What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-10 3D Upper Forward Fuselage CAD?

1001001

Well Known Member
Searching around, I haven't found one, but has anyone put together a 3D model of the RV-10 Upper Forward Fuselage Assembly? I have found the 2D and 3D panel models that Van's offers, but I'm looking for the ribs, intermediate bulkhead, skin, and other assorted parts.

If I had been thinking clearly about this, I would have done a dimensional take-off of the parts before I assembled it, but I didn't.

I can probably still do so, but it'll be a lot harder now, with the pieces riveted together.
 
Seeing no responses, I'll ask a further question:

Are there any RV-10 builders out there who would either trace the parts in question out on graph paper for me to model, or be willing to ship your parts to me so that I can measure and model them? I'd of course return them promptly, and make the resulting models available.

the parts I'm interested in modeling are:

F-1045-R
F-1045-L
F-1044
F-1068A
F-1068B-L
F-1068B-R

and optionally F-1044 (D-E-F)

I think having these models would be useful to people planning their panels.

Alternately, if Van's would be willing to release CAD files for these parts so that builders could more easily model this part of the airplane, it would be wonderful!
 
Available for download

The components you are looking for are available for download on Van's website
 
The components you are looking for are available for download on Van's website

Wow, really? All I have been able to find are the panel faces. I'm looking there right now and not finding them in the "Downloads" section.
 
OK, so when I open the RV-10 panel 3D assembly file available on Van's site, I see only the panel flat.

Out of curiosity, I downloaded the RV-14 file and all that shows up is some sort of bracket. I'm wondering if my CAD software is not interpreting the files correctly, somehow.
 
OK, so I found that the 3D CAD software I use (Alibre Design) has some sort of flaw in its IGS import that only shows one part of the assembly when importing it. I opened the file available on Van's web site using FreeCAD for Linux and now I see the whole assembly.

I'm not sure what's wrong with Alibre's import functionality.

Also, I found out that EAA apparently doesn't have the free deal with Solidworks anymore...it's now a 50% discount from the retail fee. Disappointing.
 
Very nicely done. Do you find onshape slow at times?
Only the initial load takes a while if you haven't used it for a while and it's no longer in your browser's cache. Once you are up and running, it's super fast on my computer (Macbook Pro with M1 and 16 GB memory).
One of the tricks is to use multiple tabs in your browser if you edit several things. Changing between complex parts takes a while but not if you have a separate tab for that part. You can just switch tabs instantly.
BTW on iPad and iPhone, don't use a browser, use the OnShape app. It's fast.
 
BTW, once I was done designing, I sent the panel data to a local water jet cutting shop and they did it for $100 including the material for the panel.
You can also try sendcutsend.com and have it laser cut for just a little more.

I am using the stock switch bar, punched out the holes myself.

I polished the parts and had them black anodized in a local metal processing shop for $130 (their minimum job charge).

I made use of the local FedEx print shop to print out the switch bar and subpanel mods at 1:1 scale (they only charge $1 per square ft). I taped the paper printouts to the material and then marked the holes and positioned the punch dies very precisely.
 
Has anyone here fit an Aerosport Products center console/tunnel cover/arm rest with the standard panel? I'm wondering if having the additional panel real estate available with the standard panel might be good.

I'm still really torn between their 10" panel, their 310 panel, and the Van's panel. I really like the look and feel of the Aerosport panels and especially their vent and switch panel mountings, but feel like maybe I should use the standard panel to give a little extra space for the instruments.

I'm pretty well decided on Garmin units, and all the layouts I've done show it being very crowded to fit a G5 alongside a GDU460 on the pilot's side. I know people have done it, but I'm not sure how they do it without cutting and modifying the Aerosport panel.
 
Yes

Has anyone here fit an Aerosport Products center console/tunnel cover/arm rest with the standard panel? I'm wondering if having the additional panel real estate available with the standard panel might be good.

