caught the attention of whatever brain cells I might have left.  



John J.  

  40328



--

scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.co
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?

Woops, I just noticed an error in my last e-mail.  

 I meant to say, 

 "Trust me, this has not happened here, it is fun to discuss the what-ifs and be reminded  of rules."

  

 Kinda reminds me of a Mark Twain quote. "The difference between the almost right word 

 & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning."

  

 Sorry about that.  Everyone on this list is pretty good at raising questions without personally

 attacking someone.  I know what a personal attack looks like and it is not fun.  

  

 Do not archive

  



Scott Schmidt

scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com 



 ---

mritter509(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:27 pm Post subject: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?

As soon as I saw Jesse's trip report I wanted to tell him to duck into a 

foxhole because you just knew the flame throwers were going to blast away.  

Without a doubt one of us will be the first to bend an RV-10 and it will 

probably be due to pilot error.  No amount of whining by me about how you 

fly will prevent it from happening.  I'm just hoping I'm not the first to do 

something stupid (I suppose the flame thowers have never done anything 

stupid) and become the first RV-10 accident report.



Mark

RV-10/N410MR





[quote]From: Scott Schmidt <scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com>

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

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?

Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:04:33 -0700 (PDT)



Do not archive



Some of my thoughts about trip write ups.



I have decreased my story writing and general comments over the past while

on Vansairforce because of someone blasting me for a comment I made. And

some view write-ups as showing off.  I think we all need to remember that 

the

people who respond in that way are the minority and the majority of us love 

the

write-ups, we enjoy the pictures, and the enthusiasm we all have for 

aviation.

For some reason, people have the ability to be more critical and negative 

on

a forum and e-mail system. If you had some of the discussion that ended up

negative with all involved at Oshkosh over beers and hot dogs it would be a 

totally

different conversation and outcome. You just have to shake your head and 

move on.

I think most of the time, it is not the e-mail or response that is 

negative, but

the way that it is read or interpreted.  People assume too much.

You cannot take any of it personally. This RV-10 list has really been 

great.

I have lost sleep after being blasted publicly on other sites as well

(this was a motorcycling forum). It is no fun when someone does that to 

you.

Trust me, this has happened here, it is fun to discuss the what-ifs and be 

reminded

of rules.



As for the insurance topic, I want to share one thought with you because it 

is a pet

peeve of mine. I feel we don't have the right to criticize a persons 

flight, or performance

during a flight because of the effect it has on insurance rates.  Other 

than publicly

humiliating a person you have zero control over the way a person conducts 

the

flight.  When people try to control something they have no control of is 

when

they get into trouble in relationships, in business, and on RV-10 forums.

If you want to spend some time worrying about insurance it should be health 

insurance.

This year the cost of health insurance increased over 20% . Luckily my

wife and I only were hit with a 17% increase.  Many were hit with 30% 

increases

and this is not going to slow down.  I don't want to discuss the cause of 

this because

I have zero control over what is causing this other than who I vote for.

My insurance on my RV-10 will actually drop $500 this year! Yeha!

In fact my insurance is only 10.5% of my variable costs over the last 12 

months

(this includes no cost of the aircraft). Find a way to get fuel to drop 5% 

and that

will pay for 1/3 of your insurance for the year.

If we all used more fuel, it would be cheaper once new refinery's opened 

also.



I feel their is a standard bell curve for pilot skill levels and the 

aircraft design

over a 5-10 year period will dictate the accident rate.  I also feel that 

since the RV-10

is non-aerobatic and really is a stable aircraft during takeoff, landing, 

and

in weather it will have a safety record that is better than the other RV's. 

  I bet we

could even calculate the safety record right now based off the number of 

hours already

flown.



Jesse, I can't beat that distance yet but you got me thinking that I sure 

would like to try.

I think 1500 nm in an RV-10 with 50 gallons (30 mpg) would be something to 

shoot for.

I'll have to study winds aloft and fuel burn rates and see what it would 

take.



Keep all the trip write-ups coming! Happy flying and building!



Scott Schmidt

scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com



---

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:04 pm Post subject: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?

The intent of my posting was not to impugn the pilot. I simply wanted to suggest that there are a lot of considerations that need to be made before pushing into the last 10% of the fuel. My personal rules for using into the last 10% require me to visually watch the fueling of the level aircraft. The destination must be golden. That is Day, CAVU.  On one occasion while about 50 miles from destination I “declared minimum fuel”. ATC immediately tried to induce me to land at several airports in my path to TUL. I responded by again declaring minimum fuel. Finally they knew that I knew what it meant and I proceed to airport without any undue vectoring. At the time I had about 2000 hours in that aircraft but no fuel flow transducers or digital readouts that will be in my 10.  

         

  

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

 Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:08 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?  

  

       

Woops, I just noticed an error in my last e-mail.    

    

I meant to say,   

    

"Trust me, this has not happened here, it is fun to discuss the what-ifs and be reminded     

of rules."  

    

   

    

Kinda reminds me of a Mark Twain quote. "The difference between the almost right word   

    

& the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning."  

    

   

    

Sorry about that.  Everyone on this list is pretty good at raising questions without personally  

    

attacking someone.  I know what a personal attack looks like and it is not fun.    

