Zenith-Archive.digest.vol-be
September 13, 1999 - October 14, 1999
it's too tight anywhere, it'll soon 'wear' in :)
The best news is that once this is finished, the kit really starts coming
together more quickly. This center wing section is really the most labour
intensive part of the kit so far.
All the best,
Grant Corriveau
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>I have a Narco Transponder on my Europa, connected to its aerial on a
>ground plane about 6 foot away. Although my VHF radio (Garmin GNC 250) is
>fed from a separate bus, with widely separated aerial cables, I get
>intermittent interference when the Narco responds to a radar - just a short
>buzz as the identification lamp lights on the Transponder.
>Any ideas on what I can do to suppress the interference?
A very common problem . . . especially with "plastic"
airplanes. Your transponder puts out a stream of
very narrow, high power pulses that carry the digitally
encoded data for your squawk, altitude, etc. Common
propogation modes for the transponder to interfere
with other radios are coupling between antenna feedlines
(not case here because you've separated them), direct
radiation of transponder energy into the antenna of
the victim radio and radiation of transponder energy
into wiring associated with victim radio.
Try turning down the volume on your VHF comm and see if
the transponder noise is still there (of course you
have to do this while the transponder is being iterrogated
by a ground radar). If the noise goes away, then it's
most likely getting into the comm receiver's antenna.
Moving either or both of the antennas to increase
separation may do the trick.
If the noise does NOT go away, then it's getting into
the wiring. You can try ferrite filter "beads" on wire
bundle going into back of comm receiver, also shielding
may help. If push comes to shove, a filter assembly
consisting of inductors and capacitors on each pin of
the wiring to the comm receiver may be necessary.
Metal airplanes dont have the latter problem very
often due to the isolating effect of the aircraft's
skin . . .
Wish there was a "magic bullet" but what you're experiencing
can be one of the hardest problems to fix.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Independence Kansas: the >
< Jurassic Park of aviation. >
< Your source for brand new >
< 40 year old airplanes. >
=================================
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 701 "rumble" |
Claude,
I read the elevator cable interference with interest. I looked at the plans and
although I'm a long way from putting the controls in, it never hurts to look ahead.
Would it be possible to turn the elevator bell crank over (upside down) and put
the push
rod from the bottom of the stick to the top of the bell crank, then the cables
would not
cross and the motion would be correct? The push rod might have to have an offset
to
clear the torque tube and the seat bottom. I can't tell how close they might be
from
the plans and they are lacking detail here. Do you think this might be worth
investigating for my 701?
Chuck
claude wrote:
>
> Chris Boultinghouse wrote:
>
> > How is your radiator mounted? If external, could the low frequency
> > noise be the rumble of air through the radiator and along the fuselage?
>
> Chris.
> The water and oil rads are within the cowl.
>
> > I really cannot think of anything else that would sound as you
> > describe.
> >
>
> I don't like AT ALL the way the 7C1.1 bellcrank is mounted : ON THE TORQUE TUBE,
> which make the cable tight on a right turn (they even touch each other), and
loose
> on a left turn (or the reverse, depends how you crossed them).
> Having mounted it ON THE SIDE of the torque tube makes the things even worse.
> I coated each one with three shrink tubes. Of course AFTER having seen they touched,
> which means 2 hours lost to cut and reinstall the thimbles and Nicopress.
>
> Sure Chris Heintz was asleep on his feet when he designed this part...
>
> Claude
> PS : Chris, I reply through the list, it's ALSO a 701 list :-)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Wood <mawood(at)zoo.uvm.edu> |
>4. I plan on using this bird in acquiring my private. Anyone see any
>problems with that? Any suggestions? Thanks guys
> uncrt(at)aol.com
I don't know where you are, however in the states you need to do some hood
work for your private flight exam. Is your 701 going to have an attitude
indicator?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: 701 elevator control |
Chuck Deiterich wrote:
> Would it be possible to turn the elevator bell crank over (upside down) and put
the push
> rod from the bottom of the stick to the top of the bell crank
Chuck
The torque tube is few centimeters from the tunnel. When the stick is full forward,
the top
of the bellcrank almost touches the seat back "L" (length 1025 top of page 7F16).
You won't never clear the seat and could not move the stick left or right.
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven J. Devine" <steve(at)tzogon.com> |
>>4. I plan on using this bird in acquiring my private. Anyone see
>> any problems with that? Any suggestions?
>
>I don't know where you are, however in the states you need to do some
>hood work for your private flight exam. Is your 701 going to have an
>attitude indicator?
And you will need to have some other pilot fly off your testing hours as
well...
Steve
801
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Halsall" <halsall(at)nonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Jokey 701 wing tanks |
Claude wrote:
.......
> I opened both wing tanks valves and asked my passenger to close them as
soon
> as some fuel would go out of the cap hole onto the windshield.
> Nothing never came on the windshield.
> After a one hour flight, just before landing, I closed the valves and we
landed
> uneventfully.
>
> I opened the front tank : there was about half a gallon of fuel, and the
wing
> tanks were still full.
Hi Claude,
A friend had the same problem with the wing tanks failing to fill the header
tank. After his forced landing (no damage), the fuel started to flow. I
think his tanks were vented through the filler cap only, and I had supposed
that differential pressure on the wing was the problem. Interesting to hear
of your experience. Do you have any ideas what causes the problem? ( I see
from your later posting that you're going to add a Facet pump.)
By the way, I wouldn't use fuel on the windshield as a full indicator. I
noticed on the list that gasoline and Lexan didn't mix, so I experimented
with some scrap -- couldn't believe how quickly (instantly) the Lexan
cracked. With the fuel filler only inches away from the windshield on the
701, I'm looking for something to protect it.
Peter Halsall, St. Clements, Ontario
701 with wingtanks, fitting the Lexan windshield
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Jokey 701 wing tanks |
Claude and Peter
You guys are scaring me. I will only have two 10 gal wing tanks, no header
tank. The tanks came from ZAC with only vented gas caps. It would not be
good to take off on the first flight only to have the engine quit. The fuel
pumps (I will have a booster pump) may be good enough to pull the fuel out of
the wing tanks, both online and both full, I intend to have separate cutoff
valves
for each tank.
Chuck Deiterich 701
Halsall wrote:
>
> Claude wrote:
> .......
> > I opened both wing tanks valves and asked my passenger to close them as
> soon
> > as some fuel would go out of the cap hole onto the windshield.
> > Nothing never came on the windshield.
> > After a one hour flight, just before landing, I closed the valves and we
> landed
> > uneventfully.
> >
> > I opened the front tank : there was about half a gallon of fuel, and the
> wing
> > tanks were still full.
> Hi Claude,
> A friend had the same problem with the wing tanks failing to fill the header
> tank. After his forced landing (no damage), the fuel started to flow. I
> think his tanks were vented through the filler cap only, and I had supposed
> that differential pressure on the wing was the problem. Interesting to hear
> of your experience. Do you have any ideas what causes the problem? ( I see
> from your later posting that you're going to add a Facet pump.)
> By the way, I wouldn't use fuel on the windshield as a full indicator. I
> noticed on the list that gasoline and Lexan didn't mix, so I experimented
> with some scrap -- couldn't believe how quickly (instantly) the Lexan
> cracked. With the fuel filler only inches away from the windshield on the
> 701, I'm looking for something to protect it.
>
> Peter Halsall, St. Clements, Ontario
> 701 with wingtanks, fitting the Lexan windshield
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Knezacek <dknezace(at)bconnex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lexan & gasoline |
Hi Peter & Claude,
Regarding the problem of Lexan and gasoline, Jim Mantyla is using some
clear vinyl sticker stock over the windshield in the area of the filler
neck( just a small piece in the area that's in danger of a spill). His
plane has been flying for 4 years or so with no problem.
Dan Knezacek
>By the way, I wouldn't use fuel on the windshield as a full indicator. I
>noticed on the list that gasoline and Lexan didn't mix, so I experimented
>with some scrap -- couldn't believe how quickly (instantly) the Lexan
>cracked. With the fuel filler only inches away from the windshield on the
>701, I'm looking for something to protect it.
>
>Peter Halsall, St. Clements, Ontario
>701 with wingtanks, fitting the Lexan windshield
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Jokey 701 wing tanks |
Halsall wrote:
> Hi Claude,
> A friend had the same problem with the wing tanks failing to fill the header
> tank. After his forced landing (no damage), the fuel started to flow.
That's exactly what happened to me. Should the engine had stopped, I had
however something easier to do than to try a forced landing : close the header
tank, open the wing tanks, switch the boost pump on for few seconds, and restart
the engine. But I would have been too stressed to think of it (I thought
of it only after landing).
> I think his tanks were vented through the filler cap only, and I had supposed
> that differential pressure on the wing was the problem. Do you have any ideas
> what causes the problem?
You said it. The air pressure is higher on the header tank cap than on the
wing tank event, whether it's on top or bottom of the wing. I don't see
any other explanation.
> I see from your later posting that you're going to add a Facet pump.
Mmmmwell, I don't really need one if I can have a reliable gauge (I think of
the cork-spoke system). In this case I could simply run on the header tank, or
the wing tanks, but never both. I will test this first.
> By the way, I wouldn't use fuel on the windshield as a full indicator.
> I'm looking for something to protect it.
I would like too, but I have no idea.
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Jokey 701 wing tanks |
Chuck Deiterich wrote:
> You guys are scaring me. I will only have two 10 gal wing tanks, no header
> tank. The tanks came from ZAC with only vented gas caps.
That's fine, Chuck. You will have no problem of differential pressure. You'll
need the boost pump just at start.
(BTW with no header tank, I guess you won't put the battery in the tail for the
CG :-)
> I intend to have separate cutoff valves for each tank.
That's what I have, but I don't know if it is really necessary, I'll try with
only one later.
Claude
PS: Thanks Dan for the idea of the vinyl sticker on the windshield
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Vacuum vs. Electric |
With Steve's advice in mind, I'm looking at attitude gyros and turn & banks.
With what I've found and read, it looks as if I should opt for vacuum instead
of elec. I can use one vacuum pump and power both and the cost of vacuum
inst's. seem to be about a third of the electric powered. I need feedback
folks. What do you know?
Have any of you 801 guys bought a cowl yet? From Zenith? Is it any better
than some of the pictures show their wing tips to be? Should I look elsewhere?
Good advice on the GSP/COM, Claude. I'll wait till almost ready to fly to do
that piece. BTW, I'm Roger, live in Bahama NC and am putting together an
order for the 801. Much thanks to all of you. Any and all advice is deeply
appreciated. Rog
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Main battery cable size |
>Joe
>#2 copper is a whale of a cable. It will do the job no questions asked.
>Try Skycraft Parts in Orlando Florida (Inbound watts line, call information)
>they have the item with teflon insulation good up to about 600 deg. F. I
>paid less than $2 per foot for the stuff I got.
Check the wire for a part number stamped on it. Hopefully
it's Mil-W-22759 or M22759 wire which will be TEFZEL . . .
MUCH tougher than teflon.
>When you order it also order your braided bonding strap! I suspect the
>starter problem described earlier was due to a floating ground or poor
>ground in the system. Also don't overlook the expensive rubber engine
>mounts that you have installed. They work quite well for vibration
>isolation, but do not conduct electricity worth a flip. The engine must be
>grounded to the cage! (and the ground strap should be capable of carrying
>full starter current.
I encourage my readers not to use structure for any
ground returns other than incidental, low noise
accessories like nav lights, landing lights, pitot
heat, etc. Even the strobe power supply can ground
locally to airframe. The minus lead of the battery
likes to get it's own dedicated 5/16" brass bolt ground
right on the firewall where the bolt goes through a
forest-of-tabs ground block. Every device behind the
panel should ground to this block.
A braided strap runs from the engine side of this
brass bolt right to the crankcase. Don't install
bonding straps around the engine's shock-mount
biscuits. A single fat strap to the bolt is all that's
needed.
The forest-of-tabs ground blocks can be seen on our
website catalog along with custom braided ground
straps. For an airplane like a 'Fox or 'Star, a single
24 point block inside the cabin is sufficient. The
full up 48/24 kit we sell is for very complex airplanes
like a Lancair IV.
Keeping starter and alternator currents OFF the structure
will go a long way toward avoiding/eliminating future
noise and/or compass swinging problems.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Independence Kansas: the >
< Jurassic Park of aviation. >
< Your source for brand new >
< 40 year old airplanes. >
=================================
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
For those of you with transponders, what brands are you using and would you
recommend it?
Thanks,
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Ground Systems was: Main battery cable size |
>The point here is that ALL of the metal in the airplane should be at the
>same potential. This includes wings, tail surfaces, ailerons, flaps, just
>whatever is made out of metal.
>
>There is a current AD note on the Beech King Air series to install ground
>straps on the rudder of the airplane. The reason for this is that static
>electricity would build up charges on the rudder and then discharge to the
>fuselage. In the process of doing this the hinges would become eroded.
>
>Now our little GStars are not in the same speed range, and will not be
>flying through the same kinds of weather, but the point here is that you do
>not want different parts of the airplane to be at different potentials.
>
>What Bob suggested earlier is a fine way to go about doing that, but I
>suspect it is a bit of overkill. In our case we have a bonding strap that
>runs from the engine to the cage to the wings to the vertical tail and to
>the horizontal tail. To accomplish this a #2 copper wire runs from one of
>the starter mounting bolts to the lower left side engine to cage mounting
>bolt. The negative pole of the battery is grounded to the cage using a #2
>copper wire to the bolt that secures the cage to the shell underneath the
>baggage compartment floor. Short pieces of braided strap ground the wings
>to the cage and one long strap runs from the bolt under the baggage
>compartment floor to the tail section of the airplane.
Were talking about two different issues here. The "bond-everything-
to-everything-else mania swept through the Ez crowd about 10 years
ago. These efforts are to elminate and/or reduce noises in radios
due to static build up on surface of aircraft that causes tiny
currents to flow in not-so-well connnected joints like control
surface hinges. I've yet to see any confirmed case where this
was useful on a homebuilt and I doubt that it's going to show up
on anything less than a Lancair or Glasair in the 200 kts range.
The DC POWER DISTRIBUTION ground system is another thing all together.
Here, we're trying to (1) reduce the resistance in the starter
cranking pathways to the lowest practical value, (2) avoid running
battery currents through structure . . . especially welded steel
where unwanted magnetization can take place, and (3) avoid the
fabrication of ground loops where alternator and/or battery
currents flowing in airframe can induce noises in other systems
not well thought out with respect to installation and grounding.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Independence Kansas: the >
< Jurassic Park of aviation. >
< Your source for brand new >
< 40 year old airplanes. >
=================================
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
Bill;
I am using a reconditioned Collins TDR-950 w/ ACK encoder. Collins Microline
stuff is supported by S-Tec in Texas. Low cost and small size are it's features.
Eastern Avionics or American Avionics may have them.
Mike
Bill Morelli wrote:
>
> For those of you with transponders, what brands are you using and would you
> recommend it?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum vs. Electric |
> With Steve's advice in mind, I'm looking at attitude gyros and turn &
banks.
> With what I've found and read, it looks as if I should opt for vacuum
instead
> of elec. I can use one vacuum pump and power both and the cost of vacuum
> inst's. seem to be about a third of the electric powered. I need feedback
> folks.
I went with electric for simplicity. I've also got a bais against air
tubing, or at least making it leak proof. Still haven't found the leak in my
air compressor hoses.
However, it will cost your more, and if the electrical system goes down, you
will lose all your electrical based instruments. I plan on only flying VFR
so this wasn't a real concern. Cost is always an issue, but in this case I
voted for simplicity of hook up.
Don't remember the current draw on the electrical gyros, but it may be
something to consider if your engine comes with a low AMP alternater.
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Polstra, Phil" <PPOLSTRA(at)exchange.webmd.net> |
>
>
> For those of you with transponders, what brands are you using
> and would you
> recommend it?
>
I am also using the Collins TDR-950. I would recommend it as one of the few
(only?) transponders that will fit in your panel with the standard header
tank. You can see pictures of my simple panel (and plane construction) at
http://www.inetnow.net/~ppolstra/plane.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Melanie @ Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
Hi Bill,
I bought the Narco AT 150 transponder together with the Amercian Blind
Encoder (AK-350 ? - I'm in the office right now and don't have the type
here) from A/S. Never tried it (since the plane is not ready yet), but price
was okay and the stuff is certified.
The blind encoder had a very good installation manual included, the
transponder however came with no manual. I sent already a fax to A/S, but so
far no answer. Guess, I should give them a call.
Thilo Kind
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Morelli <billvt(at)together.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 10:16 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Transponder
>
> For those of you with transponders, what brands are you using and would
you
> recommend it?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck" <cps(at)tisd.net> |
I'm thinking of adding an electric fuel gauge to my main tank and saw a
nice unit at the boat shop. Do I need to have a reinforcing ring welded on,
and would I be better of with a unit from an aircraft supply. The unit I'm
looking at mounts on the top of the tank. Then would I be better pumping
wing tanks into bottom of tank.
Chuck
engine and firewall forward arriving this month
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | billn(at)ppiteam.com (PPITEAM) |
>For those of you with transponders, what brands are you using and would you
>recommend it?
>
>Thanks,
>Bill
Bill,
I am using Garmin's transponder, along with the 250XL GPS/COMM. I have an
ACK blind encoder. I bought them all from A/S. They provided the mounting
racks and wiring harness. The encoder feeds the transponder and also the
GPS. It is a nice set-up. I chose Garmin because of the 250XL - I like the
unit and its features. I used their transponder just to keep with the same
company.
For what its worth.
Zodiac 601HDS S/N 3556
Bill Nichelson
Bellefontaine, Oh
bn2(at)bright.net or billn(at)ppiteam.com
3300 Jabiru engine installed, wiring panel.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rich <rich(at)carol.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum vs. Electric |
Hey Roger, I'm in Spartanburg, SC. I'm also building an 801. I've got
the rudder, elevator, horizontal stab complete & working now on the
right wing. You're welcome to stop by if you're interested. Just let me
know when.
Later
Rich
________________________________________________________________________________
Hey Folks,
Just got home from our 3200 mile trip through the midwest, which included a
stop by the Zenith factory(Mexico, MO) to attend the "rudder workshop". My
very supportive Girlfriend and I really had a great time, learned a few new
tricks ( we have already built the elevator and rear stab. ) and flew the
601HDS taildragger and the 801. for those who haven't flown an example of
their projects yet, I can sum it up in one word, WOW! I was very
impressed with the stability, ease of manuvering and well behaved flying
qualitys of the 601, and as for the 801, what a trip!!! The 801 to me
compares to flying like a bird. Think about what you want to do, and then
just do it! It is one amazing little machine!
Laura, (my girlfriend) is new to avation, and I really want to thank Nick
Heintz for "showing her the ropes" delicately in the 601.
Let me just say that EVERYONE I ran into at the factory, Sebastian and Nick
Heintz, Chris B.,and Roger, were very nice to work with, and really are a
credit to the company. Saturday night, we had a very good meal at Barbary
Coast restaurant, followed by a good soak in Amerihost's hottub. (Nicest
hotel in Mexico, if you ask me, and not too pricey, $49.00, less the $5.00
off coupon we found in one of those travelers coupon books you find at the
rest areas). Sunday morning we were finished by 10:00 am, which was nice,
because we had plans to stay in Birmingham, AL that night, and got there by
8:45, with little effort.
What's next, Wings?????
Tracey New, Orlando, FL
601HDS- elevator, rear stabilizer and rudder done.
House boarded up, waiting on Hurricane Floyd............
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PWalsh8045(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Workshop |
...sounds like you are having fun with this...thats the whole point!...good
luck and happy building.
Patrick Walsh
CH601 hd w/150 hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>> I think the only place that wire size is an issue is the high amp
>> portion of the system & then only because the large wire gets
>> stiff & hard to route. This applies to systems with batteries in
>> the fuselage, etc. On the other hand, all new airplanes are going
>> to 28v systems, as far as I can tell.
Most of all "new" airplanes have been 28v for decades, the
type certificiated ones that is. The trend was started
when Cessna observed that buying one kind of thing in one
voltage version only was less expensive than buying the
same thing in two versions. Even the lowly C-150 went to
28v. It had almost nothing to do with weight since all of
the 28v hardware with the exception of wire was the same weight
as the 14v stuff. It was 95% driven by purchasing economics.
Many of my readers building big Glasairs and Lancairs would
LIKE to go 14V but their engine came with EXPENSIVE 28V
alternators and starters installed. EVERY voltage sensitive
part they have to purchase is uniquely "aircraft" which
will never be priced according to consumer driven economics
nor will they experience the product improvements we enjoy
in an unregulated, free market atmosphere . . .
>> . . . . This will surely affect the
>> future availability of avionics for replacements & etc. Remember,
>> the avionics manufacturers can pack more "stuff" on 28v boards than
>> they can 14v boards & can create smaller packages for transmitters.
The differences in electro-goodies between voltages is trivial
to none. The major drivers of volume and weight have to do more
with packaging and human interface aspects. A transmitter, for
example, can be quite tiny except for the need to get heat out
of it. While a 28v transmitter may be a couple of percent
more efficient than its 14v cousin, it's by only a very few
percent . . . given that the output stages have similar
efficiencies and output power, their size doesn't materially
change with voltage. BTW, most small signal stuff in avionics
needs to run a voltages much below 14v . . . this is good and
bad . . . it allows for power conditioning to take all the noises
and perturbations off DC power before it's applied to sensitive
electronics . . . it also drives up parts count and volume
of the system without much effect on its overall efficiency.
>> The only items from the auto industry are the alternator & the
>> battery & perhaps some lights.
. . . . and relays, electronic controlled fuel injection
systems, ignition systems, fuel pumps, blowers and fans,
contactors, and most important LOW COST SEALED GAS RECOMBINANT
LEAD ACID BATTERIES.
. . . . .The voltage regulator is now mostly
>> in the alternator. 28v alternators & batteries cost about twice as
>> much. Even the emergency starting issue is perhaps not such a big
>> deal as batteries can be hooked in series, even while in autos.
>> This would require two autos, however. This is all about a dead
>> heat right now, it seems to me, but don't forget that it is very
>> easy to step down voltage for lights & etc.,
. . . not really. It's the same problem for lights as it is for
radios . . . power conditioning of some type between the
bus and the working parts of the product. More parts count
and less efficiency. Your nav lights are the most energy
consuming system on the airplane . . . while a starter takes
a lot of POWER for 5 seconds (200A X 11V X 5S = 11K watt-seconds)
the nav lights are 6A X 14V X 7200S = 604K watt-seconds for
a two hour flight). Having a 30% efficient starter isn't nearly
as bad as having an 80% efficient lighting system when you
start tallying up the ENERGY budget required to utilize each
system.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Independence Kansas: the >
< Jurassic Park of aviation. >
< Your source for brand new >
< 40 year old airplanes. >
=================================
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding question... |
>I have already run a #2 ground wire from my battery to the cage of my
>Glastar and intended to use the cage as the rest of the ground pathway
>for the alternator and starter, specifically and for the rest of the
>equipment generally.
You're not doing anything different that a few tens of thousands
of production airplanes have done for decades with no perceived
problems. The reason we suggest alternatives to tradition is
based on the numbers of airplanes I've rented over the years
that have ground system influences that would only surface if
you were looking for them.
From time to time, somebody will write to one of lists with
a noise problem or a magnetic effects problem induced by
choices in system architecture.
>You suggested that a #2 cable be run right to the
>firewall for this purpose. My question: if I ran a #2 cable from the
>ground cable already installed at the rear of the cage, using a proper
>connector, to the firewall, would this be as good as a single cable as
>far as magnetic influences etc.
If you want to lower the probability of future difficulties,
you run a single conductor from battery (-) to firewall
ground stud and disconnect the conductor that goes to
airframe at the battery's mounting location. The battery (-)
wire should follow the same path as the (+) wire for as
far as is practical.
Drive ahead with what you have and see how it works out. I hesitate
to recommend any kind of rework when the system is not unlike
a whole lot of airplanes already flying. My recommendations
for ground system architecture are based on the best we know
how to do today and are guaranteed to eliminate probability
of some kinds of problems in the future and results in a quieter
electrical system. What you have now may well perform to your
expectations.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Independence Kansas: the >
< Jurassic Park of aviation. >
< Your source for brand new >
< 40 year old airplanes. >
=================================
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fred Hulen <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Avionics and wiring Vs compass |
Bob, I have enjoyed reading your posts. Could you please comment on what
we can do and "don't do" in regard to magnetic compasses. In particular,
I'd sure like to have a verticle card compass, and some users have good
success and some have terrible problems. I have heard that you should keep
avionics as far away from the compass as possible. Well, most
installations I see, the avionics stack is dead center right UNDER the
compass. What can we do... which items (transponder, com, GPS, etc.)
should be farthest away etc. And how should wiring be routed at the panel
or from firewall to panel to get best compass accuracy. Thanks Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> It had almost nothing to do with weight since all of
> the 28v hardware with the exception of wire was the same weight
> as the 14v stuff. It was 95% driven by purchasing economics.
It should not be a problem to mix 14V and 28V, there are hundreds
of DC/DC converters available at low cost with wide ranges of powers,
as well as input and output voltages.
Most of them have outputs isolated from inputs.
There was 6 months delay on 14V King VHF last year in Europe. I bought
a 28V one, fed through a 25W 12VDC to 24VDC converter, as big as a
matchbox. I just had to ground the input(-) and the output(-).
Cost about $80. Works fine.
Claude CH701 F-JCUO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Newell" <anewell(at)canuck.com> |
Bill:
I am using a Terra transponder and encoder. Performance has been fine to
date (105 hours in the air). Delivery was really poor but that was due to
the delay when Trimble took over ownership. I heard rumors that Trimble
was going to stop production but I have seen no confirmation of this. It's
such a nice compact unit that I'm sure it would continue to be built by
someone.
Regards,
Alan Newell, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
>
> For those of you with transponders, what brands are you using and would
you
> recommend it?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Newell" <anewell(at)canuck.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Main tank gauge |
Chuck:
Watch for clearance between the top of your tank and the fuselage skin.
You would need a really low profile unit unless you want to put a bulge in
the skin. I have a simple non-aircraft float system that works fine. It
is mounted in the side of the tank. I put a re-inforcing ring inside the
tank and bolted the unit to this ring through the tank skin. The ring is
in two halves so I could install it through the hole cut in the tank.
Regards,
Alan Newell, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
>
> I'm thinking of adding an electric fuel gauge to my main tank and saw
a
> nice unit at the boat shop. Do I need to have a reinforcing ring welded
on,
> and would I be better of with a unit from an aircraft supply. The unit
I'm
> looking at mounts on the top of the tank. Then would I be better pumping
> wing tanks into bottom of tank.
>
> Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | First cut on the canopy - sfsg |
| From: | "Grant Corriveau" <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Hi,
Well, I used the Zenith Newsletter measurements (issue no. 91) to make my
first rough cuts on the canopy. Of course I immediately had to set the
canopy on the airframe to get that 'wow, it sure looks like an airplane'
feeling.
With the 3 1/2" cutoff wheel in my electric drill the cutting went very
well.
Now definitely time to order that forward hinge option from Zenith.
Cheers
Grant
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | LIVING aircraft batteries . . . (was 14 vs. 28v) |
>Twice in the last 20 years I have been stuck with a
>dead battery. The first time happened at a middle-of-nowhere . . .
> . . . .Because I was in airplanes with 14 volt systems,
>their vehicles were able to provide jump starts which got me
>home . . . A 28 volt airplane has far fewer rescue options.
May I suggest that over half of all s.e. airplanes
flying today departed with a FAILED battery? We
tend to treat batteries in our airplanes like
batteries in our cars . . . it gets replaced when
it fails to crank the engine for perhaps the
4th or 5th time?
This means that the battery has been useless as
a source of backup energy for perhaps years before it
finally gets replaced. RG batteries are going to
make this situation worse, they maintain a lower
internal resistance than their wet and gel cousins.
They'll still get an engine started even futher
down the slide toward the recycle bin.
Please learn and observe some peventative maintenance
techniques almost unheard of in certified aviation.
KNOW (by measurement) or BE SURE (by periodic
replacement) or DON'T CARE (with dual alternators)
that the battery is capable of getting you home in
the situations which you fly.
You can find a lot of mechanics out there that curse
batteries for their various faults but very few
that understand how to live with them.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Independence Kansas: the >
< Jurassic Park of aviation. >
< Your source for brand new >
< 40 year old airplanes. >
=================================
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Raker <phadr2(at)yahoo.com> |
I don't recall which magazine it is. In the most recent issue of AOPA
"Pilot", EAA "Sport Aviation", or "KitPlanes", it was confirmed that
Trimble is in fact going completely out of the general aviation
business and planning to "orphan" the products which are out there. I
guess they couldn't find a buyer for the product line.
--- Alan Newell wrote:
>
>
> I heard rumors that Trimble was going to stop
> production but I have seen no confirmation of this.
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Melanie @ Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
| Subject: | First cut on the canopy - sfsg |
Hi Grant,
glad to hear that you are fitting your canopy on already. I'm looking
forward to put the engine on within the next few days.
In regards to canopy hinge mechanism: I don't like the left / right opening
canopy too much. The forward hinged canopy is looking sooooo much better.
However, I had the pleasure of seeing the forward option on Zenith's plane -
there are a few issues:
- it is certainly very hard to get it sealed so that no water can leak in
- the forward top skin need to be bend to make room for the canopy
longerons. The hide the opening a cover sheet is attached to the longerons.
I guess, it is very hard to obtain a good fit between the forward skin and
the covers (and avoid scratches in the forward skin).
I might have an idea how to improve this. Before I develop this any further
I need to know how far forward the canopy can be installed. Can the IP be
completely covered by the canopy?
Thilo Kind
company closed for the afternoon - hurricane Floyd is visiting us right now
(not a good time for flying...)
> Hi,
>
> Well, I used the Zenith Newsletter measurements (issue no.
> 91) to make my
> first rough cuts on the canopy. Of course I immediately had to set the
> canopy on the airframe to get that 'wow, it sure looks like
> an airplane'
> feeling.
>
> With the 3 1/2" cutoff wheel in my electric drill the cutting
> went very
> well.
>
> Now definitely time to order that forward hinge option from Zenith.
>
> Cheers
> Grant
>
>
> -------------
>
> -------------
> Zenith-List:
> http://www.matronics.com/zenith-list
> List
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
> Other Email
> Lists: http://www.matronics.com/other
>
> -------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PHIL_PFOERTNER(at)udlp.com |
I've been reading the archives and there seems to be a lot of questions about
things such as
wiring, nicopressing, bolt torques. All of this is covered in FAA
AC 43.13-1b, titled "Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices" , "Aircraft
Inspection and Repair"
I found it on the web for download at:
http://www.moneypit.net/~pratt/ac43/
It has been most helpful to fill in the holes.