I'm still really torn between their 10" panel, their 310 panel, and the Van's panel. I really like the look and feel of the Aerosport panels and especially their vent and switch panel mountings, but feel like maybe I should use the standard panel to give a little extra space for the instruments.

I'm pretty well decided on Garmin units, and all the layouts I've done show it being very crowded to fit a G5 alongside a GDU460 on the pilot's side. I know people have done it, but I'm not sure how they do it without cutting and modifying the Aerosport panel.

Yes, I started with the 310 panel and although it's a beautiful product it takes up way more leg room than I was willing to give up. My center upright console is machined from billet aluminum and I modeled it to match up perfectly to the center armrest. I also machined billet side panels (pictured but unfortunately laying on their sides) that run from the center upright console all the way down the fwd portion of the tunnel. To save weight almost every wall thickness is .0625". The vents are 3D printed "carbon fiber" and thread milled to accept Aerosport's vents. The back of them are angled to match the angle of standard Van's naca vent (without the flange) and have a 2" gap to allow for a scat tube connection. I've had everything installed in the plane and fits and feels very nice.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7961.jpg
    IMG_7961.jpg
    941.4 KB · Views: 306
  • IMG_7930.jpg
    IMG_7930.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 235
  • panel.JPG
    panel.JPG
    78.5 KB · Views: 215
Last edited:
Has anyone here fit an Aerosport Products center console/tunnel cover/arm rest with the standard panel? I'm wondering if having the additional panel real estate available with the standard panel might be good.
...
\
The way the Vans stock panel is designed (separate switch bar and panel) has some advantages: The cable harness will have lots of connections to the switches along the bottom and they only come off one cable at a time (vs. D-Sub connectors on the back of the Garmin units). So with the Vans design you can easily take the entire upper panel off and leave the switch bar and the cable harness in place. I have my lights also on a D-Sub connector, so the panel can come out with the lights.
The stock Vans panel has another advantage: more leg room since the bottom edge is quite a bit higher and quite a bit more forward. And the control stick won't need modifications. With the 310 panel, you have to make mods to the stick (most people bend it or, cut it then weld it, or angle the grip backwards).
I don't have a center console below the panel for same reason: to have more room for the legs / knees.
If you look at my CAD design, you will see that I was able to get a G5, two G3Xs, two GPSs, audio panel and AP head placed without interfering with any fo the ribs.
 
Yes, I started with the 310 panel and although it's a beautiful product it takes up way more leg room than I was willing to give up. My center upright console is machined from billet aluminum and I modeled it to match up perfectly to the center armrest. I also machined billet side panels (pictured but unfortunately laying on their sides) that run from the center upright console all the way down the fwd portion of the tunnel. To save weight almost every wall thickness is .0625". The vents are 3D printed "carbon fiber" and thread milled to accept Aerosport's vents. The back of them are angled to match the angle of standard Van's naca vent (without the flange) and have a 2" gap to allow for a scat tube connection. I've had everything installed in the plane and fits and feels very nice.
The GPS is a certified instrument and should be installed according to the installation requirements. The screen must be observable within your normal field of view and not down low on the center console - unless, you put an annunciator panel in front of you that has all the IFR specific indicators.
 
Question

The GPS is a certified instrument and should be installed according to the installation requirements. The screen must be observable within your normal field of view and not down low on the center console - unless, you put an annunciator panel in front of you that has all the IFR specific indicators.

My install was carefully considered per Garmin 2.4.10 and AC 20-138. The GTN is technically within the required field of view. The note at the bottom of section 2.4.10.1.1 states that "If a GTN is installed with an external EFIS in the primary field of view that provides annunciations discussed in the following section, then separate external annuciators are not required. The GDU provides all of the annunciations required by these sections".... I'm planning on a few annunciators but for oil pressure, fuel pump, etc. Help me understand what annunciators I need for the GTN that aren't being taken care of by the GDU460? I'm seriously asking as I have lots of time with the 750 but none with the G3X.
 