    

   

    

Do not archive  

    

   

  

  

Scott Schmidt

 scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com     

     

----- Original Message ----

 From: Scott Schmidt <scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com>

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 1:04:33 PM

 Subject: Re: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?      

Do not archive   

    

   

    

Some of my thoughts about trip write ups.   

    

   

    

I have decreased my story writing and general comments over the past while  

    

on Vansairforce because of someone blasting me for a comment I made. And   

    

some view write-ups as showing off.  I think we all need to remember that the   

    

people who respond in that way are the minority and the majority of us love the  

    

write-ups, we enjoy the pictures, and the enthusiasm we all have for aviation.    

    

For some reason, people have the ability to be more critical and negative on   

    

a forum and e-mail system. If you had some of the discussion that ended up  

    

negative with all involved at Oshkosh over beers and hot dogs it would be a totally   

    

different conversation and outcome. You just have to shake your head and move on.  

    

I think most of the time, it is not the e-mail or response that is negative, but   

    

the way that it is read or interpreted.  People assume too much.     

    

You cannot take any of it personally. This RV-10 list has really been great.    

    

I have lost sleep after being blasted publicly on other sites as well    

    

(this was a motorcycling forum). It is no fun when someone does that to you.    

    

Trust me, this has happened here, it is fun to discuss the what-ifs and be reminded   

    

of rules.    

    

   

    

As for the insurance topic, I want to share one thought with you because it is a pet   

    

peeve of mine. I feel we don't have the right to criticize a persons flight, or performance   

    

during a flight because of the effect it has on insurance rates.  Other than publicly   

    

humiliating a person you have zero control over the way a person conducts the   

    

flight.  When people try to control something they have no control of is when   

    

they get into trouble in relationships, in business, and on RV-10 forums.    

    

If you want to spend some time worrying about insurance it should be health insurance.   

    

This year the cost of health insurance increased over 20% . Luckily my  

    

wife and I only were hit with a 17% increase.  Many were hit with 30% increases  

    

and this is not going to slow down.  I don't want to discuss the cause of this because  

    

I have zero control over what is causing this other than who I vote for.    

    

My insurance on my RV-10 will actually drop $500 this year! Yeha!    

    

In fact my insurance is only 10.5% of my variable costs over the last 12 months   

    

(this includes no cost of the aircraft). Find a way to get fuel to drop 5% and that   

    

will pay for 1/3 of your insurance for the year.  

    

If we all used more fuel, it would be cheaper once new refinery's opened also.   

    

   

    

I feel their is a standard bell curve for pilot skill levels and the aircraft design   

    

over a 5-10 year period will dictate the accident rate.  I also feel that since the RV-10  

    

is non-aerobatic and really is a stable aircraft during takeoff, landing, and  

    

in weather it will have a safety record that is better than the other RV's.  I bet we   

    

could even calculate the safety record right now based off the number of hours already   

    

flown.    

    

   

    

Jesse, I can't beat that distance yet but you got me thinking that I sure would like to try.    

    

I think 1500 nm in an RV-10 with 50 gallons (30 mpg) would be something to shoot for.  

    

I'll have to study winds aloft and fuel burn rates and see what it would take.     

    

   

    

Keep all the trip write-ups coming! Happy flying and building!   

    

   

  

Scott Schmidt

 scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com     

     

----- Original Message ----

 From: pascal <rv10builder(at)verizon.net>

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 8:06:20 AM

 Subject: Re: The most efficient 4-place cross-country machine?    

--> RV10-List message posted by: "pascal" <rv10builder(at)verizon.net>

 

 I enjoyed reading the story and think the point was the capabilities of the 

 RV-10, not the FAA regulations and "what if's" that governed the 5/8 fuel 

 left.  I'm sure with a 496 showing weather ahead and the current level of 

 instruments, that tell you to the minute, how much fuel is left, the PIC saw 

 what was and wasn't possible. They landed and all is well. Jesse told us 

 what they did to remain safe, and maybe he could have explained the logic 

 for what they did, but why need to?

 Maybe I'm missing the point, but I want others to feel encouraged to tell 

 stories, if this were me I would question if it was worth sharing a story 

 only to hear about the "legalities"  and how wise I was doing it. I know we 

 all care about the RV-10's staying in the air and insurance rates but let's 

 stick to "the most efficient 4-place" story versus responding with rules and 

 prudence. I'll go to my FAR's for that information if I need it.

 So I am clear, taking advice from knowledgeable members, like a CFII is 

 appreciated, when someone asks for it and is the intent of discussion.  I 

 read the NTSB monthly publication and in each accident review case I ask 

 myself what went wrong? how would I have handled the situation and what 

 could I have done to avoid being in this situation. In the end I realize 

 that I am only getting part of the story to the NTSB's best knowledge, not 

 necessarily all the facts (aka why the pilot did what they did- which only 

 that person would know).  Jesse told us the fact that the RV-10 is quite 

 capable of going far and efficiently, all some are doing is surmising why 

 the pilot made the choices he made to land with less than 1 hour of fuel, 

 which is not the intent of this story.

 I encourage all that have cross country stories, like Tim has done well in 

 covering on his webpage, to keep doing it for people like me that enjoy 

 reading about places to go and see with the RV-10, it truly motivates me to 

 keep working on the plane so I can start enjoying the journeys as well.

 Thanks for sharing your story Jesse!

 

 Pascal

 

 

 ---

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