Currently building HDS outboard wings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darla Golin <darlajean(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Attaching Fiberglass Saddle |
>
>But they, being aluminum do NOT work well. You would be better off to use
>nut plates if you can get to the back to set the small rivets that hold them.
Hi Guys,
Cy, I'm afraid I must disagree on your anti-rivnut
recommendation.(there's a couple of double negatives in there I think :)
but....)
I've used rivnuts all over the aircraft for non-structural
fastening- from inspection covers to instrument mounting. The fibreglass
saddle is a typical example of where rivnut use shines. They are easy and
quick to install and in 850 hours I have never had a failure.
Again, I stress thier use in in non-structural applications.
I learned about rivnuts from another builder (Mike Fothergill)
early on in the building process, and wondered where they'd been all my life.
I consider a rivnut gun (along with a Dremel and a tight fit drill
kit) to be a indispensible in building our kitplanes.
Cheers, Mike Slaughter
>>
>>Rivnuts are rivets that have threads on the inside that will take a machine
>>screw like 6-32, 8-32 etc. These would be good for inspection hole covers.
> They
>>install like pop rivets but instead of the mandrel that breaks off when
>you pull
>>it, there is a threaded rod which is pulled and then unscrewed from the
>rivnut.
>>You can buy a special rivnut puller or buy a rod that can be pulled with a
>>regular puller.
>>Chuck Deiterich 701
>>
>>Grant Corriveau wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Mike,
>>> What are rivnuts?
>>>
>>> Grant
>>>
>>> ----------
>>> >From: Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca>
>>> >To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>>> >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Attaching Fiberglass Saddle
>>> >Date: Fri, Sep 10, 1999, 9:46 AM
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Fred;
>>> > I used rivnuts on the fiberglass.
>>> > Mike
>>>
>>> Matronics: http://www.matronics.com
>>> Zenith-List: http://www.matronics.com/zenith-list
>>> Archive Search Engine: http://www.matronics.com/search
>>> Archive Browsing: http://www.matronics.com/archives
>>> Other Email Lists: http://www.matronics.com/other
>>
>>
>Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact!
>Visit our web site at... http://www.bellanca-championclub.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cy Galley <cgalley(at)accessus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Attaching Fiberglass Saddle |
The reason that I don't like riv-nuts is that you can easily over torque
them. Or the screw corrodes and binds so that the removal spins the
riv-nuts. Either way the riv-nut spins so you have to drill them out and
start over. This is especially true on thin soft aluminum. It takes a
little more work to install a plate nut but after installation, you are
done.
1.The plate nut doesn't insert any thickness between fastened sheets.
2. You can use countersunk screws.
3. They spread the load over a larger area.
4. You can even get floating plate nuts.
5. They are structurally stronger.
But riv-nuts can be installed blind which is the only reason to use them.
Cy Galley - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
EAA volunteer from Chapter 75 for 28 continous years
>
>>
>>But they, being aluminum do NOT work well. You would be better off to use
>>nut plates if you can get to the back to set the small rivets that hold
them.
>
>Hi Guys,
> Cy, I'm afraid I must disagree on your anti-rivnut
>recommendation.(there's a couple of double negatives in there I think :)
>but....)
> I've used rivnuts all over the aircraft for non-structural
>fastening- from inspection covers to instrument mounting. The fibreglass
>saddle is a typical example of where rivnut use shines. They are easy and
>quick to install and in 850 hours I have never had a failure.
> Again, I stress thier use in in non-structural applications.
> I learned about rivnuts from another builder (Mike Fothergill)
>early on in the building process, and wondered where they'd been all my life.
> I consider a rivnut gun (along with a Dremel and a tight fit drill
>kit) to be a indispensible in building our kitplanes.
> Cheers, Mike Slaughter
>
>
>
>>>
>>>Rivnuts are rivets that have threads on the inside that will take a machine
>>>screw like 6-32, 8-32 etc. These would be good for inspection hole covers.
>> They
>>>install like pop rivets but instead of the mandrel that breaks off when
>>you pull
>>>it, there is a threaded rod which is pulled and then unscrewed from the
>>rivnut.
>>>You can buy a special rivnut puller or buy a rod that can be pulled with a
>>>regular puller.
>>>Chuck Deiterich 701
>>>
>>>Grant Corriveau wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike,
>>>> What are rivnuts?
>>>>
>>>> Grant
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> >From: Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca>
>>>> >To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>>>> >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Attaching Fiberglass Saddle
>>>> >Date: Fri, Sep 10, 1999, 9:46 AM
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Fred;
>>>> > I used rivnuts on the fiberglass.
>>>> > Mike
>>>>
>>>> Matronics: http://www.matronics.com
>>>> Zenith-List: http://www.matronics.com/zenith-list
>>>> Archive Search Engine: http://www.matronics.com/search
>>>> Archive Browsing: http://www.matronics.com/archives
>>>> Other Email Lists: http://www.matronics.com/other
>>>
>>>
>>Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact!
>>Visit our web site at... http://www.bellanca-championclub.com
>>
>>
>
>
Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact!
Visit our web site at... http://www.bellanca-championclub.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "barry mayne" <bazmay(at)ozemail.com.au> |
G'day group,
Some time back the subject of removal of the axle bolts on the nose wheel
was raised. I can't remember who raised the question of how can both bolts
be removed from the axle to remove the nose wheel. This question has plagued
me ever since, as the thought of being stranded out in the backblocks
somewhere with a flat tyre (tire to you ) and a big problem of removing the
wheel did not really appeal.
While fitting the wheel fairings last night I decided to remove the wheel to
see how difficult it would be. THE GOOD NEWS IS -- 5 minutes.
Here's how, With a spanner (wrench to you) on each bolt, attempt to undo
both at once, one will undo , the other will not. Unscrew the loose one
about 1/4" then push inward, the fork will flex a bit and you will be able
to see the hexagon head of the nut that is welded to the axle. Using a thin
spanner such as is used on bicycles ( 1/8" thick) place on the welded nut
to secure the axle and the tight bolt can be easily loosened. The thin
spanner will definetely be part of my in flight tool kit.
I hope this helps someone
Barry Mayne HDS (waiting for engine arrival and warmer weather to work on
bubble) down in the great land of OZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Douglas <ddouglas(at)coastside.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Jokey 701 wing tanks |
Claude (and other Zenith builders): Check out the following website:
http://www.ppavionics.com
We've got a real neat fuel pump controller that allows the pilot to initiate
the fuel transfer and the controller automatically shuts off the transfer pump
when the supply tank is empty. It has has a manual pump mode; here the
controller providea 5-minute (or 3-minute) pump times (thats about 2.5 or 1.5
gallons at the nominal 30 gal/hr rate.) We are working on a single pump
controller, for those with only one supply tank..
Dennis Douglas
Pillar Point Avionics, Inc.
Halsall wrote:
> > I opened the front tank : there was about half a gallon of fuel, and the
> wing
> > tanks were still full.
> Hi Claude,
> A friend had the same problem with the wing tanks failing to fill the header
> tank. After his forced landing (no damage), the fuel started to flow. I
> think his tanks were vented through the filler cap only, and I had supposed
> that differential pressure on the wing was the problem. Interesting to hear
> of your experience. Do you have any ideas what causes the problem? ( I see
> from your later posting that you're going to add a Facet pump.)
> ...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Melanie @ Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
Hi Bill,
all stiffeners and channels are riveted to the firewall. The plane is on
wheels (tricycle gear), the steering rods are connected to the nose wheel.
The firewall and all items attached are spraypainted. The firewall is at
this point only clecoed to the fuselage (with the exception of 6F9-3, which
is already riveted).
I ordered the small header tank, but decided not to install it (I don't like
to have fuel in the cabin). Fuel will be supplied from the L/E wings tanks.
22 gal will give me 3 hours of flying time - should be enough for my
purpose. I realize, that I might have some CG problems (Rotax 912) without
the header tank, which probably can be avoided by finding a nice location
for a very big battery. The IP, however, has the reinforcement angles (that
hold the header tank straps) attached.
I tried to fit the header tank in and found it very, very tight.
Thilo Kind
>
> I see you are hanging your engine soon. How much did you do
> on your firewall
> before getting ready to hang the engine.
>
> Do you have a header tank? 16 gallon or 8 gallon? Did you
> have any trouble
> hanging the header tank?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Firewall |
Greetings from a new lister. Wouldn't 22 gallons give you more than 3 hours
with a Rotax 912?
Chris Carey
Richmond, VA
601 HDS 64901
Rudder done @ 8/27 workshop; stabilizer & elevator done..going to wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Firewall |
A Rotax 912 gets about 4.5 gal/hr at 75% according to Leading Edge.
Chuck D.
SEAL2CC(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Greetings from a new lister. Wouldn't 22 gallons give you more than 3 hours
> with a Rotax 912?
>
> Chris Carey
> Richmond, VA
> 601 HDS 64901
> Rudder done @ 8/27 workshop; stabilizer & elevator done..going to wings
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PWalsh8045(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 601 nose wheel |
thank you..that has been a concern of mine as well...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | RG-400 coax, crimp tools and other goodies . . . |
For those who are looking for the RG-400 coax cable, we'll have it
in stock Monday (9-20) at $1.75/ft
We will custom assemble RG-400 assemblies with BNC male
connectors for $4.00 per connector additional.
We'll be stocking crimp on BNC connectors -and- tools to
install the connectors . . . the tools will be $40.00 each.
Connectors will be $10.00 for a bag of six.
For those who missed out on the refurbished machine pin crimp
tools for D-sub connectors last spring, we have located another
source for NEW, low cost tools. These will be $38.00 each and
will show up in our website catalog next week.
We have heatguns for installing heat shrink tubing at $23.00 ea.
We'll be posting wire marking kits which will include a pre-
printed sheet of adhesive backed numbers and an assortment
of CLEAR heatshrink . . . probably enough to do a complete
airframe. Haven't decided on the cost yet . . . somewhere
around $16.00.
A BIG expansion of our inventory and website catalog is in
the works. We're debugging new shopping cart software for
our website. After a contractor gets done with some basement
repairs which includes our shop area, we'll be putting up
about 400 square feet of shelving to hold LOTS of electro-
goodies.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Independence Kansas: the >
< Jurassic Park of aviation. >
< Your source for brand new >
< 40 year old airplanes. >
=================================
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Melanie @ Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Firewall |
Based on a 4.5 gal per hours it will give me more, but there is a VFR
requirement and my personal preference (I rather like to land on an airport
with a few gallons left than try a forced landing...)
Thilo Kind
> Greetings from a new lister. Wouldn't 22 gallons give you more than 3
hours
> with a Rotax 912?
>
> Chris Carey
> Richmond, VA
> 601 HDS 64901
> Rudder done @ 8/27 workshop; stabilizer & elevator done..going to wings
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)presys.com> |
| Subject: | header tank, fuel, CG |
I also observed the failure of the factory 701 header tank to remain full
under gravity feed. Even though it flew all the way to Sun-n-Fun that way I
am uncomfortable when something doesn't work properly in a fuel system.
With the small header tank which I have and plan to install, the reserve is
inadequate if it is not full when the wing tanks go dry.
Since gravity is "the Law" the problem has to be either in the return vent
line as an obstruction or differential pressures from multiple vents.
I am planning to install a forward facing over-flow vent under one wing
tank. The header tank and the other wing tank will be vented to the TOP or
that tank. If this doesn't work properly I don't understand gravity.
It is my understanding that the CG tends too far forward with the 912
installation. Skipping the header tank should improve the balance allowing
the battery to be moved to a more convenient location, closer to the engine,
where it can be serviced properly.
Richard Holcombe
holcombe(at)presys.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: Sound deadeners from 3-M |
----- Original Message -----
From: fhulen <fhulen(at)gabs.net>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 11:11 PM
Subject: Sound deadeners from 3-M
> I followed up on the 3-M foil backed sound deading material that has been
> mentioned lately. Called them and requested samples. Just received some
of
> the 2552 version that was discussed earlier. Since I only got one type, I
> called them again and this time I got to talk to one of the engineers the
> REALLY knew his stuff. They have a thicker and heavier product # 4014
that
> is .25" (6.35mm) and is a some sort of foam core with the thin aluminum
foil
> on top. It says right on the spec sheet that it meet the FAR flamability
> regs, and he said they supply it to quite a lot of aviation vendors
> including Cessna. He said that in fact the 2552 foil and elastomeric
(sp?)
> will not support flame either. I told him about our projects and asked
him
> "how much do we actually need to use relative to the full size of the
panel
> we are working with?" He said to definately put the material in the middle
> of the panel, and that covering any more than 50% of the panel would be
> beyond the point of cost Vs benefit. The 4014 claims good insulating
> properties as well as the sound deadening, so it would be excellent for
the
> inside of the firewall. I will be requesting samples on the 4014 and
report
> more when I get a look and test it on some pieces of aluminum sheeting.
>
> Speaking of which... The sample pieces they sent were about 2" X 5" each,
so
> I took a piece of .016 thick 6061 and cut two indentical pieces about 10"
X
> 12". Tested to see if there was any noticable difference in noise when
each
> piece was struck in the middle to produce the usual nasty sounding rattle.
> One of them seemed to have just a tiny bit more volume, so I peeled the
> cover of the adheasive back and placed a single one of the samples in the
> middle of the one that seemed to have a little more noise about it. Wow,
it
> was amazing! Holding them by the corner and stricking them in the middle,
> the untreated piece went "Brang...." and the one with the deadener on it
> went sort of "brunk"... (how were those for descriptive words?) What makes
> this so amazing is that if you turn both of them over so you can't see
which
> one has the sound deadener on it, you will have a very hard time trying to
> tell by feeling for any weight difference. I can certainly see putting at
> least one of theses tiny pieces on the middle of each of the large noisy
> panels in the rear fuselage and on tahe back side of the noisy baggage
floor
> and bulkhead.
>
> One possible problem... 3-M told me the standard quantities that they are
> sold in, and it's isn't pratical for us. I'm going to do more follow up,
> call the 3-M distributors from the list they sent me to see if any of them
> will sell small order quantities and let you know when I have more to
share.
> Fred
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: 701 header tank, fuel, CG |
HOLCOMBE wrote:
> Since gravity is "the Law" the problem has to be either in the return vent
> line as an obstruction or differential pressures from multiple vents.
Don't worry, Dick, Newton's still going strong...
The fuel flows free when plane on the ground, conclusion : lines are not obstructed.
It does not flow in flight, conclusion the pressure is higher at the header
tank vent than at the wing tank vents.
> I am planning to install a forward facing over-flow vent under one wing
> tank. The header tank and the other wing tank will be vented to the TOP or
> that tank. If this doesn't work properly I don't understand gravity.
On my 701 it does not work at all with the wings vents under the wing, where
the pressure is higher than on top (or I don't understand how planes are flying...).
So don't loose your time trying with vents on top.
My today's menu is :
Appetizers :
Tapping the underwing vents and installing a forward facing vent to the top.
Main :
Replacing the tube gauge (where the fuel reaches the tube bottom while the tank
is still half full) with a cork-and-stroke gauge on the header tank cap.
Dessert :
Inserting a Facet pump in the wing tanks line.
> Skipping the header tank should improve the balance.
Easy to say....
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LIVING aircraft batteries . . . (was 14 vs. 28v) |
| From: | "Grant Corriveau" <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Bob,
I am enjoying your postings about aircraft electrics very much - most
helpful.
In light of this recent posting, do you have any recommendations about the
instrumentation I should install in my aircraft to give me the best picture
of the state of my battery?
Regards,
Grant
----------
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
>To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>Subject: Zenith-List: LIVING aircraft batteries . . . (was 14 vs. 28v)
>Date: Thu, Sep 16, 1999, 10:20 AM
>
>
>
>
>>Twice in the last 20 years I have been stuck with a
>>dead battery. The first time happened at a middle-of-nowhere . . .
>> . . . .Because I was in airplanes with 14 volt systems,
>>their vehicles were able to provide jump starts which got me
>>home . . . A 28 volt airplane has far fewer rescue options.
>
>
> May I suggest that over half of all s.e. airplanes
> flying today departed with a FAILED battery? We
> tend to treat batteries in our airplanes like
> batteries in our cars . . . it gets replaced when
> it fails to crank the engine for perhaps the
> 4th or 5th time?
>
> This means that the battery has been useless as
> a source of backup energy for perhaps years before it
> finally gets replaced. RG batteries are going to
> make this situation worse, they maintain a lower
> internal resistance than their wet and gel cousins.
> They'll still get an engine started even futher
> down the slide toward the recycle bin.
>
> Please learn and observe some peventative maintenance
> techniques almost unheard of in certified aviation.
> KNOW (by measurement) or BE SURE (by periodic
> replacement) or DON'T CARE (with dual alternators)
> that the battery is capable of getting you home in
> the situations which you fly.
>
> You can find a lot of mechanics out there that curse
> batteries for their various faults but very few
> that understand how to live with them.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ////
> (o o)
> ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
> < Independence Kansas: the >
> < Jurassic Park of aviation. >
> < Your source for brand new >
> < 40 year old airplanes. >
> =================================
> http://www.aeroelectric.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LIVING aircraft batteries . . . (was 14 vs. 28v) |
<< I should install in my aircraft to give me the best picture
of the state of my battery? >>
Great question.....I've always wondered the exact same thing.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jimingerman" <jimingerman(at)email.msn.com> |
howdy
Thanks for the good research on the sound deadening foil, Fred. I am ready
to buy some for the large panels on my 801. I am even considering dampening
between the ribs outboard of the wing tanks. As to the possible glitch of
quantity i would be willing to bank a large (not huge) order and wharehouse
and ship to a few of us builders if 3M can ship, say, enough for about 3 or
4 projects or 500 bucks worth. No charge, but I would have to recover actual
shipping costs.
How about price?
I'm thinking the 2552 just about every where except the fire wall.Okay, 32sf
for both wings(40sf for standard fuel) and since I don't have the fuse
yet,say about 24sf for it. So thats 56sf total for an 801 w/xtd fuel. If the
4014 will work on the fire wall, thats about a yard.What quantity WILL they
ship?
hope we can make something work------- jim
Jim Ingram
Yamhill Oregon
801 - wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
>
> howdy
>
> Thanks for the good research on the sound deadening foil, Fred. I am ready
> to buy some for the large panels on my 801. I am even considering
dampening
> between the ribs outboard of the wing tanks. As to the possible glitch of
> quantity i would be willing to bank a large (not huge) order and
wharehouse
> and ship to a few of us builders if 3M can ship, say, enough for about 3
or
> 4 projects or 500 bucks worth. No charge, but I would have to recover
actual
> shipping costs.
++++ Mighty generous of you Jim. I own an Audio/Video specialty store, so
3-M shouldn't have a problem setting me up as a dealer outlet from one of
their distributors. I have a full schedule Monday, but will try to contact
one or more of distributos Tuesday to see what kind of a deal we can get
worked out. Assuming we find a suitable arrangement, I can act as the
purchase agent for you and try to have them "drop ship" it directly to you
(since you're footing the bill).
>
> How about price?
++++ That too will be determined and I'll get back to you.
Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Mandell <tmandell(at)jps.net> |
| Subject: | 601HDS aileron trim tab wiring |
Can anyone who has installed a trim tab on the aileron (using electric
servo) tell me how they routed the wiring? Did you drill a hole through
the aileron and then into the rear "z" of the outboard wing? Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Payson" <payce(at)niagara.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 601HDS aileron trim tab wiring |
Tom:
I did exactly that. A hole in the back of the aileron and one in the rear
Z. I offset the holes about 3 inches so that the wire rolls with the
airleron motion rather that bending back and forth. Should help prevent
wire breakage.
Well I got the bird painted yesterday. Looks really nice if I do say so
myself. Just need to put the registration marks on the side and take a
picture so that I can apply for my C of A. Then I'll be ready for my final
inspection and off we go into the wild blue yonder. (I hope not too wild)
Dave Payson
CH601HD with forward opening canopy (own design), dual sticks, turbocharged
EA81. C-GDRP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ldpahnke" <ldpahnke(at)mvn.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 601HDS aileron trim tab wiring |
The routing suggested is the way to install it with grommets etc. The offset mentioned
between the rear zee and the front wall of the aileron is a good way (minimizes
flexion) and it was necessary to allow enough slack for assembly
of wing / airleron rivet line. Another idea might be to use a nylon cable loop
(Avdel type) and use it to fix the cable at the servo. The nylon loop can be
riveted inside aileron sharing the first one of small access panel rivets,
then pivoting the panel in place for final closure, thus preventing the cable
from vibrating around at the servo etc. LDP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Sa <wings(at)axess.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Soundproofing |
I remember some time ago (a year or two) I heard of a soundproofing
spray. There was a web site with information on it. I did some
searching, but all I could find was an entry in the A.S.&S. catalog for
this:
09-42735 SUPER SOUNDPROOFING LIQUID PT 11.95
I could not find any descriptive text for the product.
Hope this is of useful to someone...
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Instrument panel |
Our local EAA chapter had a good program on instument panels. The guy doing
the program used the "Panel Planner" software to create his panel. It
looked really good! Have any of you used it for a 601 panel... and if so,
did everything fit when it was compared to the actual piece of metal?
Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 912 601 HDS Weight and Balance |
| From: | "James Ashford" <jashford1(at)earthlink.net> |
For those of you building or thinking of a 912 UL powered 601HDS and are
concerned about the reportedly tail heavy(nose light) results of this
combination, read on.
I did my weight and balance Thursday and came up with a total weight of 593
pounds and a CG 10.05" aft of Datum.
In addition to standard ZAC equipment, the following was installed;
Vacuum pump with associated filter and regulator
Concorde sealed lead acid battery mounted on firewall
Facet boost pump mounted on firewall
Full flight instruments
King VHF transceiver and transponder panel mount
Strobe power supplies attached to center wing forward ribs
Ameri-king ELT complete with 6 D cell batteries just aft of the Z spar
I have the small (8g) header tank and baggage compartment fuel tanks.
I did some what ifs on a spread sheet and there is no way I can exceed the
CG limits unless I load more then 40 pounds in the fuselage baggage
compartment. I weigh 150 lbs and it would take a 300 lb PAX( would one fit?)
to exceed the gross weight (by 12 lbs) but CG would still be in range at
17.46. Even extreme mismanagement of fuel in flight will not result in CG
moving out of limits. I didn't provide for wing baggage stowage, but the arm
for this compartment is short and would not appreciably effect my
computations except as gross weight .
For nose heavy extreme, full fuselage tank and 150 pilot, the CG is 11.8",
near the forward limit. If I had the full size fuselage tank, I would have
to use wing tank fuel, a PAX or baggage to stay in limit at takeoff.
Jim Ashford
912 HDS
N 601Q
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 601 HDS Weight and Balance |
----- Original Message -----
From: James Ashford <jashford1(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 1999 9:42 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: 912 601 HDS Weight and Balance
>
> For those of you building or thinking of a 912 UL powered 601HDS and are
> concerned about the reportedly tail heavy(nose light) results of this
> combination, read on.
>
> I did my weight and balance Thursday and came up with a total weight of
593
> pounds and a CG 10.05" aft of Datum
+++ Wow Jim, that's really light.... George Pinneo will probably give you an
"attaboy"! Is your aircraft all completed with paint and everything, or is
there anything left to add?
Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912 601 HDS Weight and Balance |
| From: | "James Ashford" <jashford1(at)earthlink.net> |
Fred,
Complete but with bare aluminum. I should have included that. Needless to
say I'm pleased with the results.
Aloha, Jim
----------
>From: "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 912 601 HDS Weight and Balance
>Date: Mon, Sep 20, 1999, 2:18 AM
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: James Ashford <jashford1(at)earthlink.net>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 1999 9:42 AM
> Subject: Zenith-List: 912 601 HDS Weight and Balance
>
>
>
>>
>> For those of you building or thinking of a 912 UL powered 601HDS and are
>> concerned about the reportedly tail heavy(nose light) results of this
>> combination, read on.
>>
>> I did my weight and balance Thursday and came up with a total weight of
> 593
>> pounds and a CG 10.05" aft of Datum
>
> +++ Wow Jim, that's really light.... George Pinneo will probably give you an
> "attaboy"! Is your aircraft all completed with paint and everything, or is
> there anything left to add?
>
> Fred
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Zodiac screen saver |
OK, this is not directly related with building, but it
is related to motivation tools for building.... :-)
I try to install the screen saver that we can download
from the Zenith Aircraft web site. When I run the
program, I get "This program cannot be run in DOS
mode." I am using Windows95.
Does anyone have a solution to this?
===
Michel Therrien
http://www.netaxis.qc.ca/people/m.therrien
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kilby, Roger" <Roger.Kilby(at)GSC.GTE.Com> |
| Subject: | Fiberglass fairing..601HDS |
I see how the fiberglass fairing slides under the rear of the top skin but
what else holds it down to the
top of the stabilizer? Does it get L-angle connected to the stabilizer?
Thanks,
Roger Kilby
N98RK 601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fiberglass fairing..601HDS |
>Does it get L-angle connected to the stabilizer?
>
I added two "L's" to the back of the stab and attached the fairing with #10
screws and fiber nuts. I made my fairing removable so I could service the
elevator cables if need be.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 3M Sound Absorbtion Products |
++++ Ok folks.... here's a new update on the 3-M stuff and where you can get
it. I set forth on a search for a 3-M distributor that would sell us this
stuff in less than case quantities. After MANY phone calls, countless voice
mail options, talking to people that didn't have a clue what I was inquiring
about, and being on hold for what seemed like an eternity at times, I
finally found a distributor that knew what he was doing and won't insist on
purchases being in "case" quantities like all the other distributors I
talked to ahead of him. In the case of the #2552, here's an overview of the
product again and the sizes I discussed with him. #2552 is very thin (but
very effective), being very light in weight and constructed of a layer of
elastomeric material with a thin layer of dead soft aluminum on the face
side, and a peal off adhesive on the back. I measured it at about .018
thick with the removable pull-off paper still on. The soft aluminum serves
part of the damping function and also keeps the softer part from being
exposed if subjected to a fire, thus it is not supposed to be able to
support a flame. The 3-M engineer I talked to said that covering more than
50% of each metal panel would be beyond the point of benefit Vs cost. The
standard stocking item is 2" wide rolls that are 36 yards long. I calculate
that out to be 36 square feet of the stuff per roll. (someone please check
me on this and let us know if wrong) The distributor price per roll in this
size is $75.71 per roll, and he estimated that shipping and handling by UPS
would probably be about $5. or $6. per roll. This material is available in
custom width requests right on up to 23 1/2" wide by the same 36 yard
length. Each inch of material wider than the original 2" standard width
adds $37.86 to the cost per roll.
The test I did with the bag of 2" X 5" samples they sent was as follows: I
placed a single one of these pieces (2 x 5) in the middle of a piece of .016
6061 stock that was 9" x 11" and compared it to another identical size
piece. NO Contest! The piece of absorbent material was only about 1/10 the
size of the piece of aluminum stock and even at the one in ten ratio made a
huge difference. Like I said earlier, when struck, the one without the
piece applied to it went "Brang", while the one with 2 x 5 inch piece on it
went more like "brunk". I weighed a stack of these sample pieces that
would measure out to be one square foot and it came out just a tad under 3
ounces (with the peal-off paper still on them). (14 1/2 pieces of the 2 x 5
sample pieces) So... I made a big difference in the noise of my 9 x 11 inch
test metal pieces with 1 piece which is 1/14th of a square foot, and 1/14th
of 3 ounces in weight. (If you really want to know, you can do your own math
to figure what 1/14th of 3 ounces is).
Now, the 4014 material.... This is the stuff that can be used for the
inside of the firewall. I haven't received a sample of this yet, so I can't
tell you more than they say they sell it to a lot of aircraft companies
including Cessna. It's about 1/4" thick, has a low resonance foam type
core, and claims good thermal insulation qualities as well as sound
deadening. Individual pieces were quoted in two sizes: 12" x 48" pieces
are $22.60 plus shipping, and 18" x 48" pieces were quoted as $37.35 each.
They had stock on the 2552 in the 2" rolls, but will have to order anything
other than that. Predicted time for them to bring in other sizes was stated
as about 2 weeks. I got the feeling in talking to him that you may be able
to order either the 2552 or the 4014 from them individually rather than have
Jim (who posted the note willing to stock up on some of this stuff to help
individual builders, since we were thinking that they wouldn't sell to the
public). If you want to give it try on your own, the info is this:
Contact Jason Rauter at the R.S. Hughs Inc. (816) 241-1069 (refer to his
conversation with me about this on 9-20-99, my company name is Audio Mart)
R.S. Hughs is located in the Kansas City Mo. area. If you try and find
that they won't sell except to a dealer, we'll fall back on Plan A, and if
Jim is still willing to stock up on some, I'll help place the order for him,
using my company as the purchaser. There ya have it guys... I'm going to
use some! Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Raker <phadr2(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Zodiac screen saver |
I've got no solutions to offer. Only that you're not
alone. I've had the same experience with the Zenith
screen saver.
Phil R.: Wings & empennage done, working on center
sect
--- Michel Therrien wrote:
>
>
> OK, this is not directly related with building, but
> it
> is related to motivation tools for building.... :-)
>
> I try to install the screen saver that we can
> download
> from the Zenith Aircraft web site. When I run the
> program, I get "This program cannot be run in DOS
> mode." I am using Windows95.
>
> Does anyone have a solution to this?
>
>
> ===
> Michel Therrien
> http://www.netaxis.qc.ca/people/m.therrien
> Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> The Zenith-List is sponsored by Matronics,
> makers of fine Aircraft
> Avionics, and by the generous Contributions of
> List members.
>
>
> Matronics:
> http://www.matronics.com
> Zenith-List:
> http://www.matronics.com/zenith-list
> Archive Search Engine:
> http://www.matronics.com/search
> Archive Browsing:
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> Other Email Lists:
> http://www.matronics.com/other
>
>
>
>
>
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Receiving list at my new address. Please unsubscribe this address
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen_Worstell(at)notes.seagate.com |
Hi,
Once again someone has defended his 601HDS with regards to CG.
Once again I'll mention that no one, to my knowledge, has ever
reported an aft CG issue with the 601HDS. The factory concurs in this.
There IS an issue with the CG on the 601HD. No one, to my
knowledge, has ever reported that their CG is not near the aft limit
on a 601HD with a Rotax 912, heavy passengers, no fuel in
the header tank, full full in the wing locker tanks, and no baggage.
The factory concurs in this also.
Some people think that this is a dangerous condition. Most
people just live with it. It is my opinion that the condition is
undesirable, and is unsatisfactory for IFR flight. I have chosen
to live with it for now, as it is really not that big a deal for
experienced pilots flying VFR.
So, all you lucky folks out there with Rotax powered 601HDS
planes, please don't bother to tell us what we already know -
there is not a problem.