My install was carefully considered per Garmin 2.4.10 and AC 20-138. The GTN is technically within the required field of view. The note at the bottom of section 2.4.10.1.1 states that "If a GTN is installed with an external EFIS in the primary field of view that provides annunciations discussed in the following section, then separate external annuciators are not required. The GDU provides all of the annunciations required by these sections".... I'm planning on a few annunciators but for oil pressure, fuel pump, etc. Help me understand what annunciators I need for the GTN that aren't being taken care of by the GDU460? I'm seriously asking as I have lots of time with the 750 but none with the G3X.
The Garmin screen is specified as being visible 30 degrees from the top and 45 degrees from the left. I was guessing that you have to look more than 30 degrees down to see the screen?
The following are the needed annunciators: VLOC (G3X shows), GPS (G3X shows), Waypoint (G3X shows), Terminal (not sure), Approach (not sure), Message (I don't think the G3X shows when you have a message on the GTN!), OBS (G3X shows), LOI (G3X shows), Suspend (I don't think the G3X shows), CDI Source Select (G3X shows).
 
Thanks!

The Garmin screen is specified as being visible 30 degrees from the top and 45 degrees from the left. I was guessing that you have to look more than 30 degrees down to see the screen?
The following are the needed annunciators: VLOC (G3X shows), GPS (G3X shows), Waypoint (G3X shows), Terminal (not sure), Approach (not sure), Message (I don't think the G3X shows when you have a message on the GTN!), OBS (G3X shows), LOI (G3X shows), Suspend (I don't think the G3X shows), CDI Source Select (G3X shows).

Martin,
Thanks, I will investigate and add the appropriate annunciators for the notifications in question.
 
Has anyone here fit an Aerosport Products center console/tunnel cover/arm rest with the standard panel? I'm wondering if having the additional panel real estate available with the standard panel might be good.

I'm still really torn between their 10" panel, their 310 panel, and the Van's panel. I really like the look and feel of the Aerosport panels and especially their vent and switch panel mountings, but feel like maybe I should use the standard panel to give a little extra space for the instruments.

I'm pretty well decided on Garmin units, and all the layouts I've done show it being very crowded to fit a G5 alongside a GDU460 on the pilot's side. I know people have done it, but I'm not sure how they do it without cutting and modifying the Aerosport panel.

Yes. I too didn’t like the Aerosport center console so decided to keep the vans panel and fabricate my own center console. I put the G5 down there.

Blue insulation foam to make the mold then carbon over the top.
Made it as a one piece then put flanges to make the tunnel sides separate.

I had some sheet bent up in a zigzag for the panel to angle the radio stack towards the pilot. GDUs as far left as possible.
Did all the layout in solidworks first which made a lot of the layout and cutting accurate. There are some tight fits.

025D39E4-DA1A-4CC1-B1CF-DA3CA8F7BF01.jpg
 
Also, I found out that EAA apparently doesn't have the free deal with Solidworks anymore...it's now a 50% discount from the retail fee. Disappointing.

Still a heck of a deal -- about $50/year. When I used Solidworks professionally, it was $5000+ per seat plus a yearly maintenance fee far more than this. I used to jump through hoops to get a yearly student license that was between $100 and $200 per year just to do home projects and to stay proficient.

That said, as a user of this new subscription service, I recently received a feedback questionnaire from EAA that hinted that they were trying to strike a better deal on the software.
 
Richard, that's pretty impressive. How tall are you that you need that much leg room? I'm only 5'10" and don't find the 310 an issue with leg room but I could see others wanting the space. I do like your fuse panel there, very well thought out.
 
Yes. I too didn’t like the Aerosport center console so decided to keep the vans panel and fabricate my own center console. I put the G5 down there.

Blue insulation foam to make the mold then carbon over the top.
Made it as a one piece then put flanges to make the tunnel sides separate.

I had some sheet bent up in a zigzag for the panel to angle the radio stack towards the pilot. GDUs as far left as possible.
Did all the layout in solidworks first which made a lot of the layout and cutting accurate. There are some tight fits.