For those of you with Rotax powered 601HD planes, if you have
done anything to improve the CG situation, or if you have made
careful measurements and have found that you do not have
a problem, please let us know.
tia,
g.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Tannock" <James.Tannock(at)nottingham.ac.uk> |
Glen wrote
> There IS an issue with the CG on the 601HD. No one, to my
> knowledge, has ever reported that their CG is not near the aft limit
> on a 601HD with a Rotax 912, heavy passengers, no fuel in
> the header tank, full full in the wing locker tanks, and no baggage.
> The factory concurs in this also.
>
> Some people think that this is a dangerous condition. Most
> people just live with it. It is my opinion that the condition is
> undesirable, and is unsatisfactory for IFR flight. I have chosen
> to live with it for now, as it is really not that big a deal for
> experienced pilots flying VFR.
I recently helped with a flight test to check pitch stability with a
912 engined 601HD at 16.1" aft of datum (two people, empty wing
tanks, half full header tank, some baggage). The stick free stability
(quick push forward, let go stick, keep wings level with rudder) was
mildly positive at lower speeds (up to 75 knots) and neutral(ish) at
a gentle 85 kts cruise speed, becoming slightly divergent at 90
knots and above. 'Neutral(ish)' meant that if carefully trimmed-out
it did a big phugoid and returned eventually to level flight,
losing about 200 feet. All of this is totally unimportant if you
simply hold the stick and have visual reference or an AH.
However I am planning to try a downspring modification which I
have designed, and will let the list know if it works to provide
some additional artificial stability at aft C of G.
James Tannock
Nottingham
England
601HD
Nearly ready to go to the field
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | hansl002(at)mc.duke.edu |
| Subject: | Re: LIVING aircraft batteries . . . (was 14 vs. 28v) |
Grant,
Check out the areolectics web site (who's URL I can't find right now for the
life of me...). They had a quite a few good articles, and a product or two that
does (as I understand it) pretty much exactly what you're after.
-Bill Hansley
Grant Corriveau on 09/18/99 07:29:19 AM
Please respond to zenith-list(at)matronics.com
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
cc:
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: LIVING aircraft batteries . . .
(was 14 vs. 28v)
Bob,
I am enjoying your postings about aircraft electrics very much - most
helpful.
In light of this recent posting, do you have any recommendations about the
instrumentation I should install in my aircraft to give me the best picture
of the state of my battery?
Regards,
Grant
----------
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
>To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>Subject: Zenith-List: LIVING aircraft batteries . . . (was 14 vs. 28v)
>Date: Thu, Sep 16, 1999, 10:20 AM
>
>
>
>
>>Twice in the last 20 years I have been stuck with a
>>dead battery. The first time happened at a middle-of-nowhere . . .
>> . . . .Because I was in airplanes with 14 volt systems,
>>their vehicles were able to provide jump starts which got me
>>home . . . A 28 volt airplane has far fewer rescue options.
>
>
> May I suggest that over half of all s.e. airplanes
> flying today departed with a FAILED battery? We
> tend to treat batteries in our airplanes like
> batteries in our cars . . . it gets replaced when
> it fails to crank the engine for perhaps the
> 4th or 5th time?
>
> This means that the battery has been useless as
> a source of backup energy for perhaps years before it
> finally gets replaced. RG batteries are going to
> make this situation worse, they maintain a lower
> internal resistance than their wet and gel cousins.
> They'll still get an engine started even futher
> down the slide toward the recycle bin.
>
> Please learn and observe some peventative maintenance
> techniques almost unheard of in certified aviation.
> KNOW (by measurement) or BE SURE (by periodic
> replacement) or DON'T CARE (with dual alternators)
> that the battery is capable of getting you home in
> the situations which you fly.
>
> You can find a lot of mechanics out there that curse
> batteries for their various faults but very few
> that understand how to live with them.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ////
> (o o)
> ===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
> < Independence Kansas: the >
> < Jurassic Park of aviation. >
> < Your source for brand new >
> < 40 year old airplanes. >
> =================================
> http://www.aeroelectric.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)presys.com> |
| Subject: | Sound deadening material |
Hi I'm Richard in Oregon building a 701
I know these materials are expensive and there may be a better source, but
the Spruce Catalogue on page 299 has what you are looking for. Try
http://www.aircraft-spruce.com/main.html Their on-line catalogue lacks
item descriptions but can be used for ordering if you know what you want.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
Glen_Worstell(at)notes.seagate.com wrote:
> No one, to my
> knowledge, has ever reported that their CG is not near the aft limit
> on a 601HD with a Rotax 912, heavy passengers, no fuel in
> the header tank, full full in the wing locker tanks, and no baggage.
This is the case for the 701 too, and for most of these tiny aircraft where
the load is about the half of the gross weight. Unless the seats are on
the CG, the fuel and the baggage in the wings...
> Some people think that this is a dangerous condition.
It may be. The 701, with CG at mid range and full flaps, cannot flare without
somewhat of throttle because the elevator, being hidden by the flaps, has no
power. With a full forward CG, I think the flare would be scary without a lot
of power.
Taking off is more difficult with a full forward CG, but can also be unpredictable
with a full aft CG.
The 601 and 701 should be considered as they are, but it's the responsibility
of the pilot to check if he is able to take-off and to land in the two extreme
conditions of loading he may have.
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
Help !!
My Matco brakes do not brake, even if I stand up on the pedals (yes,
they brake a little, but it's not worth mentioning).
Don't ask me if there is air in the circuit : not the smallest microbubble.
Sure someone knows the remedy...
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Hughes" <okeanos(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | 3M Sound Absorbtion Products |
18 Square feet
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of fhulen
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 12:53 AM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 3M Sound Absorbtion Products
>
>
> ++++ Ok folks.... here's a new update on the 3-M stuff and where
> you can get
> it. I set forth on a search for a 3-M distributor that would sell us this
> stuff in less than case quantities. After MANY phone calls,
> countless voice
> mail options, talking to people that didn't have a clue what I
> was inquiring
> about, and being on hold for what seemed like an eternity at times, I
> finally found a distributor that knew what he was doing and won't
> insist on
> purchases being in "case" quantities like all the other distributors I
> talked to ahead of him. In the case of the #2552, here's an
> overview of the
> product again and the sizes I discussed with him. #2552 is very thin (but
> very effective), being very light in weight and constructed of a layer of
> elastomeric material with a thin layer of dead soft aluminum on the face
> side, and a peal off adhesive on the back. I measured it at about .018
> thick with the removable pull-off paper still on. The soft
> aluminum serves
> part of the damping function and also keeps the softer part from being
> exposed if subjected to a fire, thus it is not supposed to be able to
> support a flame. The 3-M engineer I talked to said that covering
> more than
> 50% of each metal panel would be beyond the point of benefit Vs cost. The
> standard stocking item is 2" wide rolls that are 36 yards long.
> I calculate
> that out to be 36 square feet of the stuff per roll. (someone please check
> me on this and let us know if wrong) The distributor price per
> roll in this
> size is $75.71 per roll, and he estimated that shipping and
> handling by UPS
> would probably be about $5. or $6. per roll. This material is available in
> custom width requests right on up to 23 1/2" wide by the same 36 yard
> length. Each inch of material wider than the original 2" standard width
> adds $37.86 to the cost per roll.
>
> The test I did with the bag of 2" X 5" samples they sent was as
> follows: I
> placed a single one of these pieces (2 x 5) in the middle of a
> piece of .016
> 6061 stock that was 9" x 11" and compared it to another identical size
> piece. NO Contest! The piece of absorbent material was only
> about 1/10 the
> size of the piece of aluminum stock and even at the one in ten
> ratio made a
> huge difference. Like I said earlier, when struck, the one without the
> piece applied to it went "Brang", while the one with 2 x 5 inch
> piece on it
> went more like "brunk". I weighed a stack of these sample pieces that
> would measure out to be one square foot and it came out just a tad under 3
> ounces (with the peal-off paper still on them). (14 1/2 pieces
> of the 2 x 5
> sample pieces) So... I made a big difference in the noise of my
> 9 x 11 inch
> test metal pieces with 1 piece which is 1/14th of a square foot,
> and 1/14th
> of 3 ounces in weight. (If you really want to know, you can do
> your own math
> to figure what 1/14th of 3 ounces is).
>
> Now, the 4014 material.... This is the stuff that can be used for the
> inside of the firewall. I haven't received a sample of this yet,
> so I can't
> tell you more than they say they sell it to a lot of aircraft companies
> including Cessna. It's about 1/4" thick, has a low resonance foam type
> core, and claims good thermal insulation qualities as well as sound
> deadening. Individual pieces were quoted in two sizes: 12" x 48" pieces
> are $22.60 plus shipping, and 18" x 48" pieces were quoted as $37.35 each.
>
> They had stock on the 2552 in the 2" rolls, but will have to
> order anything
> other than that. Predicted time for them to bring in other sizes
> was stated
> as about 2 weeks. I got the feeling in talking to him that you
> may be able
> to order either the 2552 or the 4014 from them individually
> rather than have
> Jim (who posted the note willing to stock up on some of this stuff to help
> individual builders, since we were thinking that they wouldn't sell to the
> public). If you want to give it try on your own, the info is this:
> Contact Jason Rauter at the R.S. Hughs Inc. (816) 241-1069 (refer to his
> conversation with me about this on 9-20-99, my company name is
> Audio Mart)
> R.S. Hughs is located in the Kansas City Mo. area. If you try and find
> that they won't sell except to a dealer, we'll fall back on Plan A, and if
> Jim is still willing to stock up on some, I'll help place the
> order for him,
> using my company as the purchaser. There ya have it guys...
> I'm going to
> use some! Fred
>
>
> ---------
>
> ---------
>
> ---------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Dunning <peterd(at)metec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith horizontal stab. mod. |
Date: 22 September 1999
Hi James,
This question of stability is not new and stems from UK
requirements.
I suggest you look at the following pages:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/articles.html
http://ourworld.compuserve,com/mods.html
http://pfa.org.uk
Contacts: Bob Stephens and/or Allan Cozens.
My CH601HD (Trike) is progressing. Requires completion
of centre section, fuselage and firewall forward.
Motor is 912S
NOT changing horizontal stab. span.
Regards
Peter Dunning
Wellington
NZ.
Email: peterd(at)metec.co.nz
-----Original Message-----
From: James Ivers [SMTP:jivers(at)microtech.com.au]
Sent: 22 September 1999 09:23
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith horizontal stabilizer modification.
Hi Everyone,
I have started building a 601HD (taildragger) from plans, have
so far constructed the rudder, l/gear slides, h/stab. & elevator ribs, as
well as the centre wing ribs. I am stalled (no pun intended) on the h/stab.,
as a friend who is a designer and builder is adamant that the h/stab. is of
too small area. This is for pitch stability reasons, and apparently there
was a mod. for certification in UK.
Does anyone have knowlege of this, and
are there plans available for it? I have asked Zenair, but no reply yet.
Enjoying the project so far (early days!), but finding some materials
difficult to source here (Tasmania, Australia)
Cheers,
Jim.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Ashford" <jashford1(at)earthlink.net> |
I was following the mail for the past few weeks about the adhesive for the
canopy seal where consensus indicated Poly Zap was the way to go and thought
some of you would benefit from my experience.
Using Poly Zap, my son in law and I fitted and attached the canopy seal in
less than 15 minutes.
Process;
Trimmed and placed canopy seal on the canopy
First person places the nose of the applicator under the seal at one end
and proceeds to the other end of the seal laying a bead on the way.
Second person holds the seal against the canopy at the starting end
which tends to pull away because of the ending curve.
When first person reaches the end of the seal, holds the seal against
the canopy, again because of the ending curve.
Natural fit of the seal will provide pressure against the canopy for the
balance of the seal.
We only provided adhesive on the outside of the seal. I don't intend to
cement the inside part of the seal unless flight activity dictates
otherwise.
Poly Zap is well packaged with a cover, applicator, and sealing unit. It is
only about 1oz which I thought would not be enough for the job, so I ordered
two. Wrong. I have more then half of the first container left.
Jim Ashford
Told FAA "I'm ready"
601 HDS, N610Q
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Morelli <billvt(at)together.net> |
Anyone have any experience / thoughts on using 2" flight instruments to
save panel space?
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Tannock" <James.Tannock(at)nottingham.ac.uk> |
| Subject: | Zenith horizontal stabilizer modification. |
James Ivers wrote:-
> Hi Everyone, I have started building a 601HD (taildragger) from plans, have
> so far constructed the rudder, l/gear slides, h/stab. & elevator ribs, as
> well as the centre wing ribs. I am stalled (no pun intended) on the h/stab.,
> as a friend who is a designer and builder is adamant that the h/stab. is of
> too small area. This is for pitch stability reasons, and apparently there
> was a mod. for certification in UK. Does anyone have knowlege of this, and
> are there plans available for it? I have asked Zenair, but no reply yet.
This mod is not actually required for certification in the UK. Most
601HD aircraft flying in the UK have a standard HT. One man who has
installed a larger HT is Alan Cozens. You can contact him at
aci.stw(at)which.net. He has a very good understanding of the issue,
and may be able to advise you. My opinion for what its worth is that
a larger HT may not be a perfect or only solution to the pitch
stability issue.
James Tannock
Nottingham
England
601HD
Nearly ready to go to the field
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Berridge <berridge(at)cis.net> |
| Subject: | Wing locker cutout (601 HDS) |
Questions for anyone installing the HDS wing lockers with tanks from
Zenith:
- What should be the size of the aft upper wing skin cutout to access
the tank and also provide good support for the locker door? The seq
manual shows 45 mm smaller than the locker door on each of the three
sides for the standard HDS baggage locker installation.
- How long should the door hinge be? My kit supplies doors are 540 mm
wide.
-Any suggestions on installing the Zeus fasteners would be
appreciated. This looks like a real time burner.
Thanks
Don Berridge
601 HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Size |
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Morelli <billvt(at)together.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 3:46 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Instrument Size
>
> Anyone have any experience / thoughts on using 2" flight instruments to
> save panel space?
++ Bill, You might look into the Fly-Dat the George Pinneo likes so much,
or, the Rocky Mountain instrument. That one really looks good to me, and
either one will leave plenty of panel space for the larger primary
insturments if you like what you see in regard to the digital monitors.
Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
Claude,
This seems to be pretty normal for the Matco brakes. Mine started out only
providing minor drag to help slow the plan after landing. Now that I have
120 hours on the plane they are better, but only a little better. They do
wear in some and braking improves. I can just barely hold the plane in
place on the ramp at 3000 engine rpm (1400 prop rpm).
Jim Weston
601HDS tri-gear w/Stratus Subaru
McDonough, Ga.
-----Original Message-----
From: claude [mailto:claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 5:48 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Matco brakes
Help !!
My Matco brakes do not brake, even if I stand up on the pedals (yes,
they brake a little, but it's not worth mentioning).
Don't ask me if there is air in the circuit : not the smallest microbubble.
Sure someone knows the remedy...
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi List,
Over the past couple of years I have read many posts regarding the Matco
brakes on the Zodiac not really being very effective. I am at the point of
construction where now would be the time to make a change if I'm going to.
Can anyone give feed back as to whether or not they feel that these "soft"
brakes are a safety issue or more something that just takes getting used to.
Has anyone changed to a differnet brake with more "grip"?
Because I did all of my training in Cessna Spam Cans I have gotten very used
to being able to hit the brakes hard. This is because I fly into and out of
a Class B airport and they want us off the runway so quick I am often forced
to hit the brakes hard to make a taxi way. I don't plan on basing my plane
at KPHX but I am just concerned about the reported braking.
Thanks, your input is appreciated.
Steve Freeman
www.tempe-embroidery.com/zodiac (needing an update badly!)
Wings complete, tail surfaces complete, Three fuselage pieces together need
riveting! 50% done, 90% to go. Ohhhh, how I understand this now!
________________________________________________________________________________
If you need GOOD braking, use something else. These brakes work o.k. if all
you need is a good bit of drag to slow you down.
For what it's worth, I did come up with an idea that I might try some day.
In order to get more brake pressure out of the brake cylinder, you might be
able to shorten the arm that is coming off the back of the brake pedal (the
arm that goes to the top of the brake cylinder rod). This should give more
mechanical advantage to the brake pedal and more braking force. The only
thing is, I am not sure how much pressure the brake lines can take versus
how much would be output by this change.
Jim Weston
McDonough, Ga.
-----Original Message-----
From: SLF998(at)aol.com [mailto:SLF998(at)aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 3:36 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Brakes
Hi List,
Over the past couple of years I have read many posts regarding the Matco
brakes on the Zodiac not really being very effective. I am at the point of
construction where now would be the time to make a change if I'm going to.
Can anyone give feed back as to whether or not they feel that these "soft"
brakes are a safety issue or more something that just takes getting used to.
Has anyone changed to a differnet brake with more "grip"?
Because I did all of my training in Cessna Spam Cans I have gotten very used
to being able to hit the brakes hard. This is because I fly into and out of
a Class B airport and they want us off the runway so quick I am often forced
to hit the brakes hard to make a taxi way. I don't plan on basing my plane
at KPHX but I am just concerned about the reported braking.
Thanks, your input is appreciated.
Steve Freeman
www.tempe-embroidery.com/zodiac (needing an update badly!)
Wings complete, tail surfaces complete, Three fuselage pieces together need
riveting! 50% done, 90% to go. Ohhhh, how I understand this now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
> If you need GOOD braking, use something else. These brakes work o.k. if
all
> you need is a good bit of drag to slow you down
++ Does anyone have an educated guess as to whether this is due to the
cylinders or the brake caliper/pads ? Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cy Galley <cgalley(at)accessus.net> |
No one FORCES you to get off the runway quick. You are the pilot in
command. All you have to say is unable and continue to the next taxi way.
You can even back taxi if that is the only taxiway the controller wants you
to use. Once you are on the runway, that runway is closed to further
landings until you are clear. BUT you and you alone determine when it is
safe for you to exit any runway. It is yours and yours alone even if the
is a heavy on final. The heavy is required to go around, if it is apparant
that you will not clear before the heavy's touch down.
On the other hand, good brakes are very helpful. Especially when you land
long and the end of the runway is in sight.
But never let a controller intimidate you into doing something dumb. Most
are not pilots. It isn't so bad if you are landing a nose wheel plane, but
high speed turn offs have caused groundloops with even them. And who's
fault is it if you do??? You guessed it. Your's and Your's alone.
Cy Galley - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
EAA volunteer from Chapter 75 for 28 continous years
>
>Hi List,
>
>Over the past couple of years I have read many posts regarding the Matco
>brakes on the Zodiac not really being very effective. I am at the point of
>construction where now would be the time to make a change if I'm going to.
>Can anyone give feed back as to whether or not they feel that these "soft"
>brakes are a safety issue or more something that just takes getting used to.
>Has anyone changed to a differnet brake with more "grip"?
>
>Because I did all of my training in Cessna Spam Cans I have gotten very used
>to being able to hit the brakes hard. This is because I fly into and out of
>a Class B airport and they want us off the runway so quick I am often forced
>to hit the brakes hard to make a taxi way. I don't plan on basing my plane
>at KPHX but I am just concerned about the reported braking.
>
>Thanks, your input is appreciated.
>
>Steve Freeman
>www.tempe-embroidery.com/zodiac (needing an update badly!)
>Wings complete, tail surfaces complete, Three fuselage pieces together need
>riveting! 50% done, 90% to go. Ohhhh, how I understand this now!
>
>
Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact!
Visit our web site at... http://www.bellanca-championclub.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Matco brakes |
Weston, Jim wrote:
> This seems to be pretty normal for the Matco brakes.
Well, Jim, so nothing to do ? It's a brake which does not brake and is still
called a brake and is still sold $$$$$.
First I lighted a candle for Saint Matco. Didn't brake better.
Then I thought to see Matco and twist their neck. Too far (6,000 miles from France).
I'll do what any average idiot would do : I'll grind the linings, wash the
discs in 120% pure toluene. It will not work either.
Then I'll replace the cylinders by VW ones found in some junkyard.
Then I don't know.
My hangar neighbours laugh, one of them runs his Coyote on the grass with
full power and the wheels blocked.
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing locker cutout (601 HDS) |
> - What should be the size of the aft upper wing skin cutout to access
> the tank and also provide good support for the locker door>
++ Well, I don't see anyone jumping on this one Don, so I'll give you the
following: I measured my opening to be 470 mm wide EXCEPT for the forward
portion where I opened it up wider to clear the portion of the hinge that is
attached to the door when it is closed. I also opened it up as much as I
could for finger clearance around the gas cap... but keeping the opening
totally under the door cover area of course. Opening from hinge to rear of
hole I measure as 478 mm. I have plenty of metal area where the fastener
holes are located. You will find comments in the archives about the door
cover "lifting" (bulging up) in flight. Yes.. have seen it on both 601 I
have flown in. It is most noticable in the immediate area between the hinge
and the first Dzus fastener. A good framed reinforcement on the inside of
the door cover made out of our standard "L" material, and an extra pair of
Dzus between the hinge and the first standerd Dzus position will help this a
lot. As we all do... when in doubt, ask, then inovate! Hope this helped.
Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Baker" <okiejoe(at)brightok.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith-List Digest: 09/21/99 |
I have looked in all the hobby stores in our area and can't find "Poly-Zap".
Can anyone tell me where to order this?
Joe Baker
Oklahoma
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith-List Digest: 09/21/99 |
> I have looked in all the hobby stores in our area and can't find
"Poly-Zap".
> Can anyone tell me where to order this?
++ Not many people even know it exists, mostly a word of mouth deal, but
fantastic stuff when working with the slicker plastics family (delrin,
nylon, etc.) . Consequently with demand being almost non-existant, dealers
don't see a need to carry it (with a few exceptions) If you don't find it
any other way, it's a Pacer Technology product, and their number is (909)
987-0550 to get directed to a distributor or dealer who has it.
FYI, they make regular Zap (regular thin type), Zap-a-Gap (thicker and best
all around one to use), Slo-Zap (when you need more time to get things in
place before it "goes off", Poly-Zap (for the more exotic plastics),
Zip-Kicker (an excellerant to make the stuff go off on materials that
seemingly don't start it to harden right away), Zap-O (essentually oderless
type, but more expensive), aaaaannnnd, Z-7 Debonder (to get your fingers
appart when you accidentally glued them together....!.) I think there might
be another one that I missed, (Is there a Plasti-Zap guys (for regular
plastics ?) As you can see there are several product that they make, but
you usually only find 2 or three for sale on the shelf. You can signicantly
extend the shelf life if you put the top back on it after you use it, and if
it's going to be a while between uses, keep it in a refrigerator. Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ldpahnke" <ldpahnke(at)mvn.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing locker cutout (601 HDS) |
What I did (FWIW) was to remake the locker door out of .025 alum and place channel
shaped doublers under the side edges of the top skin cutout and rivet them
to the existing rib sides and top skins. I extended the rear across cut-out edge
to the front edge of the slanted back divider in the locker (6V-7????). The
cutout was big enough to allow removal of the tank without unriveting anything.
I used a total of 8 dzus on the door, 3 on each side, and 2 more on the back
edge, and riveted two L's running parallel to ribs front to back to brace the
door. Hinge was reversed as shown. I made a spacer jig out of scrap with 3
holes in it corresponding to the drilled holes for the dzus spring to mark and
through drill the dzus holes after clecoing the door to the hinge. The side dzus
go through the door-top skin-channel doubler in this sequence.. The large
center hole for the dzus needs to be very carefully centered and larger in the
top skin than the door center hole to prevent binding. The rear dzus are mounted
into the top flange of the slanted back divider in the locker and through
the top skin. This method makes a very strong structural part of the wing which
should not flex in flight. Im not at the wing so cannot give you any exact
measurements but given a few days could possibly fax a photo or two with some
measurements if interested. Hope this helps. LDP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
This lack of braking action on the 601 and 701 is really starting to bother
me.
I paid a great deal of money for this kit and I expect the aircraft to stop
when I apply the brakes. Seems to me that the capacity of the brake
cylinders and / or the size of the brake pads are inadequate to do the job.
Has anyone approached ZAC about this? They and / or Matco should have to
make good for this and supply brakes that work.
I certainly don't think that we builders should have to modify or purchase
additional hardware.
I would not be against approaching ZAC collectively and requesting a
resolution to this problem.
Frustrated,
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PWalsh8045(at)aol.com |
That would just raise the cost of the kit even more, but not that much
overall, really. My brakes work fairly well, I can land and stop in about 800
feet....and land on short grass strips all the time. I guess what I am saying
is that my brakes are satisfactory...but they could be better...
Patrick Walsh
601 hd trike...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bwitherell(at)bellsouthips.com (brad witherell) |
| Subject: | New 601 XL Builder with ?'s |
I am going to the factory in Nov to but a deposit on the 601 XL and was looking
for some advice from someone with experience with the 601.
The following are a few questions that I had. If you have a answer or a comment
I would love to hear from you.
Has anyone seen the XL prototype? Is it worth waiting for?
Has anyone installed dual sticks on the 601?
Can it be built in 400 hrs?
Any tricks or advice to save time.
What do you think of the company?
Is there any questions or concerns I should bring up with the company before I
purchase the kit?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Brad Witherell
Bwitherell(at)bellsouthips.com
Pittsburgh, PA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charley Zurian <charleyz(at)pacificnet.net> |
| Subject: | Aluminum sources |
Has anyone located a U.S. source for .016 and .025 6061-T6 sheet that is
more reasonable than the usual A/C suppliers (Aircraft Spruce, etc.)? I
can get .032 and up from my local Industrial Metals distribution center for
reasonable prices, but the cost quoted by Aircraft Spruce for .016 is more
than twice the IM cost for .032. I realize the demand for and therefore
the production of .016 is very low, which logically justifies a percentage
increase the costs of manufacturing and handling, but half the volume of
material for more than twice the cost? It's almost worth the trip from my
home in Southern California up to Canada and back to buy up there.
Charley Zurian
Trans FX, Inc.
8300 Waters Road
Moorpark, Calif. 93021
805-532-1526 Voice
805-532-1645 Fax
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ldpahnke" <ldpahnke(at)mvn.net> |
A few thoughts that could be considered:RE Brake problems
Drop the attachment point of the piston rod to as close to the brake pedal pivot
point asossible. this will increase the leverage of the pedal on the piston
rod. Would probably have to fabricate a new master cyl. mounting brackets (welding)
2 Visit a motorcycle shop and ask for their most aggressive(organic or semi metallic?)
brake lining Compound with the most grab and see if you could fabricate
some new pads to match the original and rivet them on. ACS or Wicks has some
pads in the catalogue. Perhaps these are better compounds and could be adapted.
3. smaller master cylinder pistons(Costly)
4. Larger caliper pistons (Costly /pain)
Perhaps some of you more advanced in the project can design better master cyl
mounting brackets. The system now offers a mechanical disadvantage on the piston
rod with that long lever arm off the top of
the brake pedal. Tilting the master cyls back to lower the piston rod attachement
point closest to the pedal pivot point would be the best to me but would have
to reweld a mounting system since the cyl is offset to the side of pedal. This
might be of some help. Doug P. Good luck, any input appreciated.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum sources |
Charley Zurian wrote:
>
>
> Has anyone located a U.S. source for .016 and .025 6061-T6 sheet that is
> more reasonable than the usual A/C suppliers (Aircraft Spruce, etc.)? I
> can get .032 and up from my local Industrial Metals distribution center for
> reasonable prices, but the cost quoted by Aircraft Spruce for .016 is more
> than twice the IM cost for .032. I realize the demand for and therefore
> the production of .016 is very low, which logically justifies a percentage
> increase the costs of manufacturing and handling, but half the volume of
> material for more than twice the cost? It's almost worth the trip from my
> home in Southern California up to Canada and back to buy up there.
>
> Charley Zurian
> Trans FX, Inc.
> 8300 Waters Road
> Moorpark, Calif. 93021
> 805-532-1526 Voice
> 805-532-1645 Fax
>
Hello Charley,
Interesting version in spelling your name. Well yes there is a metal
supplier in East Hanover, N.J. that has all the metal you need to build
from scratch. Their price have consistently been 60% to 70% lower that
all the other Aircraft suppliers (rip off artists). Give Tracy a call,
she is very knowledgeable and will bend over backwards to help you.
Yarde Metals
603 Murray Road
East Hanover , N.J. 07936
1(973)463-1166
www.yardemetals.com
Good Luck
John W. Tarabocchia
601 HDS Scratch builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New 601 XL Builder with ?'s |
| From: | Michael R Fortunato <wizard-24(at)juno.com> |
> I am going to the factory in Nov to but a deposit on the 601 XL and
> was looking for some advice from someone with experience with the
> 601.
Welcome, from an XL-in-progress-builder.
> The following are a few questions that I had. If you have a answer
> or a comment I would love to hear from you.
> Has anyone seen the XL prototype? Is it worth waiting for?
Haven't seen the XL prototype, but have seen the HDS. The XL features, in
my opinion, are worth waiting for, assuming there's an end to this
pending redesign.
> Has anyone installed dual sticks on the 601?
Don't know, but I plan on looking into that option.
> Can it be built in 400 hrs?
Nope, unless you've done this before. However, the building time is far
less than say, an RV, and the methods used to build are simpler and
easier to understand.
> Any tricks or advice to save time.
Read the plans, listen to advice from fellow builders that have been
there, read the plans again, then cut, rivet, whatever. I'm building from
component kits and have only gotten stumped a couple of times. ZAC has
been good with tech support, and the listers here have also been
extremely helpful.
> What do you think of the company?
With the exception of the handling of the XL redesign issue, I think they
are a very good company. ZAC has a great product, and Heintz clan seems
to run a professional operation.
> Is there any questions or concerns I should bring up with the
> company before I purchase the kit?
If you're considering the XL model, then there are a lot of things to
consider - like how long you're willing to wait until the wings are
redesigned (not sure how much you know about that - e-mail me directly
and I'll fill you in on the latest). You won't be able to order the
entire kit at this time; in fact, you'll only be able to work on the tail
section for now. If you are willing to settle for the HDS model, which is
a very good plane, then you could jump right in on a proven design.
Others that have already built and are flying could give you better
advice than me.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Best of luck on whatever you decide!
Mike Fortunato
wizard-24(at)juno.com
601XL, tail feathers complete, finishing up rear fuse
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Subaru performance |
There are so many strong opinions about what to do
with Subaru engines... can anyone here help with
facts?
I would like to know what is the performance with a
stock, un-modified engine (original cam and non-shaved
heads) vs a modified one (such as the Stratus).
So far, the very strong opinions I got are:
. don't modify anything, the car manufacturer already
optimized the engine and doing more will affect its
reliability
. regrind the cam, but do not shave the heads
. it would be stupid not to regrind the shaft and if
we do so, we have to shave the heads
. just changing the carburator and fitting a proper
exhaust system will increase the power enough
One told me that varying power between 70 and 100hp on
a 601HD will not result in any significant performance
improvement.
Can anyone here share any info our thoughts on this?
=====
Michel Therrien
http://www.netaxis.qc.ca/people/m.therrien
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen_Worstell(at)notes.seagate.com |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith-List Digest: 09/22/99 |
From an earlier message:
> ... My opinion for what its worth is that
a larger HT may not be a perfect or only solution to the pitch
stability issue ...
I am not an AE, but it seems that if the CG is too far aft
no size of HS will solve the stability problem, because the
force on the HS will be neutral or up, instead of down as it
needs to be for pitch stability.
There is some stuff from Chris on the Zenith web site that
discusses stability.
g.
601HD, Rotax 912, trike.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen_Worstell(at)notes.seagate.com |
From a recent post:
> ... Can anyone give feed back as to whether or not they feel that these
"soft"
brakes are a safety issue or more something that just takes getting used
to.
Has anyone changed to a different brake with more "grip"? ...
Yes, it is a safety issue. The question is how much of one? Better brakes
are better, at least for trikes. The brake system on my C210 (and all the
other
Cessnas I've flown) was much, much better, so I sort of use that as a
standard,
and the 601 is deficient.
OTOH, I do not plan to change my 601 brakes. The gain in safety,
performance,
and convenience does not seem to me to be worth the considerable effort
required to change.
In the ideal world Zenair would design a better system and make a retrofit
kit available, so I could change without a considerable effort.
Philosophy: all aircraft designs are a compromise. A C150 is safer and
faster and cheaper and has greater utility than a 601HD, but the 601 is
much
more fun to fly on a VFR day, and has far lower operating and maintenance
costs. I have chosen a 601, not a 150. YMMV.
g.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PWalsh8045(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: New 601 XL Builder with ?'s |
I cant tell you about the xl but, I did build my 601 hd...trike with rotax
912 in 450 hours...including zinc-chromate on all interior surfaces and
painting....basic vfr. That is actual building time, not time spent going
over and over the plans and manual...that is the weak area, the kit was
really good. The factory support was good, no com;laints here. Besides, this
list here is really a useful tool itself, i did not access it much though
when I built mine....overall...Im very satisfied....hope this helps...
Patrick Walsh
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Davidson" <jdavidso(at)doubled.com> |
| Subject: | Picking Out a 601 Model |
Brad,
To get this going I'll give you some short answers. You asked:
Has anyone seen the XL prototype? Is it worth waiting for?
I saw it at Oshkosh this year. The features are improvements on the HD
and HDS. They are desirable. Whether they are worth the wait is really up
to you. No one really knows how long it will be.
Has anyone installed dual sticks on the 601? Don't know of any.
Can it be built in 400 hrs? Maybe the 2nd or 3rd plane.
Any tricks or advice to save time. Forget about finishing the plane. Take
pleasure in completing sections. Involve any family you have. When it
starts to look like an airplane, you have 90% to go.
What do you think of the company? Excellent: good people, good planes.
Is there any questions or concerns I should bring up with the company before
I purchase the kit? You should really ask yourself if you want to build or
fly. There will be a lot of building before you fly. It should be
enjoyable for you.
Jeff Davidson
CH601 HD
tail 85%, 1st wing 60%
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Melanie @ Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
| Subject: | New 601 XL Builder with ?'s |
> I am going to the factory in Nov to but a deposit on the 601
> XL and was looking for some advice from someone with
> experience with the 601.
>
> The following are a few questions that I had. If you have a
> answer or a comment I would love to hear from you.
>
> Has anyone seen the XL prototype? Is it worth waiting for?
Yes, I have seen the prototype - No, it is not worth waiting got it (my
humble opinion)
> Has anyone installed dual sticks on the 601?
>
Yes, somebody in England did it - saw it on one of the web pages. Why do you
like dual sticks? BTW: I had the same opinion, but after flying the factory
601 HDS I believe the Y stick is much more comfortable.
> Can it be built in 400 hrs?
No - 500 hours minimum for the basic kit (without corrosion protection,
fancy instruments etc.)
>
> Any tricks or advice to save time.
If you look for a cheap way to get an airplane, forget building one. One
thing I learned is taking time - and not cut any corners. Studying the
planes and talking to other builders will show you ways to avoid mistakes,
building tips etc.
> What do you think of the company?
No complaints. Company is very responsive and helpful. The plans, however...
everything is there, but to find it is the trick. I find myself constantly
switching from the drawings to the step-by-step manual, the general manual,
etc.
>
> Is there any questions or concerns I should bring up with the
> company before I purchase the kit?
Participate on the workshop !!!
\
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Brad Witherell
> Bwitherell(at)bellsouthips.com
> Pittsburgh, PA
>
>
> -------------
>
> -------------
> Zenith-List:
> http://www.matronics.com/zenith-list
> List
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
> Other Email
> Lists: http://www.matronics.com/other
>
> -------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Halsall" <halsall(at)nonline.net> |
Another way to improve braking (if you really need it):
There are a number of 701's around using two brake calipers per wheel -
probably only really useful for full power run-ups for the STOL. Adds only
a few bucks and pounds, and provides twice the brakes. I'm not sure if this
was a builder modification or a Zenith/Matco upgrade.
Peter Halsall, 701/912
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Small" <zodiacjeff(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Shortcut for compressing bungees |
ZAC has info sheets on the landing gear that I did not receive when the gear
was ordered. They add greatly to the 6-L-0, 6-L-1, and 6-L-3 sheets in the
large plans. Ask for sheets LG-1 through LG-6; Roger K. from Virginia put
the list onto this a while back. (Please don't flame me if credit was given
to the wrong lister.)
The cover sheet for these pages gives excellent detail on making nutplates
to ease the Lower Landing Gear/Compressing the Bungees Blues that every Zod
builder loves. Many of you, Steve and Bill come to mind, have tried this
route.
Last evening the left landing gear support and bungee were installed with no
help in 75 minutes. This evening I got the right one in in just a few
minutes over an hour. No nutplates were used so no time was spent on making
them.
How can this step be reduced in both time and effort? With the addition of
one 5/8 inch hole.
Drill this hole in the outboard rib about 25mm above the botton flange and
centered between the rows of rivets holding the outboard gear slides.
Then install the Lower Bearing Support after you have tightly bound the
bungees around the tubes in the LBS; string or ty-wraps work. Do NOT
install the gear leg or the 3/4 inch cross tube. With the added room
available to work and the use of a pair of curved forceps, washers and nuts
were placed inside and tighten with whatever socket set you're using.
Narrow wall 3/8 sockets are a big help and if you take a piece of 1/4 square
steel stock (your sockets, of course must be 1/4 drive) and bend a one inch
right angle on a piece about seven inches long, you can reach all of the
nuts on the inside. A 6mm allen wrench can also be wedged into a 1/4 drive
socket. The tighter you've bound the bungees, the more room you'll have to
work.
When all the 14 bolts/nuts are in and down, center up the bungees as best
you can and cut the wraps or string. Now carefully slide the gear leg up
through the LBS and slide the 3/4 inch tube into the leg. You've already
made reference marks on the pieces so you can align the hole for the long
AN3 bolt. Fish through the 5/8 hole in the outboard rib with the trusty ice
pick and line up the holes in the gear leg and the tube. Ice pick out, bolt
in, forceps or sticky stuff on screwdriver to place washer and nut on,
socket through the 5/8 hole, hold nut with wrench , and ...done. Not one
expletive passed my lips.
Use ZAC's threaded rod and plywood to compress or come up with your own
device. Ken Lennox showed me one he'd done so I just followed suit with
some steel angle iron, 5/16 bolts through the tubes in the LBS, and one
piece of 5/16 threaded rod down the middle of each side. The 5/16 was
overkill but this is a tool that most of us will need again if we every have
to replace bungees (groan).
Will the 5/8 hole weaken anything? Well, there are heavy extrusions on
three sides of it and the rib is the thickest one on the a/c. Also, the
diagonal L angles above and to the side of it all provide extra strength.
My guess is the a/c will never know it's there, but the time it saves is
amazing.
Regards, Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net> |
My 701 kit came with dual piston calipers for each wheel. My estimation
of the pedal piston size from looking at the outside of the master
cylinder and the diameter of the wheel pistons you get a mechanical
advantage of four, however the brake pucks are about 2" out and an 8"
radius tire takes the advantage back to one. Now for the bad news. If
my geometry hasn't failed me the brake pedal and cylinder set up has a
mechanical advantage of one fourth, that is, if you push with 20 pounds
then the master cylinder sees 5 pounds and with perfect friction the
tires see 5 pounds to the ground, get the picture. It seems to me the
Matco brakes are not to blame, we need better geometry between the
master cylinder and the pedals. If you recall there have been rudder
pedal weld failures, no wonder with them taking all the force to get
minimal braking.
Chuck Deiterich 701 5% done
Halsall wrote:
>
> Another way to improve braking (if you really need it):
> There are a number of 701's around using two brake calipers per wheel -
> probably only really useful for full power run-ups for the STOL. Adds only
> a few bucks and pounds, and provides twice the brakes. I'm not sure if this
> was a builder modification or a Zenith/Matco upgrade.
> Peter Halsall, 701/912
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kent Brown" <kbplanner(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New 601 XL Builder with ?'s |
Hi Brad,
I'll leave it to those with experience to answer most of your questions, but
the one about dual sticks can be answered if you look through the pictures
on the Zenith website. There is a picture showing dual sticks in one
cockpit. There's not a lot of room between your legs for a control stick,
though, and since they fly quite nicely with the center stick, that's not a
change I personally would make.
IMHO,
Kent
Soon to be 601HDS builder.
----- Original Message -----
From: brad witherell <bwitherell(at)bellsouthips.com>
To
>
> Has anyone installed dual sticks on the 601?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
> Someone was asking about simple GPS 's that are available. I have the
>cheep Magelland which sells for $99.00 dollars at walmart or Kmart. I have
>used it to fly my cessna all arround the northeast and find it to be the
>best of both worlds. It has no data base, but has 100 memories and is very
>easy to program and use. It has route capability, shows actual heading and
>speed. It will even display your time of arrival based on your speed. The
>best thing is it gives you a simple compass rose with a needle and you use
>it as if you were using a VOR. No buttons to play with while flying and
>you can be looking out windshield like you should be. It runs for 48 hrs
>on two AA batteries. Its been very reliable. NY
I wrote an article for Sport Aviation several years back
about the little boater/hiker hand-helds. I've had several
of the Magellan handhelds, the GPS2000 is still my favorite
but they all work fine. Haven't even turned a VOR receiver
ON in over two years. Once you've gone cross country direct
to hit a waypoint 1 mile off the approach end of the runway
with a $100 radio, it's hard to go back! There's a copy
of the article available at:
http://home.kscable.com/aeroelectric/articles/nailgun.pdf
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Independence Kansas: the >
< Jurassic Park of aviation. >
< Your source for brand new >
< 40 year old airplanes. >
=================================
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Day" <robday(at)gte.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Subaru performance |
Michel-
My opinion about an engine is this:
I agree that if you grind the camshaft, you should also mill the heads down
a bit. And if you do this, it would be a shame not to improve the intake and
exhaust some to take advantage of the engines newfound performance.... see
how this can "domino" into a complete redesign? There are also a few other
things to consider. Aircraft engines actually have larger tolerances in the
friction areas to avoid possible seizing, but at the same time performance
is sacrificed, along with a lot of oil. Some auto conversion companies also
grind the pistons and/or hone out the cylinders a bit. I don't know if
Stratus or NSI do this, but it would be wise to ask. Now, will the EA81 be
able to pull your plane around stock? Most likely, no. The reason is that
it's made to run at an optimum RPM, just like any other engine. But it's in
the lower half of the range, which is where we usually drive. Planes operate
at or near redline most of the time. So at the very least, the camshaft
needs to be changed. And the ignition system will need to be completely
reworked.
So, will a 601 benefit from these HP increases? Sure, in climb especially.
Lots of increased rate of climb. Top speed? Maybe 3-5 knots, if what I've
learned from the Heintz's is true. It would take a lot of HP to pull this
airframe through the air a lot faster. The XL is an attempt to increase the
top speed, and to therefore be able to take advantage of the extra
horsepower.
And, of course, take all of my advice with a grain of salt, as I have yet to
even begin building (2000).
Good luck!
Rob Day
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)presys.com> |
I vote for better geometry at the brake pedal. Shorter arm more force. My
options are still open because 701 fuselage with no firewall is on the bench
now.
Safety Issue? These same pedals are installed on tail draggers where too
much braking is more dangerous than none at all. Better to plan ahead and
not bend anything.
Richard:
Florence, Oregon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net> |
Chuck Deiterich wrote:
>
> My 701 kit came with dual piston calipers for each wheel. My estimation
> of the pedal piston size from looking at the outside of the master
> cylinder and the diameter of the wheel pistons you get a mechanical
> advantage of four, however the brake pucks are about 2" out and an 8"
> radius tire takes the advantage back to one.
I'm wrong! I'm wrong!, my geometry did fail me. The stuff above is ok,
but what's below is wrong. I got the pedals out of the box and measured
the motion, for 10 mm of brake pedal you get about 7 mm of cylinder
compression or an advantage of 1.4. Which still is not much, most cars
have an advantage from pedal to master cylinder of 4 or more. I think
we still need better pedal geometry.
>
> Now for the bad news. If
> my geometry hasn't failed me the brake pedal and cylinder set up has a
> mechanical advantage of one fourth, that is, if you push with 20 pounds
> then the master cylinder sees 5 pounds and with perfect friction the
> tires see 5 pounds to the ground, get the picture. It seems to me the
> Matco brakes are not to blame, we need better geometry between the
> master cylinder and the pedals. If you recall there have been rudder
> pedal weld failures, no wonder with them taking all the force to get
> minimal braking.
> Chuck Deiterich 701 5% done
>
> Halsall wrote:
>
> >
> > Another way to improve braking (if you really need it):
> > There are a number of 701's around using two brake calipers per wheel -
> > probably only really useful for full power run-ups for the STOL. Adds only
> > a few bucks and pounds, and provides twice the brakes. I'm not sure if this
> > was a builder modification or a Zenith/Matco upgrade.
> > Peter Halsall, 701/912
> >
>
> Matronics: http://www.matronics.com
> Zenith-List: http://www.matronics.com/zenith-list
> Archive Search Engine: http://www.matronics.com/search
> Archive Browsing: http://www.matronics.com/archives
> Other Email Lists: http://www.matronics.com/other
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Buss bar calculations . . . |
>> > Yesterday, I sat down to figure out if my busses were adequate.
Current
>> >plan is to use 1/2" strips of .031" silver. The busses are little and
>> >short, so I was mostly worried about temperature rise, less about voltage
>> >drop.
Temperature rise and voltage drop go hand-in-hand . . . loss
of energy due to voltage drop converts directly to heat. However,
thin strips of bare metal have the BETTER heat rejection than
insulated wires of the same cross section. Further, because
the strip is bolted to the terminal posts of circuit breakers
every inch or so, you can probably get by with a very thin
foil . . . buss bars tend to be thick for the purpose of making
them mechanically favorable to work with.
>> Silver? Talk about overkill! Trust me, it isn't an issue.
>>
>*** Yeah, well, I was going to make them of copper ( "Gee", said my IA, "all
>the busses in my Bonanza are copper" ) but the FSDO inspector wanted me to
>put in inspection requirements for the copper. Something like
>
> "Inspect for corrosion at annual. If corrosion is found, remove bus and
>burnish it off. Use Swiglet special tool PAQ-FIBS-1 for burnishing. Bus is
>adequately burnished when it looks like new copper. Replace bus if, after
>burnishing, it is less than 0.XX inches thick or less than 0.XX inches
>wide."
This statement probably grew out of a paragraph in AC43-13 wherein
a suggestion is made for "periodic cleaning of buss bars for
corrosion" or something like that. EAA asked me to comment
on the rewrite of AC43-13 about two years ago, I pointed out that
properly assembled hardware attaching bus bars to breakers uses
multi-tooth lockwashers or at the least, properly torqued fasteners
that create GAS TIGHT joints. If properly assembled, very corroded
bus bars can have perfectly good electrical properties because the
place where breakers and screws hit the bar are SEALED from
environmental effects. Most copper production bus bars are
tin or solder plated to retard corrosion of bare copper surfaces.
However, when clean hardware is assembled with internal tooth
lockwashers under properly torqued fasteners, that joint is
good for a lot more years than you're going to own the airplane.
The science of crimping terminals to wires calls on the same
conditions for getting two pieces of metal into intimate contact
with each other.
None-the-less, after EAA comments were forwarded to
the FAA, -and- the document went back to the techwriters
for another two years worth of work, AC43-13 is still loaded
with poorly crafted suggestions and requirements that receive
further bastardization when invoked by ignorant people with
power.
> ...Since I used silver, I was able to say something more like
>
>"Since busses are solid silver, they should remain free of electrically
>significant corrosion for the life of the airplane".
Silver is about as reactive to atmospheric stresses as copper.
Why would we need "silver polish" for the family heirlooms
were it not so? However, assembled with proper hardware and
techniques, a silver bus bar will perform no better or worse
than its copper brothers.
>...I had the silver sheet just lying around, anyway. My dad was an amateur
>jeweler, and when he died, I got all his stuff. That silver has been in the
>closet for 15 years. I'd kept it because I thought it might come in handy
>for RF projects.
I've got a couple of silver bars that I bought about 20 years
ago to silver-plate the inside surfaces of VHF antenna duplexer
cavities I was building out of copper clad etched circuit board
material . . . here's where a few molecules of silver laid
on top of the copper was really worth the effort. Don't anyone
run out looking for silver strip to "update" your airplane's
bus bars . . . anyone who suggests it's either necessary or
useful simply doesn't understand the physics involved.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Independence Kansas: the >
< Jurassic Park of aviation. >
< Your source for brand new >
< 40 year old airplanes. >
=================================
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Chapman <pchapman(at)ionsys.com> |
| Subject: | stability and tail force |
>I am not an AE, but it seems that if the CG is too far aft
>no size of HS will solve the stability problem, because the
>force on the HS will be neutral or up, instead of down as it
>needs to be for pitch stability.
One doesn't actually need a downforce on the tail to keep a plane stable, it
turns out, just that there typically is a downforce on the tail for
conventional aircraft. If the CG is too far aft, making the tail bigger will
help. An upwards force on the tail will tend to occur when the c.g. is well
aft (say, behind 25 to 27% of the wing chord) and the wing has little or no
camber. Symmetrical aerobatic airfoils have no camber, as the 'line down the
middle of the airfoil' isn't curved upwards in the middle. The fairly flat
bottomed yet fat 601 airfoil certainly has positive camber, which tends to
make any airfoil pitch nose down. For all I know, this could make the tail
for the 601 have to provide downforce at any legal CG location or airspeed.
(Careful observation of the airfoil does make it look like there's a bit of
reverse camber, upsweep that is, near the trailing edge of the 601's
airfoil. Curious.)
And if you go wild with enlarging the tail, you'll eventually have a canard
aircraft, with both front and aft surfaces providing upwards lift...
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net> |
Chuck Deiterich wrote:
>
> Chuck Deiterich wrote:
>
> >
> > My 701 kit came with dual piston calipers for each wheel. My estimation
> > of the pedal piston size from looking at the outside of the master
> > cylinder and the diameter of the wheel pistons you get a mechanical
> > advantage of four, however the brake pucks are about 2" out and an 8"
> > radius tire takes the advantage back to one.
>
I'm wrong above too, I forgot to square the piston diameters, the total
advantage to the tire from the cylinders should be two not one. If all
of this is confusing, delete my notes and forget what I wrote. (At I
least I admit my errors.)
Chuck Deiterich
>
> > Chuck Deiterich 701 5% done
> >
> > Halsall wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Another way to improve braking (if you really need it):
> > > There are a number of 701's around using two brake calipers per wheel -
> > > probably only really useful for full power run-ups for the STOL. Adds only
> > > a few bucks and pounds, and provides twice the brakes. I'm not sure if this
> > > was a builder modification or a Zenith/Matco upgrade.
> > > Peter Halsall, 701/912
> > >
> >
> > Matronics: http://www.matronics.com
> > Zenith-List: http://www.matronics.com/zenith-list
> > Archive Search Engine: http://www.matronics.com/search
> > Archive Browsing: http://www.matronics.com/archives
> > Other Email Lists: http://www.matronics.com/other
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Chapman <pchapman(at)ionsys.com> |
| Subject: | Re: stability and tail force |
>>(Careful observation of the airfoil does make it look like there's a bit of
>>reverse camber, upsweep that is, near the trailing edge of the 601's
>>airfoil. Curious.)
>
>Yes, there is, but it's not so curious. This helps reduce the nose-down
>(negative) pitching moment of the airfoil, which in turn allows for a
I agree with your explanation about the effect of the reflex in an airfoil
-- and it saves me from writing up how it works!
It just isn't something one sees in a typical airfoil.
Yet there are always planes where after the design is built, the designer
comes up with the idea of reflexing the flaps or flaperons a few degrees for
better cruise speed. Perhaps they should have designed the airfoil that way
from the start. They might improve the cruise even a bit more and probably
could still keep the same maximum lift coefficient with flaps down for
landing. And then there are airfoils like some of the early NASA laminar
flow airfoils (of the 1970s?) that had high lift to drag ratios, but had a
high nose down pitching moment. Much of the gain from using the new airfoils
was lost by the gain in drag from the tail, which would have to provide more
downforce to balance the wing's pitching moment.
I had thought the situation "curious" just because I've never tried to
analyze the full effect. Is the reduction in negative pitching moment and
thus tail size enough to make up for any loss in lift or increase in drag
from the reflexing? After all, as you say, using enough reflex to remove the
tail completely does not automatically make a plane more efficient. Perhaps
a little reflexing doesn't add much drag, and doesn't lose you much lift
where it counts, at the stall point, which will be more determined by what
the camber is up at the nose. The explanation for the 601's airfoil could
then be: the nose is highly cambered for good maximum lift, while the reflex
at the back, which costs little in lift/drag ratio, reduces the high
negative pitching moment that the highly cambered nose would cause, and thus
lessens the required tail size.
Guess you don't off hand happen to know what the pitching moment coefficient
of the 601's airfoil is? It's probably not lying around on any sheet of
paper there at the plant in Mexico, MO...
It would have been handy for a spreadsheet in which I had once been playing
around with tail trim forces and their effect on aircraft drag.
Take care,
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | OOPS there went my canopy |
HI Listers;
Well it finally happened to me. I lost my canopy in flight.
Last week with hurricane Floyd due to hit our area the next day, I
decided to do some flying in my 601HDS. While making some high
speed runs my canopy blew off. Since there was a 2,000 ft solid
ceiling I was flying at 1,500 ft when the canopy departed.
It fairly exploded hitting me in the right shoulder, and putting a
small gash in the right side of my head, but the worst part was a
large part struck me in my throat almost knocking me out.
All I saw was a lot of green coming up fast, I finally reduced
power and pulled out of my dive at 200 ft. I reduced my speed to
70 mph so I could see but the plane was acting very strange,
bucking and swishing from side to side. I then increased my speed
to 90 mph and it flew fairly stable and I could see well enough to
make it to a private grass strip and landed without any trouble.
The left side of my stabilizer had three small dents nothing
serious, but I took the whole tail section off for a closer
inspection.
My canopy was the double side opening as per the original plans,
George Pinneo had previously sent me a copy of his forward opening
mod and I was planning to redue my canopy as per his mod.
Talked to Nick at ZAC about my incident and ask for a new canopy
and after a little wrangling he said he would sell me one for half
price, his first offer was to knock 15% off the purchase price.
In addition to the regular locking devices I also installed two
positive locks, all these were still in place after the canopy
departed.
As far as I remember the canopy started to lift at the left hand
front corner then wham.
When I receive my new canopy I am going to build it as per
George's plans.
I later found the wrecked canopy in a cut corn field in three
large pieces.
In all fairness to ZAC they designed a strong airplane, and it
will fly with no canopy, but I'm glad I did not have to fly far
under those trying conditions.
Ken Lennox N99KL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OOPS there went my canopy |
>Well it finally happened to me. I lost my canopy in flight.
Ken,
I sure am glad the flight turned out the way it did after the canopy let go.
You said that the locking mechanisms were still in place. Could you tell
from the recovered canopy pieces what exactly happened? Sounds like the
plexiglass let go? Maybe a stress crack got bad in a hurry??
Yours is the first I have heard of a canopy letting go and still have the
locks in place.
Regards,
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Philip Polstra" <ppolstra(at)inetnow.net> |
| Subject: | Canopy lock push or pull |
I was working on my canopy today and I had a thought on the external latch.
It seems a bit clumsy to install the external latch made from an L and a
bent piece of cutoff. I don't want the thing sticking into my leg and it
seems a bit flimsy. Has anyone else thought about attaching a bend aluminum
(1/8") piece directly to the hooks above the hinge? It seems like this
would minimize the junk protruding out from the inside and if you were to
bump the hook it would have no reason to come off. Thoughts?
________________________________________________________________________________
My Airspeed was around 130+ mph, I wasn't watching my airspeed to
closely as I had just installed a 4 way CHT gauge to monitor my
engine temps.
I still have a oil temp problem (220 deg) and I also just
installed a small scoop to duct ram air on my C85 oil tank so I
was concentrating on my engine gauges.
In addition to the regular four hooks holding the canopy I had
installed two clevis pins that locked the two forward hooks in
place. After landing I discovered that the right front hold down
hook was bent aft at a 45 deg. angle, the left hook was normal.
I had several knowledgeable people look at my canopy frame and
they all came to the same conclusion that the forward frame failed
at one of the holes holding the canopy to the frame approx. 10
inches from the left hand corner. The rear frame was and still is
intact.
Hope this helps
Ken Lennox N99KL
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Canopy lock push or pull |
| From: | "James Ashford" <jashford1(at)earthlink.net> |
Philip,
I riveted a piece of .040 aluminum about 20mm wide to the latch between the
hinge point and the hook of the latch and cut a slot for it through the
skin. I riveted a piece of 1/16" extruded angle on the outside to have
something to push on. The result is no extra protrusions from the latch arm
on the inside, and the portion that sticks out in the slipstream is
minimized. I also drilled a hole on the outside in the piece that goes
through the skin so I can put a padlock on it. I haven't had the use of it
very much, so unknown operational problems may arise.
Jim Ashford
912 HDS, awaiting FAA Inspector!!!!
N 601Q
----------
>From: "Philip Polstra" <ppolstra(at)inetnow.net>
>To: "matronics zenith"
>Subject: Zenith-List: Canopy lock push or pull
>Date: Sat, Sep 25, 1999, 6:49 PM
>
>
> I was working on my canopy today and I had a thought on the external latch.
> It seems a bit clumsy to install the external latch made from an L and a
> bent piece of cutoff. I don't want the thing sticking into my leg and it
> seems a bit flimsy. Has anyone else thought about attaching a bend aluminum
> (1/8") piece directly to the hooks above the hinge? It seems like this
> would minimize the junk protruding out from the inside and if you were to
> bump the hook it would have no reason to come off. Thoughts?
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Douglas <ddouglas(at)coastside.net> |
| Subject: | Facet Fuel Pump Information |
Hey Builders!
I have some information about the Facet fuel pumps used to transfer fuel
in our airplanes. To support the Pillar Point Avionics "Smart Switch"
Fuel Pump Controller, we have tested threee different models of Facet
pump: the 40171, the 40105, and the 40106. The differences fall into
two distinct categories that relate to pump-off forward and reverse
leakage flows.
Physically, the 40105 and 40
The Facet 40171 pump is the type sold by Stoddard-Hamilton Aircraft ,
Inc. (360-495-8533) to serve as a transfer pump for transferring fuel
from the auxiliary tanks to the main tanks. The 40171 costs about $54
each. The Facet 40105 and 40106 are sold by numerous suppliers,
including Aircraft Spruce and Specialties (800-824-1930 (west);
800-831-2949 (east)), Chief Aircraft (800-447-3408), Wicks
(800-221-9425) and others and typically used in the Zenith and other
aircraft for transferring fuel from an aux tank to a header tank. The
40105/6 pumps cost about $28 to $32 each.
Physically, the 40105 and 40106 are identical. Both Chief Aircraft and
Aircraft Spruce picture these pumps in their catalogs. The 40171 looks
slightly different than the 40105 / 40106 models in that the inlet and
outlet ends of the pump are about 1/4 inch longer than the 40105 / 40106
to accommodate the check and foot valves. (I haven't found any pictures
of the 40171.) Functionally, there is a world of difference between the
40171 and the 40105 / 40106.
All three model pumps have a "lift" capability and can draw fuel from
at least 3-feet. All three move the fuel at about 0.5 gal/min, or about
30 gal/h when they are operating.
In the "OFF" state, however, the differences between the pumps become
more obvious. At a 30-inch head pressure, the 40105 and 40106 pumps
have a forward "leak" rate or drain rate of about 15 gal/h. These pumps
thus flow freely in the forward direction at about one-hald the pumping
rate.... In the reverse direction, the 40105 and 40106 drain backwards
at between 0.05 ga/h to about 0.25 gal/hr, with a mean value over a
dozen tests with four different pumps of about 0.1 gal/h. (As a point
of reference, 0.1 gal/h is about one drop per second). Compare these
numbers to the 40171 pump, which showed no detectable leakage in the
"OFF" state in either the forward or reverse directions over several
hours.
The utilization implications are pretty clear: If your "from" tank is
higher that the "to" tank, you need the 40171 pump to prevent your
"from" fuel from draining into your "to" tank. If your "from" and "to"
tanks are at about the same level, you should still use the 40171 pump
to prevent an exchange of fuel. If your "from" tank is lower than your
"to" tank, you can use any of the pumps described, but if you use the
40105 or 40106, you should use a check valve on the outlet side of the
pump to present your "to" tank from draining back into your "from"
tank. Wicks lists a check valve at about $24, so cost-wise the 40171
may represent a better bargin because it has the checks built into
them....
Pillar Point Avionics offers fuel pump controllers for all of these
pumps. For the 40171 pump, PPAv provides the XFR-12-2-5F model
controller; for the 40105 and 40106 pumps, PPAv provides the
XFR-12-2-5G model controller. We developed the "G" model when we found
that the operating characteristics of the 40105 and 40106 were just
different enough from the 40171 to make control of those pumps with the
"F"-model Smart Switch less reliable than we wanted.
If you have a PPAv controller and are building a GlaStar or another
airplane that uses the 40171 pump(s), the original production "F" model
will be just fine. If you have the 40105 or 40106 pumps, you will need
the "G" model controller. If you need the "G" model controller and have
NOT been contacted by PPAv, then please contact me by email at
mailto:ddouglas(at)ppavionics.com or by fax (650-726-9567) or by telephone
(650-740-1516).