View attachment 23511

Your panel looks very nice. However, I would not want to have to shoot an approach with the G5 installed way down there. Hopefully that never happens to you.

Larry
 
I’m around 6’1”
It’s not so much the panel depth but a combination of depth and the width of the center console.
The whole thing was driven more by my desire to have the GDUs together and as far left as possible. Which led me to keeping the vans panel (modified with the zigzag)
I accept that the G5 on the center console is less than optimal but ultimately everything is a compromise and I don’t have any issue with it hangar flying.
A lot has to go wrong before that’s my last option.
 
If you are a veteran, solidworks gives you a license for $20 a year, not sure if that's an option for you, just throwing that out there for anyone that might be interested.
 
I might be the only other 10 builder these days who is considering using the Vans panel.

The contoured aerosport panels are awesome and I'll likely end up using the 310 but I really do question if the flat standard panel may be the way to go.

The aerosport products are great and I'm using lots of them, including the center console/armrest and the quadrant.

In addition, there's something cool about the flat metal panel. Not sure why, but it has a certain appeal.

Anyone else out there who has brought the console/quadrant together with a flat panel?
 
I might be the only other 10 builder these days who is considering using the Vans panel.
I am going with a stock panel and Aerosport Products center console with integrated quadrant. The cables will enter the tunnel in the forward section of the armrest.
 

Attachments

  • 2022-01-03 14-13-22.jpg
    2022-01-03 14-13-22.jpg
    176.4 KB · Views: 199
  • 2022-03-26 21-14-17.jpg
    2022-03-26 21-14-17.jpg
    470.1 KB · Views: 169
Last edited:
I too am planning on the Van’s flat panel. The 310 looks and other iterations look great, they are just not for me. My choice for controls will be the basic pull knob system along with an armrest/storage between the seats.
 
Richard,

I looked through the G5 installation manual and couldn't find a reference for a maximum tilt angle of the instrument, so I assume the angle of your console where it's mounted isn't a problem.

Have you found any issues with that?

The only thing I would think of, other than tilt angle, that would be a potential issue would be the mounting of the G5 well below the pilot's normal scan--it would be less likely to be scanned and might require excessive head tilt/movement in IMC and might present a problem if the pilot had to revert to solely the G5 for attitude reference.

Thoughts?

Not trying to blindly criticize--I really like the look of the panel as built, but I'm thinking it through.
 
How to fit the 750 into the RV-10 Flat panel

Hello,

I am finalizing my panel. We are planning a solid flat panel that includes in one piece the lower angle bar. Working with a professional panel builder. They have the 3-D model of the upper forward fuselage. No matter where they put the GTN750, it either hits the middle rib because it is too high in the stack or it requires a complete cut through the bottom of the mid-panel becasue it is too low. Both of which Vans says is a no-no.

How did others do it.

Feel free to respond via email to me via private chat or ask for my email. Pictures would be great.
 
Hello,

I am finalizing my panel. We are planning a solid flat panel that includes in one piece the lower angle bar. Working with a professional panel builder. They have the 3-D model of the upper forward fuselage. No matter where they put the GTN750, it either hits the middle rib because it is too high in the stack or it requires a complete cut through the bottom of the mid-panel becasue it is too low. Both of which Vans says is a no-no.

How did others do it.

Feel free to respond via email to me via private chat or ask for my email. Pictures would be great.

If you start with the autopilot on top, then the 750, it does fit under the rib and the sub-panel cut-out isn't affecting the bottom flange.
You can also take out the bottom flange of the sub-panel and restore the strength of the sub-panel by running an angle bracket across the bottom of it, see Guil's recent video (https://youtu.be/-Kjx14O5BBI?t=2838). In that case, there is additional room to add an audio panel.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2022-07-09 at 12.21.47 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2022-07-09 at 12.21.47 PM.png
    611.6 KB · Views: 93
Richard,

I looked through the G5 installation manual and couldn't find a reference for a maximum tilt angle of the instrument, so I assume the angle of your console where it's mounted isn't a problem.