You can identify the model by looking at the mounting tab on the pump.
One side of the mounting slot will be stamped "40" and the other side
will be stamped "105", 106" or "171". If you have a different model
pump and want to use the PPAv Smart Switch Fuel Pump Controller to
reduce your aux fuel management workload, please contact us. You can
read about the PPAv Controller at
http://www.ppavionics.com
Dennis Douglas
Pillar Point Avionics, Inc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: Removie protective film off canopy |
The question this time about the protective film that comes on the canopy
bubble is: ... when to remove it. Did you remove it all at once to begin
with, or a little at a time as you worked along on the canopy project? It
seemd from the comments that I have read, that one of the first things you
do is to fit the two curved pieces of tubing to the inside of the bubble and
drill holes to secure the canopy to them. How much of that protective film
did you remove in order to do that? Feedback please, thanks. Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Facet Fuel Pump Information |
Dennis Douglas wrote:
> (clip clip)
> In the "OFF" state, however, the differences between the pumps become
> more obvious. At a 30-inch head pressure, the 40105 and 40106 pumps
> have a forward "leak" rate or drain rate of about 15 gal/h.
> (clip clip)
> The utilization implications are pretty clear: If your "from" tank is
> higher that the "to" tank, you need the 40171 pump to prevent your
> "from" fuel from draining into your "to" tank.
> (clip clip)
With a 40105 and a valve, my leak rate is 0.000
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Facet Fuel Pump Information |
Hello Listers,
Has anyone installed a wing tank only system in their Zodiac. I was
wondering if you need to use a different fuel pump? Do you need a fuel
pump at all? Or, do you need one as an auxiliary pump only. Any
thoughts would be helpful.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Payson" <payce(at)niagara.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Facet Fuel Pump Information |
John:
I have installed wing tanks only. About 15 imp. gal each wing. I used a
facet fuel pump at the tanks on each side and have installed a fuel pump
similar to the ones used on piper cherokees as my main fuel pump. I have a
turbocharged EA-81.
The two wing pumps are used as auxillary pumps,for take off and landings and
in case the main pump fails. (hope that doesn't happen)
I have installed a selector valve and two check valves so that I don't get
flow back into the opposite tanks when both tanks are selected. Yes, I know
that the facet have pumps have a check ball system built in them, but the
exterior check valves seemed like a good idea at the time.
Dave Payson
Virtually completed CH601HD, waiting for paperwork and final inspection.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
I have a question about the bolting of the spar cap
doublers.
On my 1995 plans, there are two bolts at the end of
the doubler. One AN3 10mm from the end an AN4 50mm
from the end.
I found a CH601 mandatory update (may 5, 1993) and the
Zenair news of July 1993 which shows three bolts. An
AN3 10mm from the end, another AN3 50mm from the end
and an AN4 40mm from that last bolt.
Those of you who have a kit... what is being shipped
by Zenair (two or three bolts on those spar cap
doublers?
Thanks in advance.
PS: Thanks Robert for your answer on Subaru
performance.
=====
Michel Therrien
http://www.netaxis.qc.ca/people/m.therrien
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Facet Fuel Pump Information |
Dave Payson wrote:
>
>
> John:
>
> I have installed wing tanks only. About 15 imp. gal each wing. I used a
> facet fuel pump at the tanks on each side and have installed a fuel pump
> similar to the ones used on piper cherokees as my main fuel pump. I have a
> turbocharged EA-81.
>
> The two wing pumps are used as auxillary pumps,for take off and landings and
> in case the main pump fails. (hope that doesn't happen)
>
> I have installed a selector valve and two check valves so that I don't get
> flow back into the opposite tanks when both tanks are selected. Yes, I know
> that the facet have pumps have a check ball system built in them, but the
> exterior check valves seemed like a good idea at the time.
>
> Dave Payson
> Virtually completed CH601HD, waiting for paperwork and final inspection.
>
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the info...! Did you design, build and weld your own tanks?
Or, did you have it done outside?
John
CH601HDS Scratch Builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Boultinghouse <cboultinghouse(at)mexicomo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 6V2-7 and 6V2-8 |
>
>I have a question about the bolting of the spar cap
>doublers.
>snip<
>Those of you who have a kit... what is being shipped
>by Zenair (two or three bolts on those spar cap
>doublers?
Michel,
My HD spars (factory built) have only the two bolts in the upper doubler.
An AN3 at 10mm from the outboard end and an AN4 at 50mm.
Regards,
Chris Boultinghouse
Mexico, MO
http://members.tripod.com/zodiacbuilder
"Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?"
-George Carlin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Knighton" <knighton(at)sound.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 6V2-7 and 6V2-8 |
My plans also show an AN3-5A and an AN4-5A located 10 mm and 40 mm
respectively from the end of the outboard end of the spar cap doublers. In
addition, the spars furnished with the kit that I purchased last fall are
drilled in this manner. There is no mention of a third bolt anywhere,
including the addendum.
Joe Knighton
CH-601HD
>
> I have a question about the bolting of the spar cap
> doublers.
>
> On my 1995 plans, there are two bolts at the end of
> the doubler. One AN3 10mm from the end an AN4 50mm
> from the end.
>
> I found a CH601 mandatory update (may 5, 1993) and the
> Zenair news of July 1993 which shows three bolts. An
> AN3 10mm from the end, another AN3 50mm from the end
> and an AN4 40mm from that last bolt.
>
> Those of you who have a kit... what is being shipped
> by Zenair (two or three bolts on those spar cap
> doublers?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> PS: Thanks Robert for your answer on Subaru
> performance.
>
>
> =====
> Michel Therrien
> http://www.netaxis.qc.ca/people/m.therrien
> Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck" <cps(at)tisd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy lock push or pull |
All I did was drill a hole that I use a short rod as a "key" to open. Seems
to work ok.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Polstra <ppolstra(at)inetnow.net>
Date: Saturday, September 25, 1999 11:52 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Canopy lock push or pull
>
>I was working on my canopy today and I had a thought on the external latch.
>It seems a bit clumsy to install the external latch made from an L and a
>bent piece of cutoff. I don't want the thing sticking into my leg and it
>seems a bit flimsy. Has anyone else thought about attaching a bend
aluminum
>(1/8") piece directly to the hooks above the hinge? It seems like this
>would minimize the junk protruding out from the inside and if you were to
>bump the hook it would have no reason to come off. Thoughts?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Douglas <ddouglas(at)coastside.net> |
| Subject: | Facet Fuel Pump Info |
Hey Builders!
I have some information about the Facet fuel pumps used to transfer fuel
in our airplanes. To support the Pillar Point Avionics "Smart Switch"
Fuel Pump Controller, we have tested threee different models of Facet
pump: the 40171, the 40105, and the 40106. The differences fall into
two distinct categories that relate to pump-off forward and reverse
leakage flows.
Physically, the 40105 and 40
The Facet 40171 pump is the type sold by Stoddard-Hamilton Aircraft ,
Inc. (360-495-8533) to serve as a transfer pump for transferring fuel
from the auxiliary tanks to the main tanks. The 40171 costs about $54
each. The Facet 40105 and 40106 are sold by numerous suppliers,
including Aircraft Spruce and Specialties (800-824-1930 (west);
800-831-2949 (east)), Chief Aircraft (800-447-3408), Wicks
(800-221-9425) and others and typically used in the Zenith and other
aircraft for transferring fuel from an aux tank to a header tank. The
40105/6 pumps cost about $28 to $32 each.
Physically, the 40105 and 40106 are identical. Both Chief Aircraft and
Aircraft Spruce picture these pumps in their catalogs. The 40171 looks
slightly different than the 40105 / 40106 models in that the inlet and
outlet ends of the pump are about 1/4 inch longer than the 40105 / 40106
to accommodate the check and foot valves. (I haven't found any pictures
of the 40171.) Functionally, there is a world of difference between the
40171 and the 40105 / 40106.
All three model pumps have a "lift" capability and can draw fuel from
at least 3-feet. All three move the fuel at about 0.5 gal/min, or about
30 gal/h when they are operating.
In the "OFF" state, however, the differences between the pumps become
more obvious. At a 30-inch head pressure, the 40105 and 40106 pumps
have a forward "leak" rate or drain rate of about 15 gal/h. These pumps
thus flow freely in the forward direction at about one-hald the pumping
rate.... In the reverse direction, the 40105 and 40106 drain backwards
at between 0.05 ga/h to about 0.25 gal/hr, with a mean value over a
dozen tests with four different pumps of about 0.1 gal/h. (As a point
of reference, 0.1 gal/h is about one drop per second). Compare these
numbers to the 40171 pump, which showed no detectable leakage in the
"OFF" state in either the forward or reverse directions over several
hours.
The utilization implications are pretty clear: If your "from" tank is
higher that the "to" tank, you need the 40171 pump to prevent your
"from" fuel from draining into your "to" tank. If your "from" and "to"
tanks are at about the same level, you should still use the 40171 pump
to prevent an exchange of fuel. If your "from" tank is lower than your
"to" tank, you can use any of the pumps described, but if you use the
40105 or 40106, you should use a check valve on the outlet side of the
pump to present your "to" tank from draining back into your "from"
tank. Wicks lists a check valve at about $24, so cost-wise the 40171
may represent a better bargin because it has the checks built into
them....
Pillar Point Avionics offers fuel pump controllers for all of these
pumps. For the 40171 pump, PPAv provides the XFR-12-2-5F model
controller; for the 40105 and 40106 pumps, PPAv provides the
XFR-12-2-5G model controller. We developed the "G" model when we found
that the operating characteristics of the 40105 and 40106 were just
different enough from the 40171 to make control of those pumps with the
"F"-model Smart Switch less reliable than we wanted.
If you have a PPAv controller and are building a GlaStar or another
airplane that uses the 40171 pump(s), the original production "F" model
will be just fine. If you have the 40105 or 40106 pumps, you will need
the "G" model controller. If you need the "G" model controller and have
NOT been contacted by PPAv, then please contact me by email at
mailto:ddouglas(at)ppavionics.com or by fax (650-726-9567) or by telephone
(650-740-1516).
You can identify the model by looking at the mounting tab on the pump.
One side of the mounting slot will be stamped "40" and the other side
will be stamped "105", 106" or "171". If you have a different model
pump and want to use the PPAv Smart Switch Fuel Pump Controller to
reduce your aux fuel management workload, please contact us. You can
read about the PPAv Controller at
http://www.ppavionics.com
Dennis Douglas
Pillar Point Avionics, Inc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Steer <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 6V2-7 and 6V2-8 |
>Those of you who have a kit... what is being shipped
>by Zenair (two or three bolts on those spar cap
>doublers?
My kit, purchased in June this year with factory-built spars, has two
bolts as you first describe.
Bill
601HD, SN 6-3983
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net> |
I was going to get my .016 aluminuin sheeting rolled and shipped thru
UPS. But was wondering if rolling it would make it hard to work with.
Any comments ?
phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Removie protective film off canopy |
Fred;
Suggest you remove only that part of the film necessary to clear the area for
fasteners. work on the fitting of the bows with the film in place by inserting
a piece of card around the bow to check for low and high spots. Remove the film
for final check and fit. Use marker pen to indicate the bow's position so that
you keep fitting to the exact same location.
Be careful.
Mike
fhulen wrote:
>
> The question this time about the protective film that comes on the canopy
> bubble is: ... when to remove it. Did you remove it all at once to begin
> with, or a little at a time as you worked along on the canopy project? It
> seemd from the comments that I have read, that one of the first things you
> do is to fit the two curved pieces of tubing to the inside of the bubble and
> drill holes to secure the canopy to them. How much of that protective film
> did you remove in order to do that? Feedback please, thanks. Fred
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ronbo135(at)aol.com |
I had no problem working with .016 or .025 that was shipped rolled by ACS&S.
Ron Hansen
In a message dated 9/27/99 8:35:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
crusader(at)thegrid.net writes:
<<
I was going to get my .016 aluminuin sheeting rolled and shipped thru
UPS. But was wondering if rolling it would make it hard to work with.
Any comments ?
phil
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
When I purchase my 0.016, it is rolled in about 18
inch diameter. No problem.
--- Phil Peck wrote:
>
>
> I was going to get my .016 aluminuin sheeting rolled
> and shipped thru
> UPS. But was wondering if rolling it would make it
> hard to work with.
> Any comments ?
> phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Zenith-List is sponsored by Matronics,
> makers of fine Aircraft
> Avionics, and by the generous Contributions of
> List members.
>
>
> Matronics:
> http://www.matronics.com
> Zenith-List:
> http://www.matronics.com/zenith-list
> Archive Search Engine:
> http://www.matronics.com/search
> Archive Browsing:
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> Other Email Lists:
> http://www.matronics.com/other
>
>
>
>
>
=====
Michel Therrien
http://www.netaxis.qc.ca/people/m.therrien
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Matco brakes (cont'd) |
Hi.
Do you know why all russian cars have a de-icing on the rear window ?
It's to keep neighbour's hands warm when they push it.
More seriously, when you push a car, I think you push straight, parallel
to the road. You would never think to push it downward...
On the 701 (I don't know the 601), when you push the brake, the force is
transmitted to the piston at an angle of 63deg, almost perpendicular to it...
Today I took my pedals on a table, measured all distances and angles (with a
digital level meter, a must for homebuilders) and did some basic geometry.
Since I thought I made some error, I checked the result with some weights
and pulleys.
First of all, the lever arm of the tube where you push is 86mm, the lever arm
of the connecting rod to the piston is 110mm.
That means when you push 20 lbs on the pedal, the force on the piston is
20 x 86 / 110 x cos63 = 7.1 lbs. A caress (sort of).
Tomorrow I'll draw a new geometry. This will imply to cut the piston stem
30mm shorter (and re-thread it), then cut and weld. I'll tell how it works.
If it's OK, I'll post the new drawing to those interested.
In the meantime, you can try to brake directly with your shoes, it can't
be worse...
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darla Golin <darlajean(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Removie protective film off canopy |
Hi Fred,
I'll add to Mike's comments. It makes life MUCH easier in fitting the
hoops if you have a helper sitting inside the airplane who can mark the
high spots then pass the hoops out to you for bending adjustments.
>Fred;
>Suggest you remove only that part of the film necessary to clear the area for
>fasteners. work on the fitting of the bows with the film in place by
inserting
>a piece of card around the bow to check for low and high spots. Remove the
film
>for final check and fit. Use marker pen to indicate the bow's position so
that
>you keep fitting to the exact same location.
>Be careful.
>Mike
>
>fhulen wrote:
>
>>
>> The question this time about the protective film that comes on the canopy
>> bubble is: ... when to remove it. Did you remove it all at once to begin
>> with, or a little at a time as you worked along on the canopy project? It
>> seemd from the comments that I have read, that one of the first things you
>> do is to fit the two curved pieces of tubing to the inside of the bubble
and
>> drill holes to secure the canopy to them. How much of that protective film
>> did you remove in order to do that? Feedback please, thanks. Fred
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Payson" <payce(at)niagara.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Facet Fuel Pump Information |
John:
Yes I did design the tanks myself. They are in place of the wing lockers.
They start from between the spar caps and extent toward the rear Z in the
general shape of the ribs. They are in 2 pieces. The bottom is bent into a
box-like configuration and the other part is the top. I used sealed pop
rivets to join the seams and top. Pro-seal is used between the mating
surfaces to form a flexible seal. No leaks.
The flanges for the fuel filler and fittings are alluminum soldered on.
Seems quite strong.
Hope this helps,
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Removie protective film off canopy |
> Hi Fred,
> I'll add to Mike's comments. It makes life MUCH easier in fitting
the
> hoops if you have a helper sitting inside the airplane who can mark the
> high spots then pass the hoops out to you for bending adjustments.
++++ Roger that!
Thanks
Fred
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Chapman <pchapman(at)ionsys.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 701 stuff, part 2 |
>The carb overspill tubes fall directly on the exhaust pipes. I installed
long ones to
>the firewall bottom.
I finally got around to looking at your big 701 reports from a couple weeks ago.
It was mentioned on this list long ago that lengthened overspill tubes, with
their outlets in an area of lower pressure, could make the carbs function
improperly. The installation manual also notes that the overflow lines
should be routed to a zone free of airflow. (Presumably, relatively little.
Where isn't there some airflow inside the cowling?)
Whether this is important or not I don't know.
One might put an angled hole in the overflow lines up near the carbs, so
that any drips mostly still flow through the lengthened tubes but the air
pressure would be closer to what it was at the outlet of the original short
tubes.
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Davidson" <jdavidso(at)doubled.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Facet Fuel Pump Information |
John T. wrote:
Has anyone installed a wing tank only system in their Zodiac. I was
wondering if you need to use a different fuel pump? Do you need a fuel
pump at all? Or, do you need one as an auxiliary pump only.
I intend to. I am building a CH 601 HD. I recently bought the ZAC wing
tanks and am in the process of designing a fuel system now. With 11 gallons
a side, I don't intend to have a header tank for the obvious reasons. If I
end up light up front, I'll add goodies to the panel. I learned to fly in a
Warrior and have the tank switching habit for balance purposes. Trying to
interpret the postings is a challenge. So far, I plan from the wing tank to
the engine:
1) the wing tank with: non-vented cap, overflow value, fuel gauge sender,
fuel line out
2)ZAC's fuel hose and fittings
3)Facet Electric pump (automotive I know, but a good track record)
4) One-way check value (new addition, but needed with the ZAC supplied pump)
5) Selector value (Both/Off? or Left/Right/Off?)
6) ZAC Gascolator
7) engine driven mechanical pump
Both sides are the same. On the panel I plan a fuel gauge (not sure what
type or what type sender) for each tank. I also am considering having a
toggle switch to select one Facet pump or the other on all the time. The
problem with other setups seems to be making sure that the selector valve
setting and the active fuel pump are in sync. I'm looking for a user
friendly, hard to mess up system. I'm still designing the system, reading
the posts, and soliciting comments.
Jeff Davidson
tail 85%, 1st wing 60%
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AWilson62(at)aol.com |
table 4 by 12 is perfect but make it perfectly flat with levelers on the legs
gps com is an ok idea but get an remote antennae to mount to your fuselage
top for better range.
zenith instruments are cheap, besides you will want your panel different to
suit your needs. I suggest aircraft spruce. the folding wings are really
just for once a year maybe not for every flight use. you can get your engine
from Zenith but I bought mine from LEAF. That way you can ask all the
questions you want without feeling guilty. everthing else from Zenith is
fine. oh yea buy a warp drive prop. I wish I did.
great aircraft for your private but first make sure someone will instruct you
in it.
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Melanie @ Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
| Subject: | Facet Fuel Pump Information |
Hi everybody,
I also will have only the two L/E wing tanks and still wonder how to design
the fuel system. My plan (so far) is to have two electric pumps (one for
each tank) as boost pumps for take offs and landings - a fuel selector
valve - gascalator - engine driven pump - carburetor. I still wondering,
whether to use a both / off selector valve or an left / right / off valve.
Both / off is certainly appealing (won't forget to switch tanks); the check
valve function of the elctric fuel pumps will prevent the fuel from flowing
from one tank to the other. What are our opinions?
Thilo Kind
started to work on the sub panel (for radios etc.) last weekend
>
> John T. wrote:
> Has anyone installed a wing tank only system in their Zodiac. I was
> wondering if you need to use a different fuel pump? Do you
> need a fuel
> pump at all? Or, do you need one as an auxiliary pump only.
>
> I intend to. I am building a CH 601 HD. I recently bought
> the ZAC wing
> tanks and am in the process of designing a fuel system now.
> With 11 gallons
> a side, I don't intend to have a header tank for the obvious
> reasons. If I
> end up light up front, I'll add goodies to the panel. I
> learned to fly in a
> Warrior and have the tank switching habit for balance
> purposes. Trying to
> interpret the postings is a challenge. So far, I plan from
> the wing tank to
> the engine:
> 1) the wing tank with: non-vented cap, overflow value, fuel
> gauge sender,
> fuel line out
> 2)ZAC's fuel hose and fittings
> 3)Facet Electric pump (automotive I know, but a good track record)
> 4) One-way check value (new addition, but needed with the ZAC
> supplied pump)
> 5) Selector value (Both/Off? or Left/Right/Off?)
> 6) ZAC Gascolator
> 7) engine driven mechanical pump
> Both sides are the same. On the panel I plan a fuel gauge
> (not sure what
> type or what type sender) for each tank. I also am
> considering having a
> toggle switch to select one Facet pump or the other on all
> the time. The
> problem with other setups seems to be making sure that the
> selector valve
> setting and the active fuel pump are in sync. I'm looking for a user
> friendly, hard to mess up system. I'm still designing the
> system, reading
> the posts, and soliciting comments.
>
> Jeff Davidson
> tail 85%, 1st wing 60%
>
>
> -------------
>
> -------------
> Zenith-List:
> http://www.matronics.com/zenith-list
> List
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
> Other Email
> Lists: http://www.matronics.com/other
>
> -------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Raker <phadr2(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 701 stuff, part 2 |
This issue of carburetor drains is an important
one with potential to have a real effect on aircraft
safety. It may have been on a 601 rather than a 701
but the engine was a Rotax 912 and the principles
involved are the same. See George Pineo's writings
about this same situation (and his near engine failure
after installing long carb drain tubes because it
appeared to make sense) in the Zenair News. It was
about a year ago, sorry, but I don't remember which
issue. Then a few issues later, George posted
drawings of his design (I believe it's a good one.) of
a device to take the drainings out of the cowl area
without affecting carb pressures. I plan to build
something similar for my Stratus installation
(different engine, same carbs).
Phil R.: 601-HDS+,empennage & wings complete, working
on center section
--- Peter Chapman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >The carb overspill tubes fall directly on the
> exhaust pipes. I installed
> long ones to
> >the firewall bottom.
>
> I finally got around to looking at your big 701
> reports from a couple weeks ago.
> It was mentioned on this list long ago that
> lengthened overspill tubes, with
> their outlets in an area of lower pressure, could
> make the carbs function
> improperly. The installation manual also notes that
> the overflow lines
> should be routed to a zone free of airflow.
> (Presumably, relatively little.
> Where isn't there some airflow inside the cowling?)
>
> Whether this is important or not I don't know.
>
> One might put an angled hole in the overflow lines
> up near the carbs, so
> that any drips mostly still flow through the
> lengthened tubes but the air
> pressure would be closer to what it was at the
> outlet of the original short
> tubes.
>
> Peter Chapman
> Toronto, ON
>
>
>
>
>
> The Zenith-List is sponsored by Matronics,
> makers of fine Aircraft
> Avionics, and by the generous Contributions of
> List members.
>
>
> Matronics:
> http://www.matronics.com
> Zenith-List:
> http://www.matronics.com/zenith-list
> Archive Search Engine:
> http://www.matronics.com/search
> Archive Browsing:
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> Other Email Lists:
> http://www.matronics.com/other
>
>
>
>
>
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Facet Fuel Pump Information |
| From: | "Grant Corriveau" <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Jeff,
I'm looking at the same type of fuel system. I had the following thoughts so
far:
With the Piper low wings, I know that the failure of the electrical boost
pump is unlikely to kill the engine. (i.e. the engine driven pump sucks fuel
all the way from the tanks with little problem). Will your system work so
well in the event of an electric pump failure? I was wondering if a failure
of one pump could suddenly render 11 gals of fuel unuseable? So, I would
like some redundancy with each electric pump able to feed each tank...
something like this (hope you have a mono-font on your browser):
EP
|
---
| |
LP RP
Ltank ------|-X-|------ Rtank
X is a cross-feed valve
LP is left pump
RP is right pump
EP is engine driven pump
With the crossfeed closed, I can balance fuel. With it open, I'll be
interested to see if the fuel drains in a balanced manner or if the closer
tank will tend to take precedence. Someone earlier suggested that a pump
running on an empty tank (or one momentarily 'empty' due to
sloshing/maneuvering) wouldn't inject air into the fuel line. I don't know.
Why would it if the other tank is still supplying fuel pressure?
If this is a problem, then couldn't that be handled by running only one pump
at a time? Or maybe this is all unnecessary redundancy if the Engine pump
can reliably draw fuel from both tanks through a failed electrical pump. And
let's face it - any number of electrical pumps will all fail if the
electrical system quits!!! aargh....
Anyone have any experience with this? Also, thanks to the member who posted
all the flow data for the differnt pump models. Very helpful.
Grant
Montreal
----------
>From: "Jeff Davidson" <jdavidso(at)doubled.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Facet Fuel Pump Information
>Date: Mon, Sep 27, 1999, 10:56 PM
>
>
> John T. wrote:
> Has anyone installed a wing tank only system in their Zodiac. I was
> wondering if you need to use a different fuel pump? Do you need a fuel
> pump at all? Or, do you need one as an auxiliary pump only.
>
> I intend to. I am building a CH 601 HD. I recently bought the ZAC wing
> tanks and am in the process of designing a fuel system now. With 11 gallons
> a side, I don't intend to have a header tank for the obvious reasons. If I
> end up light up front, I'll add goodies to the panel. I learned to fly in a
> Warrior and have the tank switching habit for balance purposes. Trying to
> interpret the postings is a challenge. So far, I plan from the wing tank to
> the engine:
> 1) the wing tank with: non-vented cap, overflow value, fuel gauge sender,
> fuel line out
> 2)ZAC's fuel hose and fittings
> 3)Facet Electric pump (automotive I know, but a good track record)
> 4) One-way check value (new addition, but needed with the ZAC supplied pump)
> 5) Selector value (Both/Off? or Left/Right/Off?)
> 6) ZAC Gascolator
> 7) engine driven mechanical pump
> Both sides are the same. On the panel I plan a fuel gauge (not sure what
> type or what type sender) for each tank. I also am considering having a
> toggle switch to select one Facet pump or the other on all the time. The
> problem with other setups seems to be making sure that the selector valve
> setting and the active fuel pump are in sync. I'm looking for a user
> friendly, hard to mess up system. I'm still designing the system, reading
> the posts, and soliciting comments.
>
> Jeff Davidson
> tail 85%, 1st wing 60%
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PHIL_PFOERTNER(at)udlp.com |
In the sequence manual (sec. V10), it calls out for "tack rivets", I assume this
just holds the skin in place better than clecos. But what is all of this about
flush rivets, riveting with a washer on the nose of the riveter.
Is this just for the "tack rivets" and to be drilled out later and replaced with
the standard Heintz formed rivet?
From Phil Pfoertner, 601 HDS - rudder & horz. stab complete.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Schemmel, Grant" <Schemmel(at)utmc.utc.com> |
| Subject: | Facet Fuel Pump Information |
Hi John
I guess I'll take a stab at this... My 601 isn't flying yet, but
here's what I have done for a fuel system so far:
LE wing tanks only, I used 3/8" al. tubing through the rearmost center
wing section nose rib lightening holes to go to a 3-way shutoff valve
in front of the stick torque tube on the cabin floor. This selects
either left, right or off. From this valve I ran 3/8" al. tubing
along the floor and between the 2 sets of pedals to the area in front
of the passenger pedals, where I have 2 Facet fuel pumps in parallel.
The 3/8" al. gets adapted down to " to fit the Facet inlets.
One of these is going to be on constantly, the other will be an aux
boost pump. Both outlets are adapted up to 3/8" al, and make a 90
turn vertically up the firewall to a check valve. Both check valves
go to a tee on the top inside firewall stiffener, which then runs to a
bulkhead fitting in front of the pilots pedals. On the other side of
the firewall, I go from the bulkhead fitting to a fuel/water
separator/filter from a VW rabbit diesel that is my gascolator and
fuel filter (uses a spin-on element). I have a 4-way fitting on the
outlet of the filter, that goes to the boost pressure gauge, my
priming solenoid (I'm using an o-200), and a 3/8" fitting for the fuel
line to my carburetor.
The pumps being on the cabin floor should always give me a little
pressure from the tanks, and the check valves mounted vertically
should always prevent backflow.
Hope this helps.
Grant Schemmel
Penrose, CO
601HDS, fuselage and tails done, engine sort-of mounted, and working
on the wings.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Davidson [SMTP:jdavidso(at)doubled.com]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Facet Fuel Pump Information
John T. wrote:
Has anyone installed a wing tank only system in their Zodiac. I was
wondering if you need to use a different fuel pump? Do you need a
fuel
pump at all? Or, do you need one as an auxiliary pump only.
I intend to. I am building a CH 601 HD. I recently bought the ZAC
wing
tanks and am in the process of designing a fuel system now. With 11
gallons
a side, I don't intend to have a header tank for the obvious reasons.
If I
end up light up front, I'll add goodies to the panel. I learned to
fly in a
Warrior and have the tank switching habit for balance purposes.
Trying to
interpret the postings is a challenge. So far, I plan from the wing
tank to
the engine:
1) the wing tank with: non-vented cap, overflow value, fuel gauge
sender,
fuel line out
2)ZAC's fuel hose and fittings
3)Facet Electric pump (automotive I know, but a good track record)
4) One-way check value (new addition, but needed with the ZAC supplied
pump)
5) Selector value (Both/Off? or Left/Right/Off?)
6) ZAC Gascolator
7) engine driven mechanical pump
Both sides are the same. On the panel I plan a fuel gauge (not sure
what
type or what type sender) for each tank. I also am considering having
a
toggle switch to select one Facet pump or the other on all the time.
The
problem with other setups seems to be making sure that the selector
valve
setting and the active fuel pump are in sync. I'm looking for a user
friendly, hard to mess up system. I'm still designing the system,
reading
the posts, and soliciting comments.
Jeff Davidson
tail 85%, 1st wing 60%
-----
Aircraft
-----
Zenith-List:
http://www.matronics.com/zenith-list
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)presys.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Matco brakes (cont'd) |
I took a close look at my rudder pedals, considered the geometry, and
decided to get really smart and devise a hand brake. I am very interested I
someone with working geometry can make these brakes work.
Richard/701/fuselage on bench.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven J. Devine" <steve(at)tzogon.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HDS wing rivets |
>In the sequence manual (sec. V10), it calls out for "tack rivets", I
>assume this just holds the skin in place better than clecos. But
>what is all of this about flush rivets, riveting with a washer on the
>nose of the riveter.
>
>Is this just for the "tack rivets" and to be drilled out later and
replaced
>with he standard Heintz formed rivet?
I had the same question over the summer. The tack rivets non-structural
countersunk (flush) rivets used to hold the skins in place until other
structural members are in place. Generally, they are required for places
where materials overlap, and as such a> clecos cannot be used b> the
rivets typically cannot be drilled out, and in fact need not be drilled
out.
For instance, in the rudder, the rear skin is mounted to the ribs and tack
riveted to the spar. The forward rudder skin is overlapped on top of this
skin (necessitating that the tack rivets be flush), and riveted to the
spar THROUGH the rear skin. So the 40 pitch (for the 801) domed rivets
holding the nose skin to the spar also provide the structure for the rear
skin.
I would imagine you would only need to use a washer if you don't still
have a flat tip for the riveter (ie you only have the domed tip)... the
countersunk rivets need to be flush with the skin and have a flat top.
To answer your next question before you ask it, you need to create
countersink holes for the rivets to fit into. Since they are
non-structural, the angle of the countersink is really non-critical. You
could just open them up with a larger drill bit, which would bevel the
edges (118 degrees for many bits, 135 for others, and unknown for the
rest). FWIW, I picked up a 120 degree countersink cutter from a local
tool supply, but this is overkill.
Hope this helps. Sorry I'm so long winded.
Steve Devine
801, 28 hours buildin' http://web.tzogon.com/~steve/stolch801
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darla Golin <darlajean(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Facet Fuel Pump Information |
Hi Grant,
I was reading your post and wondered that if you have a complete
electrical failure, or the pumps fail, won't you have an engine failure due
to fuel starvation?
Cheers Mike Slaughter
>LE wing tanks only, I used 3/8" al. tubing through the rearmost center
>wing section nose rib lightening holes to go to a 3-way shutoff valve
>in front of the stick torque tube on the cabin floor. This selects
>either left, right or off. From this valve I ran 3/8" al. tubing
>along the floor and between the 2 sets of pedals to the area in front
>of the passenger pedals, where I have 2 Facet fuel pumps in parallel.
> The 3/8" al. gets adapted down to " to fit the Facet inlets.
>
>One of these is going to be on constantly, the other will be an aux
>boost pump. Both outlets are adapted up to 3/8" al, and make a 90
>turn vertically up the firewall to a check valve. Both check valves
>go to a tee on the top inside firewall stiffener, which then runs to a
>bulkhead fitting in front of the pilots pedals. On the other side of
>the firewall, I go from the bulkhead fitting to a fuel/water
>separator/filter from a VW rabbit diesel that is my gascolator and
>fuel filter (uses a spin-on element). I>
>The pumps being on the cabin floor should always give me a little
>pressure from the tanks, and the check valves mounted vertically
>should always prevent backflow.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Grant Schemmel
>Penrose, CO
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Schemmel, Grant" <Schemmel(at)utmc.utc.com> |
| Subject: | Facet Fuel Pump Information |
Howdy Mike
Yeah, if I had a complete electrical failure, it probably would, but I
am going to try and minimize the possibility by putting the electrical
system together with a main and essential bus, as described in the
"Aerolectric Connection". Maybe I should wire the aux pump switch
direct from the battery(?). Anyway, the engine I have came from a
C-150, so it doesn't have any place machined for an engine driven
pump. 2 pumps is the way ZAC says to plumb the Stratus engines, so I
figured it should work for this one too.
Grant Schemmel
-----Original Message-----
From: Darla Golin [SMTP:darlajean(at)earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 9:13 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Facet Fuel Pump Information
Hi Grant,
I was reading your post and wondered that if you have a
complete
electrical failure, or the pumps fail, won't you have an engine
failure due
to fuel starvation?
Cheers Mike Slaughter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nicole Pellerin <npeller(at)autoroute.net> |
Jeff Davidson wrote:
>
>
> John T. wrote:
> Has anyone installed a wing tank only system in their Zodiac. I was
> wondering if you need to use a different fuel pump? Do you need a fuel
> pump at all? Or, do you need one as an auxiliary pump only.
>
> I intend to. I am building a CH 601 HD. I recently bought the ZAC wing
> tanks and am in the process of designing a fuel system now. With 11 gallons
> a side, I don't intend to have a header tank for the obvious reasons. If I
> end up light up front, I'll add goodies to the panel. I learned to fly in a
> Warrior and have the tank switching habit for balance purposes. Trying to
> interpret the postings is a challenge. So far, I plan from the wing tank to
> the engine:
> 1) the wing tank with: non-vented cap, overflow value, fuel gauge sender,
> fuel line out
> 2)ZAC's fuel hose and fittings
> 3)Facet Electric pump (automotive I know, but a good track record)
> 4) One-way check value (new addition, but needed with the ZAC supplied pump)
> 5) Selector value (Both/Off? or Left/Right/Off?)
> 6) ZAC Gascolator
> 7) engine driven mechanical pump
> Both sides are the same. On the panel I plan a fuel gauge (not sure what
> type or what type sender) for each tank. I also am considering having a
> toggle switch to select one Facet pump or the other on all the time. The
> problem with other setups seems to be making sure that the selector valve
> setting and the active fuel pump are in sync. I'm looking for a user
> friendly, hard to mess up system. I'm still designing the system, reading
> the posts, and soliciting comments.
>
> Jeff Davidson
> tail 85%, 1st wing 60%
>
> +Hi one question
Dose anyone know the wheight of the weels that zenair is shipping with
the kit-------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: HDS wing rivets |
Hi Phil ...I had the same ? about tack rivets ...then thought some more and
looked at the plans...the tack rivets hold the rear skins down and present a
flat - if not flush - rivet head vs the domed one we are so used to. Then the
leading edge skin is riveted in the regular manner over the trailing skins
and the tack rivets don't protrude into the bottom of the leading edge making
a bump and stressing the area...At least I THINK that's what's going on.
Chris Carey
601 HDS 64901
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PHIL_PFOERTNER(at)udlp.com |
| Subject: | more tack rivets |
Thanks for the info, I went back and looked at the plans and with everyone's
comments it looks like that the Tack rivets are permanent. They are some how
offset to avoid the rivet line ("heintz rivet") that goes through nose skin,
skin, and extrusion .
Thanks
Phil Pfoertner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net> |
| Subject: | Re: HDS wing rivets |
Tack rivets are used to hold the skin in place until a second piece of skin overlays
it. The holes in the skin for the tack rivets are counter-sunk and after riveting
the heads of the tack rivets are filed down so the second piece of skin will lie
flat, usually the nose skin. Don't use the Zenith rivet gun nose piece, use a
straight nose piece and head of the rivet will need less filing. The tack rivets
are left in place when the second skin is attached.
Chuck Deiterich
PHIL_PFOERTNER(at)udlp.com wrote:
>
> In the sequence manual (sec. V10), it calls out for "tack rivets", I assume this
> just holds the skin in place better than clecos. But what is all of this about
> flush rivets, riveting with a washer on the nose of the riveter.
>
> Is this just for the "tack rivets" and to be drilled out later and replaced with
> the standard Heintz formed rivet?
>
> >From Phil Pfoertner, 601 HDS - rudder & horz. stab complete.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net> |
Claude,
I Think you are right about the geometry of the rudder pedals. I tried
to figure it out on a piece of paper but wasn't sure of my answer.
Measuring the forces is the right way to do it. I have not even started
on the rudder pedal and brake installation. I have thought about a way
to add a simple linkage to improve the mechanical advantage. But
without the rudder pedals in place, it will be hard to figure any
interferences. Let us know how you make out.
Chuck Deiterich CH 701
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: 701 stuff, part 2 |
Phil Raker wrote:
> This issue of carburetor drains is an important
> one with potential to have a real effect on aircraft
> safety. It may have been on a 601 rather than a 701
> but the engine was a Rotax 912 and the principles
> involved are the same.
I did not made very scientific tests about pressure on the
carb drains. I did not do anything. What I saw is drains as delivered by
Rotax spilling directly over the exhaust pipes. What I thought is "this is
no good". I replaced them with long tubes reaching the firewall right
bottom point, on the lower engine mounting. Cut the pipes at 45deg (don't
remember if this was facing foreward or aft, maybe left or right).
Climebed at 12,000ft, in summer (33deg Celsius at ground). Several times.
After 15 hours, no problem.
For what it worth.
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Matco brakes (cont'd) |
HOLCOMBE wrote:
> I took a close look at my rudder pedals, considered the geometry, and
> decided to get really smart and devise a hand brake.
Wait a minute, I'm welding. Tomorrow,testing. If it works OK, I'll post
the results and send you the drawings for the modification, you'll get
the best brakes on the planet (hope so...).
Claude 701 F-JCUO 15 hrs Hobbs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
PHIL_PFOERTNER(at)udlp.com wrote:
> Thanks for the info, I went back and looked at the plans and with everyone's
> comments it looks like that the Tack rivets are permanent.
I did not understand the need of tack rivets. Must be sth of Chris own.
I drilled the top and bottom skins on the spar and ribs, then clecoed.
Then removed clecos from the spar caps only, keeping only those on ribs.
Then inserted the nose skin UNDER both skins, drilled it on nose ribs, and
through on spar through the top and bottom skins holes. Then deburred, etc...
Then clecoed with the nose skin OVER top and bottom skins, then riveted.
(If you are complicated minded, you can start with nose skin and insert
top and bottom skins UNDER for drilling, maybe it's what I did, don't remember).
Did you said tack rivets ?
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Steer <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: more tack rivets |
A while back, somebody posted a note to this list, saying that they
had marked the position of the flush rivets so they didn't accidently
drill through them when attaching the nose skin. Probably a good idea.
Bill Steer
>
>Thanks for the info, I went back and looked at the plans and with everyone's
>comments it looks like that the Tack rivets are permanent. They are some how
>offset to avoid the rivet line ("heintz rivet") that goes through nose skin,
>skin, and extrusion .
>
>Thanks
>
>Phil Pfoertner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Facet Fuel Pump Information |
I am designing two wing tanks instead of the header. My plan is to mount
them in the top of the wing such that I have about 4-5 inches of drop to
the bottom of the fuselage behind the seat. There I will connect the
tanks and place the boost pump. This method elinimates the necessity of
switching tanks. For the fuel gages I bought a mechanical gage form ACS
and it goes into the top of the tank at the proper angle for viewing. A
clear plastic cover goes over the wing and I have fuel gages that are
simple and don't take up and panel space.
Tim Shankland
Tail done, spar's done, working on outboard wing
Jeff Davidson wrote:
>
>
> John T. wrote:
> Has anyone installed a wing tank only system in their Zodiac. I was
> wondering if you need to use a different fuel pump? Do you need a fuel
> pump at all? Or, do you need one as an auxiliary pump only.
>
> I intend to. I am building a CH 601 HD. I recently bought the ZAC wing
> tanks and am in the process of designing a fuel system now. With 11 gallons
> a side, I don't intend to have a header tank for the obvious reasons. If I
> end up light up front, I'll add goodies to the panel. I learned to fly in a
> Warrior and have the tank switching habit for balance purposes. Trying to
> interpret the postings is a challenge. So far, I plan from the wing tank to
> the engine:
> 1) the wing tank with: non-vented cap, overflow value, fuel gauge sender,
> fuel line out
> 2)ZAC's fuel hose and fittings
> 3)Facet Electric pump (automotive I know, but a good track record)
> 4) One-way check value (new addition, but needed with the ZAC supplied pump)
> 5) Selector value (Both/Off? or Left/Right/Off?)
> 6) ZAC Gascolator
> 7) engine driven mechanical pump
> Both sides are the same. On the panel I plan a fuel gauge (not sure what
> type or what type sender) for each tank. I also am considering having a
> toggle switch to select one Facet pump or the other on all the time. The
> problem with other setups seems to be making sure that the selector valve
> setting and the active fuel pump are in sync. I'm looking for a user
> friendly, hard to mess up system. I'm still designing the system, reading
> the posts, and soliciting comments.
>
> Jeff Davidson
> tail 85%, 1st wing 60%
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net> |
All the large pieces of .016, .025, .032 & .040 have been rolled, no
trouble working with it. The only caution I have never recieved a rolled
piece of .016 from Aircraft Spruce that wasn't dinged up. Material from
Dillsburg Aeroplane Works has always arrived perfect.
Tim Shankland
Tail done, spar's done working on outboard wing
Phil Peck wrote:
>
>
> I was going to get my .016 aluminuin sheeting rolled and shipped thru
> UPS. But was wondering if rolling it would make it hard to work with.
> Any comments ?
> phil
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nicole Pellerin <npeller(at)autoroute.net> |
Dose any of you guys know the wheight of the weels that zenair is
shipping with the kit.
Regards Angelo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Davidson" <jdavidso(at)doubled.com> |
| Subject: | LE Only Fuel System Responses |
Frank Hinde wrote:
Don't use a toggle switch for both pumps...if the switch melts it will fail
BOTH pumps. Why use a selector valve?....I just switch pumps (one switch for
each of course)
>>>I didn't think about this single point of failure. Two switches make
sense for redundancy. It also would provide the option to turn both pumps
off. I guess that this system would be coupled with a simple "Y" fitting
instead of the selector valve. For some reason, probably to cut off the
crossflow when tied down on a sloping spot, I can't warm up to the idea of
not having a selector valve, but it's not firm in my mind. According to
Dennis Douglas's post, the 15/gal per hour flow through the non-operating
Facet pumps should be enough to continue to fly. But how do you test the
Facet pumps during the preflight to figure out one or both failed?
Tim Shankland wrote:
For the fuel gages I bought a mechanical gage form ACS
and it goes into the top of the tank at the proper angle for viewing.
>>>Simplicity is really attractive despite the stuff hanging out in the
breeze. And I bought flush caps!
Grant Corriveau wrote:
With the Piper low wings, I know that the failure of the electrical boost
pump is unlikely to kill the engine. (i.e. the engine driven pump sucks fuel
all the way from the tanks with little problem). Will your system work so
well in the event of an electric pump failure? I was wondering if a failure
of one pump could suddenly render 11 gals of fuel unusable?
>>>I think that the test Dennis Douglas did says that the flow rate in the
normal direction just drops to about half if the Facet pump isn't operating.
So if the main pump is working the question becomes will a flow rate of 15
gallons an hour keep you flying?
Comments please .... and thanks to everyone who responded.
Oh, and I forgot to mention the filter after the gascolator in my earlier
posting.
Jeff Davidson
tail 85%
1st wing (50% and getting lower!!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Newell" <anewell(at)canuck.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy lock push or pull |
Philip:
Here's an alternative. I used some model aircraft axle parts to attach a
3/16" piece of piano wire at 90 degrees to the steel rod on the end of
6E2-1 (the part that holds the wire and spring). The piano wire comes out
the side of the fuselage and is then bent 90 degrees in line with the
airflow. I also installed cylinder locks on each side of the fuselage that
prevent the latch from being opened when they are locked. Its a neat
installation and doesn't have much out in the airflow.
Regards,
Alan Newell, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
----------
> From: Philip Polstra <ppolstra(at)inetnow.net>
> To: matronics zenith
> Subject: Zenith-List: Canopy lock push or pull
> Date: September 25, 1999 12:49 PM
>
>
> I was working on my canopy today and I had a thought on the external
latch.
> It seems a bit clumsy to install the external latch made from an L and a
> bent piece of cutoff. I don't want the thing sticking into my leg and it
> seems a bit flimsy. Has anyone else thought about attaching a bend
aluminum
> (1/8") piece directly to the hooks above the hinge? It seems like this
> would minimize the junk protruding out from the inside and if you were to
> bump the hook it would have no reason to come off. Thoughts?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Melanie @ Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
I just mounted the wheels a few weeks ago, but didn't weigh them. I would
guess (by lifting them), that they are around 10 lbs per wheel. Hope, that
helps.
Thilo Kind
>
> Dose any of you guys know the wheight of the weels that zenair is
> shipping with the kit.
> Regards Angelo
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Melanie @ Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LE Only Fuel System Responses |
Brings me to another question:
what if one tank is empty and the electric fuel pump of the other tank
fails. Sure, the engine driven pump (Rotax 912) will still suck fuel through
the pump that failed, but would it not also suck air out of the empty tank?
Thilo Kind
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Davidson <jdavidso(at)doubled.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 10:41 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: LE Only Fuel System Responses
>
> Frank Hinde wrote:
> Don't use a toggle switch for both pumps...if the switch melts it will
fail
> BOTH pumps. Why use a selector valve?....I just switch pumps (one switch
for
> each of course)
>
>
> >>>I didn't think about this single point of failure. Two switches make
> sense for redundancy. It also would provide the option to turn both pumps
> off. I guess that this system would be coupled with a simple "Y" fitting
> instead of the selector valve. For some reason, probably to cut off the
> crossflow when tied down on a sloping spot, I can't warm up to the idea of
> not having a selector valve, but it's not firm in my mind. According to
> Dennis Douglas's post, the 15/gal per hour flow through the non-operating
> Facet pumps should be enough to continue to fly. But how do you test the
> Facet pumps during the preflight to figure out one or both failed?
>
> Tim Shankland wrote:
> For the fuel gages I bought a mechanical gage form ACS
> and it goes into the top of the tank at the proper angle for viewing.
> >>>Simplicity is really attractive despite the stuff hanging out in the
> breeze. And I bought flush caps!
>
> Grant Corriveau wrote:
> With the Piper low wings, I know that the failure of the electrical boost
> pump is unlikely to kill the engine. (i.e. the engine driven pump sucks
fuel
> all the way from the tanks with little problem). Will your system work so
> well in the event of an electric pump failure? I was wondering if a
failure
> of one pump could suddenly render 11 gals of fuel unusable?
> >>>I think that the test Dennis Douglas did says that the flow rate in the
> normal direction just drops to about half if the Facet pump isn't
operating.
> So if the main pump is working the question becomes will a flow rate of 15
> gallons an hour keep you flying?
>
> Comments please .... and thanks to everyone who responded.
>
> Oh, and I forgot to mention the filter after the gascolator in my earlier
> posting.
>
> Jeff Davidson
> tail 85%
> 1st wing (50% and getting lower!!)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)presys.com> |
As I see it there are two difficulties with the Rudder pedal-toe brake
assembles as supplied by ZAC.
1. The base of the master cylinder is on the pedal itself thus all braking
force is applide to the pedal assembly thus stressing it needlessly.
2. The arangement does not permit the amount of leverage necessary for hard
braking to really squeal the tires.
Solution in two parts:
1. Move the base of the Master cylinder to a pivot on the floor ahead of the
rudder pedal. Brake pedal force is applied to the floor of the plane not to
and through the rudder assembly. Pivot location will control toe brake
angle either neutral, forward or back as rudder pedals are moved left to
right.
2. By moving the actuator lever on the back of the toe brake down and
shortening it, mechanical advantage can be adjusted upward until the brakes
are sensitive enough for even the ladies among us.
This is how GA planes are done...someone must have thought of and tried
this.
Richard/701/fuselage-on-the-bench.help
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Questions to the experts |
Hi.
Some questions to the experts this list must contain :
1. I would like to know the different materials (Buna-N, nitrile, viton, etc)
o-rings are made of, the different kinds of brake hydraulic fluids, and the
eventual incompatibilities between both.
2. Also where I can find a table of the most common plastics describing
which solvents/fuels (don't) attack them.
3. Also a cross table to find which glue to use to glue 2 plastics
together (I discovered that epoxy does not glue polycarbonate windshields
onto rubber channels).
It's tiring to do bad experiences.
Thanks
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Steer <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | Sender units for LE wing tanks |
Hello, folks. Following the current thread of the design of the fuel
system with the LE wing tanks on the 601, I have a question about the
fuel sending units you're using.
My ZAC-supplied tanks are a VERY tight fit. So much so, that I only
have room for 1/16" cork around the tank, top-to-bottom. Front-to-
back is a bit looser, but I put in an extra support at the 170mm
station. With this tight fit, there's no way I can see where I can
use a sender unit on top of the tank if I don't want it to stick
up through the skin! So the only location I have would be on the
vertical back of the tank.
Is this anybody else's experience and, if so, has anybody found a
sender that will fit between the tank and the spar web?
Bill Steer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Leo Gates <leogates(at)tooeasy.net> |
Nicole Pellerin wrote:
>
>
> > +Hi one question
Dose anyone know the wheight of the weels that zenair is shipping with
the kit-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole,
Dug mine out of storage. Tire and tube mounted - 16 Lbs.
--
Leo Gates
CH601 HDS - N301LG
Building: Horiz. Stab. Elevator, Rudder and Rt. Wing - Done
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Dunning <peterd(at)metec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Sender units for LE wing tanks |
Date: 30 Sept. 99
Hi Bill
Assuming you are building the 601HD.
Sender units. I am using VDO as supplied by ZAC. They are mounted
on one end of the LE tank, so that you can remove them through the
larger of the lightening holes of the nose rib at a later date if necessary
without removing the tank from the wing.
Cork thickness used on my LE tanks was 4mm (5/32). On the vertical
back of the tank I doubled the thickness to help avoid oil-canning. Same
at the ends.
Hope this helps
Peter
Email: peterd(at)metec.co.nz
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Steer [SMTP:bsteer(at)gwi.net]
Sent: 30 September 1999 12:38
Subject: Zenith-List: Sender units for LE wing tanks
Hello, folks. Following the current thread of the design of the fuel
system with the LE wing tanks on the 601, I have a question about the
fuel sending units you're using.
My ZAC-supplied tanks are a VERY tight fit. So much so, that I only
have room for 1/16" cork around the tank, top-to-bottom. Front-to-
back is a bit looser, but I put in an extra support at the 170mm
station. With this tight fit, there's no way I can see where I can
use a sender unit on top of the tank if I don't want it to stick
up through the skin! So the only location I have would be on the
vertical back of the tank.
Is this anybody else's experience and, if so, has anybody found a
sender that will fit between the tank and the spar web?
Bill Steer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
Has anyone found an easy way to check cable tensions without buying the ACS
tensioner tool?
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Davidson" <jdavidso(at)doubled.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel System Design |
Certainly out of this thread it is clear that the choice of whether or not
to have a header tank has a great impact on the configuration of the rest of
the system. Whether the wing tanks are "main" tanks or auxiliary is also
basic. Other decisions follow from these.
Jeff Davidson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cable Tension |
> Has anyone found an easy way to check cable tensions without buying the
ACS
> tensioner tool?
+++ Bill, most EAA tech counsilors have one, or have access to one and will
bring it when you need it. Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "AYRES, JIMMY L" <JAYRES(at)entergy.com> |
Hey Bill,
I have a so-so friend A&P mechanic at the local airport that has reluctantly
agreed to let me borrow his tensionometer to do my cable tensioning. Have
you tried that option?
Jimmy Ayres
601HDS (just finished cowling)
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Morelli [mailto:billvt(at)together.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 10:48 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Cable Tension
Has anyone found an easy way to check cable tensions without buying the ACS
tensioner tool?
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "AYRES, JIMMY L" <JAYRES(at)entergy.com> |
| Subject: | Questions to the experts |
Claude, I am an electrical engineer and not a chemist, but I did extract
this information from a polymer handbook of engineering properties:
Nitrile (Buna-N is a trade name for nitrile) is a thermosetting elastomer.
It has good resistance to oils, solvents, alkali, and aqueous salt
solutions. In aliphatic hydrocarbons, fatty acids, alcohols, and glycols,
it swells slightly, but without significant physical deterioration. It is
attacked by strong oxidizing agents, ketones, ethers, and esters, but are
useful when gasoline and oil resistance are required.
Viton is a fluorelastomer and has higher chemical reistance than nitrile,
but is more expensive. Viton has excellent resistance to hot oils,
synthetic lubricants, gasoline, jet fuels, dilute mineral acids, aqueous
salt solutions, alkali, and chlorinated solvents. Resistance to strong
acids at room temperature is good. The automotive industry is making
increased use of fluoroelastomers in hose and tubing.
I hope this helps. With regards to your other question, I have read other
postings talking about how great this "Poly-Zap" is for gluing the rubber
seal to the bubble. Maybe one of those guys can tell us where you get this
stuff.
Jimmy Ayres
601HDS
-----Original Message-----
From: claude [mailto:claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 4:07 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Questions to the experts
Hi.
Some questions to the experts this list must contain :
1. I would like to know the different materials (Buna-N, nitrile, viton,
etc)
o-rings are made of, the different kinds of brake hydraulic fluids, and the
eventual incompatibilities between both.
2. Also where I can find a table of the most common plastics describing
which solvents/fuels (don't) attack them.
3. Also a cross table to find which glue to use to glue 2 plastics
together (I discovered that epoxy does not glue polycarbonate windshields
onto rubber channels).
It's tiring to do bad experiences.
Thanks
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Chapman <pchapman(at)ionsys.com> |
| Subject: | RE:Cable Tension |
>Has anyone found an easy way to check cable tensions without buying the ACS
>tensioner tool?
>>I have a so-so friend A&P mechanic at the local airport that has reluctantly
>>agreed to let me borrow his tensionometer to do my cable tensioning. Have
I was able to borrow one from an aircraft maintenance shop that I am on good
terms with. They said, 'no rush -- we never use it'. While their fingers may
be calibrated, ours weren't. A cable tension that felt alright, or maybe
even a bit loose to my dad, turned out to be 55 lbs or so, once we checked
it with the tensiometer. The tensions used by Zenair or Cessna seem to be
leave the cables feeling neither 'loose and dangling', yet not feeling
really 'tight' either. Just a little 'snug'. (Especially for aileron or
rudder cables which have long, unsupported cable runs.)
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Questions to the experts |
Claude;
Pacer Poly Zap is usually available at hobby shops (r/c model type). There was
an earlier posting that showed where to get it direct. It should be in the
archives.
Mike
"AYRES, JIMMY L" wrote:
>
> Claude, I am an electrical engineer and not a chemist, but I did extract
> this information from a polymer handbook of engineering properties:
>
> Nitrile (Buna-N is a trade name for nitrile) is a thermosetting elastomer.
> It has good resistance to oils, solvents, alkali, and aqueous salt
> solutions. In aliphatic hydrocarbons, fatty acids, alcohols, and glycols,
> it swells slightly, but without significant physical deterioration. It is
> attacked by strong oxidizing agents, ketones, ethers, and esters, but are
> useful when gasoline and oil resistance are required.
>
> Viton is a fluorelastomer and has higher chemical reistance than nitrile,
> but is more expensive. Viton has excellent resistance to hot oils,
> synthetic lubricants, gasoline, jet fuels, dilute mineral acids, aqueous
> salt solutions, alkali, and chlorinated solvents. Resistance to strong
> acids at room temperature is good. The automotive industry is making
> increased use of fluoroelastomers in hose and tubing.
>
> I hope this helps. With regards to your other question, I have read other
> postings talking about how great this "Poly-Zap" is for gluing the rubber
> seal to the bubble. Maybe one of those guys can tell us where you get this
> stuff.
>
> Jimmy Ayres
> 601HDS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: claude [mailto:claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 4:07 PM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Questions to the experts
>
>
> Hi.
> Some questions to the experts this list must contain :
>
> 1. I would like to know the different materials (Buna-N, nitrile, viton,
> etc)
> o-rings are made of, the different kinds of brake hydraulic fluids, and the
> eventual incompatibilities between both.
>
> 2. Also where I can find a table of the most common plastics describing
> which solvents/fuels (don't) attack them.
>
> 3. Also a cross table to find which glue to use to glue 2 plastics
> together (I discovered that epoxy does not glue polycarbonate windshields
> onto rubber channels).
>
> It's tiring to do bad experiences.
> Thanks
> Claude
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Questions to the experts |
AYRES, JIMMY L wrote:
> Nitrile (Buna-N is a trade name for nitrile)
> Viton is a fluorelastomer and has higher chemical reistance than nitrile,
> but is more expensive.
Thanks Jimmy for your help. I filled the Matco brakes with auto brake fluid.
After 15 hours, I read the notice where Matco request to use a MIL-xxx red
fluid, not auto fluid. Now either I change the fluid (we don't have red, but
some mineral oil brake fluid used in some cars like Citroen) or I replace
the nitrile rings by Viton ones (yes, 4 times more expensive).
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Cable Tension |
Peter Chapman wrote:
> >Has anyone found an easy way to check cable tensions without buying the ACS
> >tensioner tool?
> The tensions used by Zenair or Cessna seem to be
> leave the cables feeling neither 'loose and dangling', yet not feeling
> really 'tight' either. Just a little 'snug'. (Especially for aileron or
> rudder cables which have long, unsupported cable runs.)
"loose", "dangling", " little snug", looks like a Chinese chef talking about
the way he's cooking a dog, or French talking about cheese.
I go into the fuselage, I agree it's not an easy way (but the culprit is of
course the fuselage).
I mark the middle of the cable OF ITS FREE LENGTH (let's call it "L"), I mean
between a pulley and the horn.
At this middle I install a ruler vertically. I hang a weight "W", about few
kilos (few pounds) and measure the deflection "D".
The tension is : W x L / D / 2
Approximately the math buffs will say. Agree, but within an accuracy of few
percents, which is much more than what I need.
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Small" <zodiacjeff(at)email.msn.com> |
Pacer Technology should be in the archives thanks to Fred H. a few weeks
back. If you live in the South give this place a call:
Frank Tiano Enterprises
15300 Estrancia Lane
W. Palm Beach, FL 33414 (561) 795-6600
He's big in the R/C scale community and loves all things that fly. Should
be able to get you Poly-Zap in a hurry.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Questions to the experts |
Claude;
We are using Dexron 2 or 3, Transmission fluid per Matco instructions.
Mike
claude wrote:
>
> AYRES, JIMMY L wrote:
>
> > Nitrile (Buna-N is a trade name for nitrile)
> > Viton is a fluorelastomer and has higher chemical reistance than nitrile,
> > but is more expensive.
>
> Thanks Jimmy for your help. I filled the Matco brakes with auto brake fluid.
> After 15 hours, I read the notice where Matco request to use a MIL-xxx red
> fluid, not auto fluid. Now either I change the fluid (we don't have red, but
> some mineral oil brake fluid used in some cars like Citroen) or I replace
> the nitrile rings by Viton ones (yes, 4 times more expensive).
> Claude
>
> Matronics: http://www.matronics.com
> Zenith-List: http://www.matronics.com/zenith-list
> Archive Search Engine: http://www.matronics.com/search
> Archive Browsing: http://www.matronics.com/archives
> Other Email Lists: http://www.matronics.com/other
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen Lanham" <sdlanham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | CH 701 Maybe Wannabe |
I plan on starting on a homebuilt project in the next year or so, and the
field has been narrowed to the Kolb Mark III or a Zenith CH 701. Folding
wings and trailerability for off-airport storage are inescapable
requirements, and the Kolb folks tout the capability of their design in that
department. Anybody hauling around a CH 701 on a trailer to the airport on
a more-or-less bimonthly basis? Comments from any of you
been-there-done-that listers concerning the practicability of this endeavor
would be most appreciated!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Questions to the experts |
Mike Fothergill wrote:
> We are using Dexron 2 or 3, Transmission fluid per Matco instructions.
Thanks to all for the help. I've found "red aircraft" fluid.
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
saw.lou.rey(at)wanadoo.fr
| Subject: | A new list is born ! |
Hi.
A new homebuilders list is born...
It's not dedicated to any specific aircraft, and it will be a french speaking
list !