Have you found any issues with that?

The only thing I would think of, other than tilt angle, that would be a potential issue would be the mounting of the G5 well below the pilot's normal scan--it would be less likely to be scanned and might require excessive head tilt/movement in IMC and might present a problem if the pilot had to revert to solely the G5 for attitude reference.

Thoughts?

Not trying to blindly criticize--I really like the look of the panel as built, but I'm thinking it through.

The mounting requirements are in 3.4.1 of the install manual.
The 30 degree reference is there.
Mine works out at about 28 and it all calibrates fine.

As for the placement and visibility, I definitely considered it not ideal in the planning but everything is a compromise and I just went with it. I have 2 other AHRS. I thought about putting it on the far left but really wanted to keep the radio stack as close as possible. So everything is moved as far left as possible. The bezels of all the stack and GDUs are 1/32 apart. There’s some tight metalwork in the background with lots of double flush rivets etc to make it all fit and remain strong.

I’ve just finished my 25h and after flying it a bit, it’s fine. It requires minimal head movement and really isn’t as low as it looks. The 28degree angle helps it present very clearly.
 
Hello,

I am finalizing my panel. We are planning a solid flat panel that includes in one piece the lower angle bar. Working with a professional panel builder. They have the 3-D model of the upper forward fuselage. No matter where they put the GTN750, it either hits the middle rib because it is too high in the stack or it requires a complete cut through the bottom of the mid-panel becasue it is too low. Both of which Vans says is a no-no.

How did others do it.

Feel free to respond via email to me via private chat or ask for my email. Pictures would be great.

I cut the flange of the sub panel. Providing you reinforce it all again properly I see no issue with it.
I reinforced all around all 4 sides of stack hole with 063x1x2 angle and riveted them all together. The flanges offset so the 4 corners are also tied together. The trays are then screwed into the long flanges with 4 #8 screws each on all 4 sides.
The trays are also screwed into angle off the front of the instrument panel as well.
You could probably tow the airframe by the radio stack now. And the sub panel is stiffer than before.
 
Just started modeling my panel in Autodesk Inventor. The problem is to find all other component STEP files.

I had to increase the height of the panel by just 0.5" and everything now perfectly fit.

P1-V1
P2-V1
 
Last edited:
Just started modeling my panel in Autodesk Inventor. The problem is to find all other component STEP files.
I had to increase the height of the panel by just 0.5" and everything now perfectly fit.
You are welcome to copy more components from my CAD model, the components can be exported in all kind of formats. I have modeled a start button, round buttons, GD-40 CO monitor, SDS components, IBSS battery, VPX-Pro, warning lights, flap switch, ACK ELT, LC-50 lighting controller, potentiometers, micro-LED strip, Globus AC controller, ignition key, forest of tabs and circuit breakers. See https://cad.onshape.com/documents/5...renderMode=0&uiState=638a2fe71e3aea28e8ef118e
 
Just started modeling my panel in Autodesk Inventor.
Concerning your design, you need to check the mechanical stability.
The G3Xs take out most of the panel itself, only a very floppy skeleton will be left and you have taken out pretty much all of the switch bar which gives the lower part of the panel stability.
The switch bar along with the left and right radio stack angle brackets also usually creates a rigid grid structure between the top and lower panel edge.
 
Concerning your design, you need to check the mechanical stability.
The G3Xs take out most of the panel itself, only a very floppy skeleton will be left and you have taken out pretty much all of the switch bar which gives the lower part of the panel stability.
The switch bar along with the left and right radio stack angle brackets also usually creates a rigid grid structure between the top and lower panel edge.

I haven't started a skeleton itself, but I will add a lower panel which will be a kind of support for the primary instrument panel. Like Richard did, And I will use it just for switches and circuit brakers.

The last thing is - where to find a shop to fabricate a custom fiber carbon item. Just 1 piece.
 
Back
Top