No such list existed before.
All builders from France, Quebec and other countries are welcome.
But even if you don't understand french, you may come to say "bonjour", you won't
be bothered with huge amounts of posts, since for the moment I'm the only
member...
Sometimes I'm asked to find some plans or details of old french aircraft, and
since I'm not a walking bookshop, this puts me often in awkward position : I hope
that when some old timers join the list it will be easier.
To subscribe, send :
SUBSCRIBE cnra (as the body)
at :
requests(at)talklist.com
Then post your messages at :
cnra(at)talklist.com
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dick Baner <db8(at)mtco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CH 701 Maybe Wannabe |
Stephen, There is no real comparison between the wing-fold ease of the Kolb and
the 701. I have a 701 with wing fold and have a close friend with an older
Kolb, I think a Mark II. He stores his in a garage at our ultralight field and
has to fold it every time he flies. He is a very careful fellow and even then
it takes him only 10 to 15 minutes maximum and it is a one-man job all the way.
On the other hand while it is possible to set up some portable supports and
actually set up the 701 by yourself it is a lot harder to jiggle everything
about to get all the holes lined up. Two people help a lot and save
considerable time. With two people I am lucky to get it below 30 minutes. As
someone said earlier, the 701 is foldable but you will not want to do it every
time you fly. It also is a lot taller folded than the Kolb. Dick Baner
Stephen Lanham wrote:
>
> I plan on starting on a homebuilt project in the next year or so, and the
> field has been narrowed to the Kolb Mark III or a Zenith CH 701. Folding
> wings and trailerability for off-airport storage are inescapable
> requirements, and the Kolb folks tout the capability of their design in that
> department. Anybody hauling around a CH 701 on a trailer to the airport on
> a more-or-less bimonthly basis? Comments from any of you
> been-there-done-that listers concerning the practicability of this endeavor
> would be most appreciated!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charley Zurian <charleyz(at)pacificnet.net> |
I haven't been following the cork/sound insulator thread too closely, but
FWIW I picked up a sample board from a manufacturer that has a pretty
complete product line...check out www.deccofelt.com.
Charley
701 on paper
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AWilson62(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: CH 701 Maybe Wannabe |
The folding wing option of the 701 is really just a end of the season thing.
It is not a folding wing option like the Kolb. But I am pretty sure most
Kolb Kitfox etc. owners really don't fold the wings much because no matter
what it is a hastle. Hope this helps.
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen_Worstell(at)notes.seagate.com |
| Subject: | Carbon Monoxide Detector |
> ... I heard the Carbon Monoxide
detector blasting away in the basement....
Is an electronic one available that would work in an aircraft?
g.
601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rich <rich(at)carol.net> |
I've update my CH-801 site. Those interested can continue at this link:
http://www.millennium-interactive.com/CH801/page19.htm
Later
Rich
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | HDS LE tank placement |
I have riveted the R HDS wing skeleton and preparing for the skins and LE
tank placement and other wing details. My LE tanks have the filler (flush),
drain, feed and vent ports...no mounting provision for fuel gauge sensor as I
understand some earlier tanks have had. Skysports capacitance probes and dual
gauge on the way. Appears the placement for the probes is inboard end and
center of the tank wall thru the S7A rib...w/ some accessability thru S6 when
the wing is off. There is a tab welded at the inboard, aft top of the tank
just below the weld seam protruding 18mm aft. On placing the tank in the
skeleton, the L angles support the tank aft and the tab rests on the front
of the spar.. really kind of juts into it. Where should the tab be? It is
too low to rest on top of the spar and it seems like it would rub into the
spar the way it is?? Also, how is the tank "secured" in position? When I cork
it I understand it will be a tight fit anyway but is that all? Do the skins,
L/E ribs and L's and that tab keep it there OK? Any tips are greatly
appreciated.
MY two sons say I should be a wing skeleton for Halloween..
best, Chris Carey...Richmond, VA
601 HDS 64901
Tail complete, R wing skeleton riveted, greasing landings w/ HDS on MS Flight
Simulator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darryl West" <rdwest(at)cadvision.com> |
| Subject: | Capacitance Level Gauge: Avgas vs. Mogas |
I recently noticed that my capacitance-type fuel level gauge (Westach) in my
601HD nose tank (15.5 US gallon) will read about 7/8 tank when completely
full of 100LL avgas, but reads 8/8 when completely full of 92 actane
automotive fuel (mogas). I originally calibrated it using mogas, and
normally fly that way, but on a long XC flight I can usually only get 100LL
en route.
I don't notice any change in range using the 2 different fuels. Just
something that others should be aware of.
Darryl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: HDS LE tank placement |
In a message dated 10/3/99 7:34:29 PM Mountain Daylight Time, SEAL2CC(at)aol.com
writes:
<< There is a tab welded at the inboard >>
This tab is to be used to secure a grounding wire for the tank. Drill a mall
hole in the tab and then secure a a wire from the tab to the spar. (or
where ever you are grounding) This grounds the fuel tank to the airframe and
prevents all the nasties of not grounding. I can't remember the gauge for
the wire but I think I used 18 or 14.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HDS LE tank placement |
Chris,
You might want to take a look at the pictures on my website. They show in
pretty good detail how I installed my 601HDS LE Fuel Tank. The URL is
http://www.pcperfect.com/zodiac. Just go to the Photo Album area and then
Select the HDS Wing Section.
Don Honabach - Tempe, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Day" <robday(at)gte.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Carbon Monoxide Detector |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roy O. Wright" <roy(at)wright.org> |
| Subject: | Any news on the Gemini? |
Howdy,
Just curious if anyone knows the status of the Gemini? The web
site has the kit release scheduled for "later during 1999".
TIA,
Roy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Wright #include
"I can't quite make a PC sing, but roll over and play dead is easy!"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Any news on the Gemini? |
When I was in Mexico for the August workshop I got the impression that the XL
project was on the front burner followed by the Gemini.
Chris Carey
601 HDS 64901
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nitrile Cork for LE Tanks |
Hi all..I found some Nitrile treated (BUNA) cork at a local industrial gasket
shop (Sutton-Clark here in Richmond, VA). It seems a lot heavier that
conventional cork rolls, but also somewhat more pliant. It is not cheap..@
$40/sq yd. I got 3.5' x 8' piece of 1/8" thick. Probably more than I need and
thinner in some areas but I figuire I can double up to 1/4" on the thin areas
and save some weight where the 1/8" thickness is fine. Has anyone used 3M
Super 77 spray adhesive to apply cork? It is very strong stuff and works in a
number of applications for me but interested in any experiences with this
application.
Thanks to all who responded re. my LE tank tab/ placement questions. On to
strobe/nav wiring and tank leak testing..Skystar cap. probes should be here
this week. ZAC sent a number of AN3 bolts but only 2 that were proper length
for the S6 -to-spar attachment...enough for one wing only. What about the
others and what are the longer bolts for? I have ordered a good assortment of
hardware so I can get everything done but curious as to the logic?
Chris Carey
HDS 64901
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Copperstate Fly-In |
| From: | Michael R Fortunato <wizard-24(at)juno.com> |
Anybody plan on attending the Copperstate Fly-In in Arizona this upcoming
weekend? Just curious - I'll be in town on another matter and plan on
attending when I get some free time during my visit.
Mike Fortunato
601XL, finishing up rear fuse
wizard-24(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ronbo135(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Copperstate Fly-In |
I will be there Saturday. I will be pushing a recouperating pilot friend
around in a wheelchair.
Ron Hansen
601HDS/Stratus/BRS
airframe 90%+, BRS in progress, engine arriving January.
In a message dated 10/5/99 10:07:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wizard-24(at)juno.com writes:
<< Anybody plan on attending the Copperstate Fly-In in Arizona this upcoming
weekend? Just curious - I'll be in town on another matter and plan on
attending when I get some free time during my visit.
Mike Fortunato
601XL, finishing up rear fuse
wizard-24(at)juno.com >>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Copperstate Fly-In |
In a message dated 10/05/1999 10:43:07 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
wizard-24(at)juno.com writes:
<< Anybody plan on attending the Copperstate Fly-In in Arizona >>
Myself and Don Honabach (another Lister) will be wroking the Aircraft
registration booth from 8am until 10am Saturday morning. Any of you guys
want to get together and do a little hangar flying or talk projects. let's
set up a time to meet! If anyone is interested in checking out my project
while in town for the fly in let me know. My house is kind of far from
Williams Airport (about 25 miles) but I am sure we could work something out.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "L.D. Pahnke" <ldpahnke(at)mvn.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nitrile Cork for LE Tanks |
I used 3M 77 spray adhesive for cork sheet attachment to tanks, no problem,
but have not flight tested. Should work OK in this application IMHO,LDP.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net> |
We are looking at getting a group together in the California area- West
coast-that is interested in getting their metal for their airplane about
now. We have found a good source but can get a even better deal if we
order it at the same time. Let me know by e-mail and maybe we can get
something to work out.
phil -
--
Check out Crusader Toys @
http://www.Crusadertoys.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Copperstate Fly-In |
In a message dated 10/05/1999 3:38:46 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
wizard-24(at)juno.com writes:
<< So, I'll just have to pop in when I get a chance and hope I catch
some of you roaming around the airport! I'd suggest that everyone who
visits wear a ZAC hat for recognition purposes, but I don't even have one
myself (yet). >>
I'll bring you one. My company makes the hats for ZAC. Call me at my shop
tomorrow after 4:00 pm 480-921-7090 or anytime on Thrusday and we'll set
something up.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert Gardner" <albert.gardner(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: solicitation |
Same here, somehow our addresses have been distributed
Albert Gardner
LaGrange, KY
albert.gardner(at)worldnet.att.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charley Zurian <charleyz(at)pacificnet.net> |
>From: "L.D. Pahnke" <ldpahnke(at)mvn.net>
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Nitrile Cork for LE Tanks
>I used 3M 77 spray adhesive for cork sheet attachment to tanks, no problem,
>but have not flight tested. Should work OK in this application IMHO,LDP.
3M 74 (Foam Fast Adhesive) tends to work better than the 77 in most
conditions where you want things to stay together, although neither have
proven able to resist the effects of heat or chemicals over any period of
time...I like the acrylic-based adhesives much better - they improve their
grab over time, and are formulated for heat and chemicals (ex. body side
molding tape for cars - plenty of heat and spilled gas, and it keeps on
stickin').
If you do go with the 3M spray stuff, make sure you shoot both sides and
let it dry for a good period of time before assembly!
Charley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)presys.com> |
| Subject: | Re: solicitation |
Yes I have started to get solicitations too.
Each has had a get off the list address near the end somewhere.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Day" <robday(at)gte.net> |
Hello listers-
Some advice about SPAM:
What I do to avoid dealing with this garbage is to set up "rules" to
eliminate it. I use Outlook Express (free from Microsoft). Under the Tools
menu, find "message rules". I set mine up so that if my name or email
address doesn't appear in the "to" or "cc" fields, the message gets moved
into a folder labelled "junk mail". I did it this way because most SPAM is
sent to you via blind copy, or the "bcc" field. The only drawback to this is
that initially all of my list mail went there too. So I modified the rule to
exclude specific senders such as this list. Unfortunately some messages get
sent there inadvertantly, like any message where the recipient list is
suppressed (like messages from Robert Nuckolls). It's for this reason that I
don't just delete the darn things. So what I do is check my junk mail once a
week or so to make sure it is all junk, then delete it. As time goes by and
I figure out who sends legitimate messages, I'll exclude them from the rule.
I know it seems like a huge pain in the ass (it is), but most of the time
when I open my junk mail folder, it's all junk. Once I'm certain I have all
the crap filtered out, I'll change the rule so it just deletes these
messages.
Other advice: try not to advertise your email address. If you use a
"signature" at the bottom of your messages, change the email address
slightly and include instructions on how to correct it. This will eliminate
the possibility of an automated spam robot from scouring your address from
your posts.
The most unfortunate advice is this: even though the law says that spammers
must now include a provision for removal from their list, DO NOT click on
these links or reply to the message IN ANY WAY. While most of these removal
plans are legitimate, a huge number of them are only there to confirm a
valid email address, and will immediately sell yours to whoever wants it.
It's unfortunate that we have to go to so much trouble to combat spam.
Please keep in mind that anyone can subscribe to this list and read all of
the messages, so it's not Matronics' fault we get spammed. Matt has gone to
great lengths to keep spam to a minimum, but someone will always find a way
to get through. Besides, you never know when you'll need to "increase your
sales 1500%"...
Good luck,
Rob Day
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Boultinghouse <cboultinghouse(at)mexicomo.net> |
>I just heard (direct to me) from a builder that has not posted anything to
>this net. He started receiving this solicitaion stuff Monday and hasn't
>posted anything to the net. How can they get his e-mail address if he
>hasn't posted before? Is there a page or site that lists all of us and our
>e-mail addresses?
I don't think so. Matt is very much "anti-spam". Don't forget that any
time you fill out a catalog request, or give out your email address in any
other way on the internet you are opening yourself up for SPAM. That is
precisely why I have a couple of the free Yahoo accounts. I use those
addresses whenever I fill out a survey or request a catalog via the
internet.
So far, I've received not a single piece of SPAM on this account.
Regards,
Chris Boultinghouse
Mexico, MO
http://members.tripod.com/zodiacbuilder
"Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?"
-George Carlin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ronbo135(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Maiden Flight |
Congratulations! Good Work. And thanks for morale boost.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Maiden Flight |
In a message dated 10/06/1999 5:02:37 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
jashford1(at)earthlink.net writes:
<< N 601Q, a 912 HDS made its maiden flight >>
Congratulations Jim, Way to go! How long from start to finish to get your
bird in the air?
Steve Freeman
www.tempe-embroidery.com/zodiac (woefully in need of an update!)
wings done (kind of) tail surfaces done (kind of) rear fuselage done (kind
of) working on joing rear forward and center portions.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Maiden Flight |
| From: | "Grant Corriveau" <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Congratulations James! Are you packing up the Zodiac to take it to Hawaii
with you?
I'd hazard a guess that if you DIDN'T have a heavy left wing when flying
solo, then something is wrong. After all, this is a very short wing and a
very light aircraft.
Cheers,
Grant
----------
>From: "Alan Newell" <anewell(at)canuck.com>
...
> Congratulations Jim.
> There are differing experiences out there but my HDS is left wing heavy
> with pilot only but neutral with a passenger. I have aileron trim so
> neither situation is a problem.
>
> Regards,
> Alan Newell, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
>
>
> ----------
>> From: James Ashford <jashford1(at)earthlink.net>
...
>> still impressed with the sensitivity of the controls. I have a heavy left
>> wing which will require further study (modification?).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bajusz Huba dr" <bajuszdr(at)deltav.hu> |
Is there anybody on the list who makes, or did make EA81 engine conversion
alone ?
Huba BAJUSZ
Hungary
bajuszdr(at)deltav.hu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "barry mayne" <bazmay(at)ozemail.com.au> |
Congratulations Jim,
Glad all went well, the low port wing seems to be normal if flying solo, but
you can always add aileron trim.
Congrats again from all down here in the land of OZ.
Barry Mayne HDS Jabiru 3300, wiring panel and really enjoying the change in
work.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darryl West" <rdwest(at)cadvision.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Maiden Flight |
It is such a great feeling when it finally gets airborne, isn't it?
Congrats.
Darryl
>
>Listers,
>
>N 601Q, a 912 HDS made its maiden flight on the morning of 6 Oct from Kelso
>Airport, Washington. A short and uneventful (as it should be) flight. I'm
>still impressed with the sensitivity of the controls. I have a heavy left
>wing which will require further study (modification?).
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ivoprop(at)pacbell.net (by way of Dan Knezacek <dknezace(at)bconnex.net>) |
| Subject: | Ivo Medium propeller |
The Ivo Medium propeller Left turn viewed from the rear Quick ground
adjust is now available. We will have the Electric adjust upgrade soon.
Diameter is 52-76 inch
Pitch range is 30-90 inch
4.5 inch cord at widest point
3 blade is 14.2 lb $800.00
2 blade is 11.2 lb $630.00
Plus shipping
Supply aircraft, engine, propeller diameter and flange pattern
VISA/MC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Knezacek <dknezace(at)bconnex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EA81 conversion |
Jo napot kivanok, Huba,
Jim Mantyla sells plans for a planetary reduction
drive for the EA81 Subaru. I can't remember the price right now but it's
in Canadian $ so it's much cheaper than most other countries :-)
I went flying with him last night. With two oversize adults on board, and
a tired motor (200,000 kms on it before it went into the airplane) we were
still climbing at 1200 fpm.
Dan Knezacek
601 HD
>
>Is there anybody on the list who makes, or did make EA81 engine conversion
>alone ?
>
>Huba BAJUSZ
>Hungary
>bajuszdr(at)deltav.hu
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jimingerman" <jimingerman(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: Return fuel line 801 |
-----Original Message-----
From: jimingerman <jimingerman(at)email.msn.com>
Date: Friday, October 08, 1999 1:37 PM
Subject: Return fuel line 801
>Hello
>
> I need some input on a problem. Here goes-- I am putting 2 -14.5 gal.
>tanks in each of the 801s wings. Walter Lom says their 337b engine with
F.I.
>and compressor requires a fuel return line back to the tank to allow excess
>fuel pumped by the injection pump to cool down after being deairiated.
Makes
>sense. My problem is that I would like to keep the tanks in pairs, inboard
>and outboard this would allow me to use a simple "right"(outboard),
>"left"(inboard) and "off" fuel controll valve.(Also the tank pairs would be
>teed upstream of the valve(. In order to keep the fuel management simple I
>have considered running fuel return to a tee and then to the inboard tanks
>and then placard the dash "Use Inboard tanks first " to keep from pushing
>fuel out the fuel cap vents.
>
>An option could be to run return lines to all four tanks and try to find a
>stackable valve that will switch all lines at once. This will be spendy and
>heavy.
>
>Another maybee is to run return fuel to tee and then one to an outboard
tank
>and one to an inboard tank. At about a 3 to 1 ratio, 3 gph or 1.5gph per
>tank will have to equalize
>between the two sides and I dont know if opposite side tanks will equalize
>that much fuel without pushing it out the vent caps first.BUT then I will
still need another valve!!!!
>
>Any thoughts? I've burried myself in this problem so deep I may be missing
a
>very easy soulution .
>
>jim 801 wings
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Steer <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: HDS LE tank placement |
The tab you refer to is for attaching the ground wire. The
tank has to be grounded to the rest of the structure since it's
insulated by the cork layer all around.
On my HD, I put in an extra L angle support at the inboard end
ob the tank, to keep it from moving aft and coming in contact
with the spar. That support keeps the tab off the spar, too,
with a clearance of about 3 mm. The tab is below the top of
the spar by about 2 mm.
You're right - there's no support at all for the tank, other
than the LE skin. My LE tanks are a very tight fit. So tight,
in fact, that I had to go to 1/16" cork to get the top-to-bottom
fit to work and not bulge the skin.
Hope this helps.
Bill
>
(snip)
>the wing is off. There is a tab welded at the inboard, aft top of the tank
>just below the weld seam protruding 18mm aft. On placing the tank in the
>skeleton, the L angles support the tank aft and the tab rests on the front
>of the spar.. really kind of juts into it. Where should the tab be? It is
>too low to rest on top of the spar and it seems like it would rub into the
>spar the way it is?? Also, how is the tank "secured" in position? When I
cork
>it I understand it will be a tight fit anyway but is that all? Do the skins,
>L/E ribs and L's and that tab keep it there OK? Any tips are greatly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Steer <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nitrile Cork for LE Tanks |
Yeah, I found what sounds like the same kind of cork at the
local "Big A" auto parts store. Paid $25 each for pieces
that are 18" x 36".
Bill
>
>Hi all..I found some Nitrile treated (BUNA) cork at a local industrial
gasket
>shop (Sutton-Clark here in Richmond, VA). It seems a lot heavier that
>conventional cork rolls, but also somewhat more pliant. It is not cheap..@
>$40/sq yd. I got 3.5' x 8' piece of 1/8" thick. Probably more than I need
and
>thinner in some areas but I figuire I can double up to 1/4" on the thin
areas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "AYRES, JIMMY L" <JAYRES(at)entergy.com> |
Hey Guys,
For those of you who have mounted you wings, I have a question: I tried to
fit my wings up today. I have only got the bolts through the spar
attachment plate. The construction manual shows that there should be 340 mm
from a line pulled across the wing tips and the top of the center section
spar. I checked this today and found this distance to be about 246 mm on
both sides. I also checked my angle of the outboard wings with an angle
finder and it appears to be pretty close.
Have any of you encountered this?
Jimmy Ayres
601HDS (fitting wings)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: solicitation |
Grant Corriveau wrote:
> Started about a week or two ago for me too!
> grrrrrr,,
> Grant, Montreal
Seems some hacker got the list, or matronics sold it.
"From" and "To" addresses are obviously folkoric. Comes from the US
Will try to ask my server to discard posts where the "To" address is
not mine.
Claude
PS : Here is the "enveloppe" of a message involving New-Zealand, Israel and Japan....
From - Sun Oct 10 09:23:06 1999
by mail21.wanadoo.fr (8.7.5/[Serveur de bals France Telecom Interactive])
with ESMTP id HAA24152
From: sam4(at)inca.co.nz
Subject: Fire the Boss and break the Alarm Clock!
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 10:05:21 -0700
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Verroen /SKYcastle aircraft" <J.Verroen(at)wxs.nl> |
| Subject: | Cork for LE Tanks |
We at SKYcastle aircraft are using untreated cork sheets normally used as
floor carpet. Sheets are +/- 1ft x 2 ft, 4 mm thick and cost allmost
nothing.
Jrgen Verroen
SKYcastle aircraft
Tel +31 35 6241410
Fax +31 35 6241430
E-mail ZENAIR(at)planet.nl
HTTP://home.wxs.nl/~jverroen
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: Bill Steer
Aan:
Verzonden: zaterdag 9 oktober 1999 19:23
Onderwerp: Re: Zenith-List: Nitrile Cork for LE Tanks
>
> Yeah, I found what sounds like the same kind of cork at the
> local "Big A" auto parts store. Paid $25 each for pieces
> that are 18" x 36".
>
> Bill
>
> >
> >Hi all..I found some Nitrile treated (BUNA) cork at a local industrial
> gasket
> >shop (Sutton-Clark here in Richmond, VA). It seems a lot heavier that
> >conventional cork rolls, but also somewhat more pliant. It is not
cheap..@
> >$40/sq yd. I got 3.5' x 8' piece of 1/8" thick. Probably more than I need
> and
> >thinner in some areas but I figuire I can double up to 1/4" on the thin
> areas
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron DeWees" <rdewees(at)avana.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New builder here |
Hi Guys.. I am a new builder with an 80% commleted HDS project I got
several weeks ago. I know I will be asking 'newbie' questions but it seems
difficult to jump in on a project without gaining the skills the origiginal
builder acquired. I live in the Atlanta Ga area and would love to talk to
and see other Zenair builders and planes.
The question at hand is in regard to the fusalage to wing fairing on the
601 HDS. ALmost all of the dimensions for the skin listed on plans seem too
large. I cut cardboard templates to fit and then measured them and all
dimensions are less than published ones. Do they overlap a lot more than
one would expect? I hate to mess up the first thing I do on a beautiful
new plane.
Thanks for your patience
Ron DeWees
Atlanta.Ga
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
I've looked into the archives and don't find much on "drain holes" in the
rear fuselage on the 601. I'm trying to finish up back there so I can
finally rivet those rear top skins.
Where, how many, and what size drain holes have you "pioneers" ahead of us
used. Or, if doing it again, what would you do this time? Thanks. Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim and Lucy <jpollard(at)mnsi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New builder here rear wing root fairing |
>
>Hi Guys.. I am a new builder with an 80% commleted HDS project I got
>several weeks ago. I know I will be asking 'newbie' questions but it seems
>difficult to jump in on a project without gaining the skills the origiginal
>builder acquired. I live in the Atlanta Ga area and would love to talk to
>and see other Zenair builders and planes.
> The question at hand is in regard to the fusalage to wing fairing on the
>601 HDS. ALmost all of the dimensions for the skin listed on plans seem too
>large. I cut cardboard templates to fit and then measured them and all
>dimensions are less than published ones. Do they overlap a lot more than
>one would expect? I hate to mess up the first thing I do on a beautiful
>new plane.
>Thanks for your patience
>Ron DeWees
>Atlanta.Ga
>
The dimentions for that part are oversize by quite a bit.
I cut my metal to the stated size and trimed it down bit by bit until they
fit.
Jim Pollard
hds
Merlin Ontraio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LIVING with aircraft batteries |
------------------
>>>A few years back I did some research into batteries for an underwater
>>>propulsion device and I learned that the number of cycles that you got
>>>out of a battery decreased with the percent discharge of the cycles. So
>>>I am wondering what the effect on battery life is when you discharge it
>>>to 5-10% of its capacity. Is that the only way to test the battery?
>>
------------------
bn: It's true that a battery's life is improved by limiting the
bn: depth to which you discharge it on each cycle.
------------------
>So, then, what is different about the construction of a "deep-cycle"
>battery, such as those marketed as such for use in golf carts?
------------------
Deep cycle batteries pack more chemistry into the plate
structure . . . generally limiting the number of plates
per volume and increased spacing between plates which
translates into higher internal resistance and poorer
performance at low temperatures.
I suspect that as the battery technology evolves, the
the gap between batteries optomized for deep cycle
work and cranking service may narrow. Most sealed
lead acid batteries sold are used in deep cycle
applications (camcorders, cellphones, power tools,
etc.) so I'm sure the industry is working hard to
keep this performance arena working well. In larger
batteries (10 a.h. and up) there is also a need for
good cranking performance. One company in particular
has gone the extra mile in optimizing cranking
performance in VERY small cells (1.2 a.h.).
See http://199.239.60.165/
These tiny cells combined with two alternators make
it now possible to remove the pigs found on most
aircraft engines for starters and alternators and
to forego the classic 24 a.h. battery in favor of
light weight alternators, starter, and itty-bitty
batteries for a DUAL electrical system who's TOTAL
weight is about equal to the original 24 a.h. battery!
The only sealed batteries I'm aware of specifcally
made for deep cycle service are true gel-cells offered
by Sonnenschein and Johnson Controls (the old Globe
line). I think B&C still offers a couple of gels
for customers that like them but for my money,
the RG battery is the only way to go for an airplane
were deep cycle performance isn't an issue.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Independence Kansas: the >
< Jurassic Park of aviation. >
< Your source for brand new >
< 40 year old airplanes. >
=================================
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob's Plane account" <robluce1(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Preorder 801 questions |
As I sit here with the order form, I'm attempting to work out some nagging
questions that I have.
1st: I've seen the Lycoming, the Subaru, and the LOM engines, and
concidering that any one of these engines will double (at the minimum) the
cost of building the plane, I'm having some problems with which one to pick.
While I won't be needing the engine until the airframe is done, $20,000 is
one thing, $45,000 is another, and this is a question I need to get out of
my head before I order anything.
Which engine and how much? I know that Lycoming can be worked on anywhere,
but the Subaru looks good, and is a better price. Can you get a IO-360
under $30,000? (just what are they smoking anyways?)
If I go with a Subaru and need work done on it, am I up a creek? Or can
anyone work on it? Would it be best to send the engine out to someone else
to be worked on? Can you replace the cylinders on a Subaru simular to a
Lycoming?
Should I go with fuel injected (aka IO-360), and/or turbo/supercharged
(TIO-360, Subaru CF4-20T, LOM M337A)?
Are there any Wankel type rotaries in use anywhere? I've heard of Mazda
conversions and freedom-motors.com, but I haven't read about anyone actually
concidering these engines for use in a Zenith of any type.
Ok, I've cluttered up the message with enought questions.... Thanks in
advance.
Rob Luce
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: New builder here |
Ron;
You will need to do some trimming. Just make sure that you have the overlaps
well defined before cutting. I used straight metal shears rathe than the
aircraft snips, then filed the edges to clear off burrs, and finaly I sand all
edges, all edges, with 320 wet/dry paper.
Mike
Ron DeWees wrote:
>
> Hi Guys.. I am a new builder with an 80% commleted HDS project I got
> several weeks ago. I know I will be asking 'newbie' questions but it seems
> difficult to jump in on a project without gaining the skills the origiginal
> builder acquired. I live in the Atlanta Ga area and would love to talk to
> and see other Zenair builders and planes.
> The question at hand is in regard to the fusalage to wing fairing on the
> 601 HDS. ALmost all of the dimensions for the skin listed on plans seem too
> large. I cut cardboard templates to fit and then measured them and all
> dimensions are less than published ones. Do they overlap a lot more than
> one would expect? I hate to mess up the first thing I do on a beautiful
> new plane.
> Thanks for your patience
> Ron DeWees
> Atlanta.Ga
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
Fred;
Our inspectors wanted 3/16" holes at each side in front of the cross "L's".
Mike
fhulen wrote:
>
> I've looked into the archives and don't find much on "drain holes" in the
> rear fuselage on the 601. I'm trying to finish up back there so I can
> finally rivet those rear top skins.
>
> Where, how many, and what size drain holes have you "pioneers" ahead of us
> used. Or, if doing it again, what would you do this time? Thanks. Fred
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rich <rich(at)carol.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LIVING with aircraft batteries |
Not sure about lead acid or gel-cell's but when a Ni-cad is almost dead
and can't be recharged, it is because a chemical short grows and
actually
shorts the battery. If the battery has not been dead & dormant for a
long time, a higher voltage applied for a second or less sometimes
burns out the short & the battery can be "resurrected". I've done this
with
the 1.2V nicad's for flashlight's and such. This doesn't make them as
good
as new but good enough when you don't have any spares & gives enough
time
to get replacements.
Rich
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
>
> ------------------
> >>>A few years back I did some research into batteries for an underwater
> >>>propulsion device and I learned that the number of cycles that you got
> >>>out of a battery decreased with the percent discharge of the cycles. So
> >>>I am wondering what the effect on battery life is when you discharge it
> >>>to 5-10% of its capacity. Is that the only way to test the battery?
> >>
> ------------------
> bn: It's true that a battery's life is improved by limiting the
> bn: depth to which you discharge it on each cycle.
>
> ------------------
> >So, then, what is different about the construction of a "deep-cycle"
> >battery, such as those marketed as such for use in golf carts?
>
> ------------------
>
> Deep cycle batteries pack more chemistry into the plate
> structure . . . generally limiting the number of plates
> per volume and increased spacing between plates which
> translates into higher internal resistance and poorer
> performance at low temperatures.
>
> I suspect that as the battery technology evolves, the
> the gap between batteries optomized for deep cycle
> work and cranking service may narrow. Most sealed
> lead acid batteries sold are used in deep cycle
> applications (camcorders, cellphones, power tools,
> etc.) so I'm sure the industry is working hard to
> keep this performance arena working well. In larger
> batteries (10 a.h. and up) there is also a need for
> good cranking performance. One company in particular
> has gone the extra mile in optimizing cranking
> performance in VERY small cells (1.2 a.h.).
>
> See http://199.239.60.165/
>
> These tiny cells combined with two alternators make
> it now possible to remove the pigs found on most
> aircraft engines for starters and alternators and
> to forego the classic 24 a.h. battery in favor of
> light weight alternators, starter, and itty-bitty
> batteries for a DUAL electrical system who's TOTAL
> weight is about equal to the original 24 a.h. battery!
>
> The only sealed batteries I'm aware of specifcally
> made for deep cycle service are true gel-cells offered
> by Sonnenschein and Johnson Controls (the old Globe
> line). I think B&C still offers a couple of gels
> for customers that like them but for my money,
> the RG battery is the only way to go for an airplane
> were deep cycle performance isn't an issue.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rich <rich(at)carol.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Preorder 801 questions |
Rob,
I've been doing some research with the Wankel rotaries & came to
the conclusion that you have to be a gear head to put one in. There are
2 main problems... one is with the 1600 deg F exhaust and the other is
finding or building your own PSRU that will not damage the engine.
Seems like the way to go with a PSRU is with a belt drive as this will
help eliminate most or all of the power pulse problems. Below is a snip
from the Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/
As far as Lyc prices... a friend of mine just bought a zero timed O-320
for $16,480 US without a core for his RV-6. I'll get the name of the
place if you want it.
Later
Rich
Ed Anderson wrote:
>
> Thought I would relate my experience with the Ross PSRU. Vance is correct
> that at low prop rpms the prop apparently loads and unloads between engine
> power pulses and this indeed causes the engine end of the drive shaft to
> pound on the end of the eccentric shaft or more likely the flywheel nut. I
> recently overhauled my 13B mazda engine for a unrelated reason and found
> evidence of the marks by the spline teeth on the PSRU side of the flywheel
> nut.
>
> One indication that you will get of this occuring is an irregular metalic
> clanking sound at low engine rpm. Most of us have found that if the idle
> rpm is raised to keep the prop loaded between power pulses this eliminates
> the problem. In my case I need to keep the engine around 1500 rpm (prop
> approx 750 rpm with 2.17:1 gear ratio), others have found the same procedure
> works.
>
> Clearly, a thrust bearing would be a better solution.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marlin Mixon <myshkin(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Preorder 801 questions |
Rob's Plane account wrote:
> Are there any Wankel type rotaries in use anywhere? I've heard of Mazda
> conversions and freedom-motors.com, but I haven't read about anyone actually
> concidering these engines for use in a Zenith of any type.
I am considering building an 801 too and am deciding between a Subaru
(2.5l
or 3.3l) and a Mazda 13B rotary. Here's my list of Rotary URLs:
Real World Solutions:
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/index.htm
Ed Anderson's Mazda 13B in an RV-6A with photographs:
http://www.flash.net/~donmack/mazda/
Rob Johnson's compelling arguments for a Mazda 20B rotary installation
in his Velocity RG:
http://www.robjohnson.com/20b_faq.html
There's a lot of things to like about rotaries (mostly taken from Rob
Johnson's FAQ):
1. Simple--only about eight moving parts for a larger three rotor
engine--even
fewer on the two rotor 13B. Also, no valves, period.
2. Easy overhaul.
3. A power to weight ratio in excess of 1:1. (1.5 to 2:1 is common in
aircraft piston engines)
4. Are very compact engines making for a good fit in a streamlined
cowling.
5. Already has two spark plugs and one coil per rotor (cylinder).
6. Already has two fuel injection ports per rotor.
7. Unlike most piston engines, it runs better at a high RPM than a LOW
RPM.
There are some down sides to rotaries as well:
* Special attention needs to be taken for cooling because a lot of
horsepower is being
developed in a small package.
* The engines tend to be thirsty.
* They are loud if left unmuffled.
* Burn crankcae oil by design--but not more than an equivalent Lycoming.
Good Luck
Marlin Mixon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New builder here |
>Hi Guys.. I am a new builder with an 80% commleted HDS project I got
>several weeks ago
> The question at hand is in regard to the fusalage to wing fairing on the
>601 HDS.
Ron,
I went through the same thing. I ended up cutting the fairing to the plan
size then started trimming and fitting a little at a time until the fairing
fit in place. I ended up with probably a 20-25 mm overlap where the fairing
edge fit between the side skin and longeron and between the wing skins and
rear "Z". I too made a cardboard template first and noticed what you did.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
>Where, how many, and what size drain holes have you "pioneers" ahead of us
>used. Or, if doing it again, what would you do this time? Thanks. Fred
Fred,
I don't believe that we have a size requirement here in the U.S. for drain
hole size so I went with the size the construction manual states (1/4"). I
drilled them on the back side of each bottom fuselage cross member. One hole
on each side next to the longeron. I used a "20 drill the then followed with
the step drill which gave nice clean 1/4" holes.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Grant Corriveau" <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Jimmy,
I haven't encountered that one. But I have found several other
'measurements' given in the plans and construction manual to be wrong.
Maybe the 340 number is from the HD?
Did you send this query to Nicholas yet?
Please post the answer as I'll be there sooner or LATER.
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
HDS 50% done; 80% to go
----------
>From: "AYRES, JIMMY L" <JAYRES(at)entergy.com>
>To: "'zenith-list(at)matronics.com'"
>Subject: Zenith-List: dihedral
>Date: Sat, Oct 9, 1999, 11:11 PM
>
>
> Hey Guys,
>
> For those of you who have mounted you wings, I have a question: I tried to
> fit my wings up today. I have only got the bolts through the spar
> attachment plate. The construction manual shows that there should be 340 mm
> from a line pulled across the wing tips and the top of the center section
> spar. I checked this today and found this distance to be about 246 mm on
> both sides. I also checked my angle of the outboard wings with an angle
> finder and it appears to be pretty close.
>
> Have any of you encountered this?
>
> Jimmy Ayres
> 601HDS (fitting wings)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "AYRES, JIMMY L" <JAYRES(at)entergy.com> |
"'zenith-list(at)matronics.com '"
Grant, Thanks for replying. As usual, I ran out and screamed "HELP" before
I took the time to read the manual thoroughly. Drawing 6SV1 shows the
correct dimension for the HDS to be 268 mm +/- 20 mm. I pulled my string a
little tighter and measured it at 274 mm (well within the +/- 20 mm).
Thanks again for the response. I finally got the wings bolted on and
MAN!!! she really looks like a plane now!
Jimmy Ayres
601HDS
-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Corriveau
Sent: 10/10/99 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: dihedral
Jimmy,
I haven't encountered that one. But I have found several other
'measurements' given in the plans and construction manual to be wrong.
Maybe the 340 number is from the HD?
Did you send this query to Nicholas yet?
Please post the answer as I'll be there sooner or LATER.
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
HDS 50% done; 80% to go
----------
>From: "AYRES, JIMMY L" <JAYRES(at)entergy.com>
>To: "'zenith-list(at)matronics.com'"
>Subject: Zenith-List: dihedral
>Date: Sat, Oct 9, 1999, 11:11 PM
>
>
> Hey Guys,
>
> For those of you who have mounted you wings, I have a question: I
tried to
> fit my wings up today. I have only got the bolts through the spar
> attachment plate. The construction manual shows that there should be
340 mm
> from a line pulled across the wing tips and the top of the center
section
> spar. I checked this today and found this distance to be about 246 mm
on
> both sides. I also checked my angle of the outboard wings with an
angle
> finder and it appears to be pretty close.
>
> Have any of you encountered this?
>
> Jimmy Ayres
> 601HDS (fitting wings)
>
>
>
---
---
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Exstrom <exstromb(at)onlinemac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Preorder 801 questions |
>
>Are there any Wankel type rotaries in use anywhere? I've heard of Mazda
>conversions and freedom-motors.com, but I haven't read about anyone actually
>concidering these engines for use in a Zenith of any type.
>
Rob,
For rotary (Mazda) engines, I was impressed with the work by Atkins Aviation.
http://www.atkinsrotary.com/
I don't know if any rotarys are in use in Zenith aircraft.
Dan Exstrom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Verroen /SKYcastle aircraft" <J.Verroen(at)wxs.nl> |
| Subject: | Re: Preorder 801 questions |
Rotaryengines in the UK flies with a 601. The zodiac flies good but makes a
lot of noise.
See picture at http://home.wxs.nl/~jverroen/foto.htm
SKYcastle aircraft
Tel +31 35 6241410
Fax +31 35 6241430
E-mail ZENAIR(at)planet.nl
HTTP://home.wxs.nl/~jverroen
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: Dan Exstrom
Aan:
Verzonden: maandag 11 oktober 1999 3:41
Onderwerp: Re: Zenith-List: Preorder 801 questions
>
> >
> >Are there any Wankel type rotaries in use anywhere? I've heard of Mazda
> >conversions and freedom-motors.com, but I haven't read about anyone
actually
> >concidering these engines for use in a Zenith of any type.
> >
> Rob,
>
> For rotary (Mazda) engines, I was impressed with the work by Atkins
Aviation.
>
> http://www.atkinsrotary.com/
>
> I don't know if any rotarys are in use in Zenith aircraft.
>
> Dan Exstrom
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Grant Corriveau" <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Jimmy,
Wow! I'm looking forward to my first 'roll out' to the driveway where I can
do the same!
Do you have a 'target date' of any kind for the first flight?
I'd like mine to occur next summer, but I've avoided setting too rigid a
schedule so as not to make my hobby into another source of pressure.
Happy completion,
Grant
----------
>From: "AYRES, JIMMY L" <JAYRES(at)entergy.com>
>To: "'Grant Corriveau '" , "'zenith-list(at)matronics.com '"
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: dihedral
>Date: Sun, Oct 10, 1999, 7:57 PM
>
>
>
> Grant, Thanks for replying. As usual, I ran out and screamed "HELP" before
> I took the time to read the manual thoroughly. Drawing 6SV1 shows the
> correct dimension for the HDS to be 268 mm +/- 20 mm. I pulled my string a
> little tighter and measured it at 274 mm (well within the +/- 20 mm).
> Thanks again for the response. I finally got the wings bolted on and
> MAN!!! she really looks like a plane now!
>
> Jimmy Ayres
> 601HDS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Corriveau
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: 10/10/99 7:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: dihedral
>
>
>
> Jimmy,
>
> I haven't encountered that one. But I have found several other
> 'measurements' given in the plans and construction manual to be wrong.
>
> Maybe the 340 number is from the HD?
>
> Did you send this query to Nicholas yet?
>
> Please post the answer as I'll be there sooner or LATER.
>
> Grant Corriveau
> Montreal
> HDS 50% done; 80% to go
>
> ----------
>>From: "AYRES, JIMMY L" <JAYRES(at)entergy.com>
>>To: "'zenith-list(at)matronics.com'"
>>Subject: Zenith-List: dihedral
>>Date: Sat, Oct 9, 1999, 11:11 PM
>>
>
>
>>
>> Hey Guys,
>>
>> For those of you who have mounted you wings, I have a question: I
> tried to
>> fit my wings up today. I have only got the bolts through the spar
>> attachment plate. The construction manual shows that there should be
> 340 mm
>> from a line pulled across the wing tips and the top of the center
> section
>> spar. I checked this today and found this distance to be about 246 mm
> on
>> both sides. I also checked my angle of the outboard wings with an
> angle
>> finder and it appears to be pretty close.
>>
>> Have any of you encountered this?
>>
>> Jimmy Ayres
>> 601HDS (fitting wings)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
>
> ---
>
> ---
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "AYRES, JIMMY L" <JAYRES(at)entergy.com> |
Grant, I have tentatively set a goal of January 1, 2000 to be ready for
flight. Although I really want to find a way to get some left side time in
a Zodiac somewhere before I take mine up for the first time. To date I have
about 150 hours, but only in Cessna's and a Cherokee. So, I am a little
afraid of trying to switch from yoke to stick on my own. I understand
there's a place in your part of the world that rents and instructs in
Zodiac's (Flypass). Are you familiar with them? Of course it would be more
convenient if I could find someone around here to check me out in one. I
anyone would like to see a picture of the plane with the wings attached,
look under the subdirectory of "fuselage" at:
www.crosswinds.net/little-rock/~jayres/zodiac.html
Talk to you later. Let me know if you have any info on the cost and
services provided by Flypass.
Jimmy Ayres
601HDS (tying up loose ends)
-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Corriveau [mailto:gfcorriv(at)total.net]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 1999 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: dihedral
Jimmy,
Wow! I'm looking forward to my first 'roll out' to the driveway where I can
do the same!
Do you have a 'target date' of any kind for the first flight?
I'd like mine to occur next summer, but I've avoided setting too rigid a
schedule so as not to make my hobby into another source of pressure.
Happy completion,
Grant
----------
>From: "AYRES, JIMMY L" <JAYRES(at)entergy.com>
>To: "'Grant Corriveau '" , "'zenith-list(at)matronics.com
'"
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: dihedral
>Date: Sun, Oct 10, 1999, 7:57 PM
>
>
>
> Grant, Thanks for replying. As usual, I ran out and screamed "HELP"
before
> I took the time to read the manual thoroughly. Drawing 6SV1 shows the
> correct dimension for the HDS to be 268 mm +/- 20 mm. I pulled my string
a
> little tighter and measured it at 274 mm (well within the +/- 20 mm).
> Thanks again for the response. I finally got the wings bolted on and
> MAN!!! she really looks like a plane now!
>
> Jimmy Ayres
> 601HDS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Corriveau
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: 10/10/99 7:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: dihedral
>
>
>
> Jimmy,
>
> I haven't encountered that one. But I have found several other
> 'measurements' given in the plans and construction manual to be wrong.
>
> Maybe the 340 number is from the HD?
>
> Did you send this query to Nicholas yet?
>
> Please post the answer as I'll be there sooner or LATER.
>
> Grant Corriveau
> Montreal
> HDS 50% done; 80% to go
>
> ----------
>>From: "AYRES, JIMMY L" <JAYRES(at)entergy.com>
>>To: "'zenith-list(at)matronics.com'"
>>Subject: Zenith-List: dihedral
>>Date: Sat, Oct 9, 1999, 11:11 PM
>>
>
>
>>
>> Hey Guys,
>>
>> For those of you who have mounted you wings, I have a question: I
> tried to
>> fit my wings up today. I have only got the bolts through the spar
>> attachment plate. The construction manual shows that there should be
> 340 mm
>> from a line pulled across the wing tips and the top of the center
> section
>> spar. I checked this today and found this distance to be about 246 mm
> on
>> both sides. I also checked my angle of the outboard wings with an
> angle
>> finder and it appears to be pretty close.
>>
>> Have any of you encountered this?
>>
>> Jimmy Ayres
>> 601HDS (fitting wings)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
>
> ---
>
> ---
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Steer <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | A word of caution |
Hello, all. For those of you who are building a 601 HD from
the kits supplied by ZAC, I have a word of caution on the
wing kit. After cutting and drilling six skin stiffeners
out of L angle, I got out the skins, only to discover that
they're pre-drilled! Those are the first pre-drilled skins
I've come across in the kits. Since the rivet holes I drilled
in the L angles I originally made didn't align with those in
the skins, I ended up wasting six L angles.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank_Hinde(at)ex.cv.hp.com |
| Subject: | A word of caution |
Why did'nt you just rotate the angles 90 degrees and re-drill the holes on the
other flange?
The holes you did drill were just pilot holes anyway right?... Reason being that
if you drill holes out to size and then drill through them again you will end up
broaching the hole you drilled bigger...Not good practice IMHO.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Steer [mailto:bsteer(at)gwi.net]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 1999 8:29 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: A word of caution
Hello, all. For those of you who are building a 601 HD from
the kits supplied by ZAC, I have a word of caution on the
wing kit. After cutting and drilling six skin stiffeners
out of L angle, I got out the skins, only to discover that
they're pre-drilled! Those are the first pre-drilled skins
I've come across in the kits. Since the rivet holes I drilled
in the L angles I originally made didn't align with those in
the skins, I ended up wasting six L angles.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Sa <wings(at)axess.com> |
| Subject: | Re: solicitation |
I have received my regular amount of non-solicited mail, i.e. one every
one/two weeks.
I don't think the Matronics list was sold. At least, not all of it.
Carlos
Montreal
> Grant Corriveau wrote:
>
> > Started about a week or two ago for me too!
> > grrrrrr,,
> > Grant, Montreal
>
> Seems some hacker got the list, or matronics sold it.
> "From" and "To" addresses are obviously folkoric. Comes from the US
> Will try to ask my server to discard posts where the "To" address is
> not mine.
> Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Grant Corriveau" <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Hey Jimmy,
Flypass has a great reputation with anyone I've talked to that's done
busines with them. They have a web site at www.flypass.com (I think that's
the url).
I'll go check out that picture.
Grant
----------
>From: "AYRES, JIMMY L" <JAYRES(at)entergy.com>
>To: "'zenith-list(at)matronics.com'"
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: dihedral
>Date: Mon, Oct 11, 1999, 10:02 AM
>
>
> Grant, I have tentatively set a goal of January 1, 2000 to be ready for
> flight. Although I really want to find a way to get some left side time in
> a Zodiac somewhere before I take mine up for the first time. To date I have
> about 150 hours, but only in Cessna's and a Cherokee. So, I am a little
> afraid of trying to switch from yoke to stick on my own. I understand
> there's a place in your part of the world that rents and instructs in
> Zodiac's (Flypass). Are you familiar with them? Of course it would be more
> convenient if I could find someone around here to check me out in one. I
> anyone would like to see a picture of the plane with the wings attached,
> look under the subdirectory of "fuselage" at:
> www.crosswinds.net/little-rock/~jayres/zodiac.html
>
> Talk to you later. Let me know if you have any info on the cost and
> services provided by Flypass.
>
> Jimmy Ayres
> 601HDS (tying up loose ends)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Corriveau [mailto:gfcorriv(at)total.net]
> Sent: Monday, October 11, 1999 8:23 AM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: dihedral
>
>
> Jimmy,
>
> Wow! I'm looking forward to my first 'roll out' to the driveway where I can
> do the same!
>
> Do you have a 'target date' of any kind for the first flight?
>
> I'd like mine to occur next summer, but I've avoided setting too rigid a
> schedule so as not to make my hobby into another source of pressure.
>
> Happy completion,
> Grant
>
> ----------
>>From: "AYRES, JIMMY L" <JAYRES(at)entergy.com>
>>To: "'Grant Corriveau '" , "'zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> '"
>
>>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: dihedral
>>Date: Sun, Oct 10, 1999, 7:57 PM
>>
>
>>
>>
>> Grant, Thanks for replying. As usual, I ran out and screamed "HELP"
> before
>> I took the time to read the manual thoroughly. Drawing 6SV1 shows the
>> correct dimension for the HDS to be 268 mm +/- 20 mm. I pulled my string
> a
>> little tighter and measured it at 274 mm (well within the +/- 20 mm).
>> Thanks again for the response. I finally got the wings bolted on and
>> MAN!!! she really looks like a plane now!
>>
>> Jimmy Ayres
>> 601HDS
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Grant Corriveau
>> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: 10/10/99 7:06 AM
>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: dihedral
>>
>>
>>
>> Jimmy,
>>
>> I haven't encountered that one. But I have found several other
>> 'measurements' given in the plans and construction manual to be wrong.
>>
>> Maybe the 340 number is from the HD?
>>
>> Did you send this query to Nicholas yet?
>>
>> Please post the answer as I'll be there sooner or LATER.
>>
>> Grant Corriveau
>> Montreal
>> HDS 50% done; 80% to go
>>
>> ----------
>>>From: "AYRES, JIMMY L" <JAYRES(at)entergy.com>
>>>To: "'zenith-list(at)matronics.com'"
>>>Subject: Zenith-List: dihedral
>>>Date: Sat, Oct 9, 1999, 11:11 PM
>>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hey Guys,
>>>
>>> For those of you who have mounted you wings, I have a question: I
>> tried to
>>> fit my wings up today. I have only got the bolts through the spar
>>> attachment plate. The construction manual shows that there should be
>> 340 mm
>>> from a line pulled across the wing tips and the top of the center
>> section
>>> spar. I checked this today and found this distance to be about 246 mm
>> on
>>> both sides. I also checked my angle of the outboard wings with an
>> angle
>>> finder and it appears to be pretty close.
>>>
>>> Have any of you encountered this?
>>>
>>> Jimmy Ayres
>>> 601HDS (fitting wings)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> ---
>>
>> ---
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Davis" <jd(at)lri.stjosephs.london.on.ca> |
| Subject: | wing tank vent open question |
Greetings, builders...
Here is the text of a message I just sent to Zenith. Any
comments/experience/advice welcome...
After filling my extended wing tanks to the filler neck, I proceeded onto
the taxiway for some low-speed taxi testing. As soon as I made the first
turn, the tank vents, which pass through the tanks and through the bottom
wing skin, began pissing fuel onto the taxiway. I would estimate that
several liters of fuel was deposit ted onto the asphalt, and I left an ugly
trail behind. Lucky that I hadn't yet installed the doors, and had the
fuel land on the lexan! A clearly unacceptable condition. I have read on
the Matronix list of other similar experiences. The consensus of opinion
seems to be to simply cap the vent pipes and use vented filler caps. Note:
my plane is a 701 with wing tanks only, no header/main tank. Question:
does Zenith concur with this advice? Are the Zenith-supplied filler caps
already vented, or do I have to drill them out and install a forward-
facing tube, a la Luscombe? Why is this poor design perpetuated? Or is
it?
Regards, J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
| J. Davis | email: jd(at)uwo.ca |
| SysMgr, research programmer | voice: (519) 646 6100 x64166 |
| Lawson Research Institute | fax: (519) 646 6135 |
| London, Ontario | www.stjosephs.london.on.ca/~jd |
--------------------------------------------------------------
I was going 70 miles an hour and got stopped by a cop who said, "Do you know
the speed limit is 55 miles per hour?" "Yes, officer, but I wasn't going to be
out that long..."
--- Steven Wright
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wing tank vent open question |
J. Davis,
My 701 will only have wing tanks, no header tank. I picked up my 701 kit in March
of 1999 and my tanks came with no vents, I asked Zenith about this and they said
the caps are vented and that is all that is needed.
Chuck Deiterich
"J. Davis" wrote:
>
> Greetings, builders...
>
> Here is the text of a message I just sent to Zenith. Any
> comments/experience/advice welcome...
>
> After filling my extended wing tanks to the filler neck, I proceeded onto
> the taxiway for some low-speed taxi testing. As soon as I made the first
> turn, the tank vents, which pass through the tanks and through the bottom
> wing skin, began pissing fuel onto the taxiway. I would estimate that
> several liters of fuel was deposit ted onto the asphalt, and I left an ugly
> trail behind. Lucky that I hadn't yet installed the doors, and had the
> fuel land on the lexan! A clearly unacceptable condition. I have read on
> the Matronix list of other similar experiences. The consensus of opinion
> seems to be to simply cap the vent pipes and use vented filler caps. Note:
> my plane is a 701 with wing tanks only, no header/main tank. Question:
> does Zenith concur with this advice? Are the Zenith-supplied filler caps
> already vented, or do I have to drill them out and install a forward-
> facing tube, a la Luscombe? Why is this poor design perpetuated? Or is
> it?
>
> Regards, J.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> | J. Davis | email: jd(at)uwo.ca |
> | SysMgr, research programmer | voice: (519) 646 6100 x64166 |
> | Lawson Research Institute | fax: (519) 646 6135 |
> | London, Ontario | www.stjosephs.london.on.ca/~jd |
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I was going 70 miles an hour and got stopped by a cop who said, "Do you know
> the speed limit is 55 miles per hour?" "Yes, officer, but I wasn't going to
be
> out that long..."
> --- Steven Wright
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Tannock" <James.Tannock(at)nottingham.ac.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: A word of caution |
Bill wrote:-
> Since the rivet holes I drilled
> in the L angles I originally made didn't align with those in
> the skins, I ended up wasting six L angles.
Don't worry about it Bill, the spare holes will lighten the structure
but not weaken it so as anyone will worry. You should try
straightening a wing and drilling 100 extra holes in the rear zee!
James Tannock
Nottingham
England
601HD
Final assembly in the hanger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A word of caution |
On my 701 kit, the top, bottom and side skins for the fuselage are predrilled,
but the outside perimeter of the skins may have to be trimmed.
Chuck Deiterich
Bill Steer wrote:
>
> Hello, all. For those of you who are building a 601 HD from
> the kits supplied by ZAC, I have a word of caution on the
> wing kit. After cutting and drilling six skin stiffeners
> out of L angle, I got out the skins, only to discover that
> they're pre-drilled! Those are the first pre-drilled skins
> I've come across in the kits. Since the rivet holes I drilled
> in the L angles I originally made didn't align with those in
> the skins, I ended up wasting six L angles.
>
> Bill
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)presys.com> |
I too have the large 11 gal wing tanks and note also no vents. I nhaven't
checked the caps.
I also have the smaller D header tank as a want to be able to use the fuel
sight glass in the panel.
This will only work if the header tank fills to the top and stays there
until the wing tanks are empty.
I plan to cap off the header tank and install a vent line from it to the
vents I will install in the filler tube or very top of the wing tanks thence
to a forward facing overflow under the wing outboard of the tanks and a bit
away from the lexan.This should work.
I'd like to hear anything the factory says or other experiences from anyone
who knows a system that is working properly.
Richard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Chapman <pchapman(at)ionsys.com> |
>Our inspectors wanted 3/16" holes at each side in front of the cross "L's".
>Mike
Keep in mind that Mike's 601 is a taildragger. For those of us with
tri-gears, the holes go aft of the cross pieces in the rear fuselage.
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Question For Nick regarding Radiator |
Nick,
In the instructions I received for installing the VW radiator "RAD
INFORMATION SHEET", it shows and talks about a Back End Cover called R-2.
I did not receive this part nor is it listed on the 601 SUBARU ENGINE
INSTALLATION - Pick List that came with my firewall forward package.
I did receive the two side brackets named RB on the pick list. Should I have
the Back End Cover?
Thanks,
Bill Morelli
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | brentbattles(at)pipeline.com (Brenton E. Battles) |
| Subject: | 601 Choke cable alternatives |
Having installed the 2-into-1 choke cable splice for my 912 and pulling off
the choke cable knob due to high friction and questionable geometry in the
design, I'm looking for alternatives. Archive search led me to e-mail
Frank Hinde who has suggested substituting a primer circuit using a port
that is nowhere so identified in either the Bing manual or in the
California Power Systems catalog containing a bunch of Rotax info. I don't
doubt his advice, but wonder why no mention is made of a primer circuit at
all.
A call to Nick Heintz resulted in a sheepish admission that (1) the 2 into
1 set-up is a questionable design, (2) that the factory demo has only one
choke connected for this reason, and (3) he'd try to get me an alternative.
No need to describe my thoughts. Nick and CPS tech people both say this
arrangement is a "no-no", however my technical counselor at tonight's EAA
meeting doesn't see a problem.
One alternative is use of electric solenoids as on outboard motors. Tech
counselor prefers manual cable system but is a little vague as to why -
presumably shock of hitting enrichment valve stop with overly energetic
solenoid? Nick says at times he leaves choke on for as much as 2 minutes.
I tried an automotive solenoid (door/trunk lock type) and found it can't
take more than a few seconds' continuous current. (Also too bulky for me.)
Any thoughts out there?
Thanks, Brent Battles 601HD - Rotax 912 N16BZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Norris <rnorris4(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nitrile Cork for LE Tanks |
Spray adhesive did not work for me. It initially stuck but then peeled
away after sitting overnight. I ended up using contact cement as
recommended.
I had to file away 1/2 the ground tab to keep it away from the spar cap,
but I still had enough to drill a hole and rivet the ground terminal on.
SEAL2CC(at)aol.com wrote:
> and save some weight where the 1/8" thickness is fine. Has anyone used 3M
> Super 77 spray adhesive to apply cork? It is very strong stuff and works in a
> number of applications for me but interested in any experiences with this
> application.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Tannock" <James.Tannock(at)nottingham.ac.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: 601 Choke cable alternatives |
The only choke cable arrangements which seem to work are those
thought out carefully and re-designed by the builder. Claude posted
a good description of his 701 arrangement last time this came up a
few weeks ago.
James Tannock
Nottingham
England
601HD
Final assembly in the hanger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: 701 wing tanks |
HOLCOMBE wrote:
> I'd like to hear anything the factory says or other experiences from anyone
> who knows a system that is working properly.
> Richard
1. Wing tanks : the lower vent is good only for spraying fuel on the taxiway.
I cut this vent close to the wing, threaded it to 5/16" /24 and inserted
a headless A5 bolt glued with green Loctite.
Just drilled a 3mm hole in the cap (no forward facing trumpet, just good
to catch bugs).
Works perfect now.
2. Front tank sight tube.
Replaced with a cork and spoke system : Drilled a 1/4" hole in the cap, must
be drilled somewhat oblique to be vertical once the cap installed. Welded
a 1/4 steel tube, about 80mm long. The spoke is a 1mm welding rod, fitted
with red, yellow and green thermoshrinkable tubes (polyolefin is fuel resistant).
I empty the wings tanks when the gauge reaches low yellow mark until it reaches
the high yellow mark. Windshield protected with a polyethylene film near the
cap,
but does not overspill even with tank full and "cowboy" taxiing.
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PHIL_PFOERTNER(at)udlp.com |
I am about 1/3 done with my 601hds and am still undecided about engines, I have
a good lead on a 0-200 with low time at a good price but what are the pros/cons
of the choices. The 912s seems too expensive, the e81 dosen't seem so bad.
Thanks
Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | sound deadening materials |
Refering back to the 3-M material I posted information about on Sept 20th, I
ordered a roll of the 2" wide, stock number 2552, which is 36 yards long.
As mentioned earlier, you can special order it in wider widths, but I
ordered the standard 2" version because it was in stock and easily applied
side by side to make up bigger pieces as needed in the aircraft.
I confirmed that individuals CAN order from them, you don't need to have a
company to order it. I also requested a sample of the 1/4" stuff that is
used on the firewall for sound dampening and temperature insulation by
several aircraft manufacturers, and will post some feedback on it when it
arrives. So you don't have to look it up again in the archives, the
company to order it from is R.S. Hughs Inc, located in the greater Kansas
City Mo. area. Ask for Jason Rauter (nice guy) at (816) 241-1069 . $75.71
per 2" x 36 yard roll (that's the case price), plus about $4.00 shipping.
It doesn't take all that much to do the job, so maybe some of you might want
to order a roll and split it with another builder. Apply as per the
discussion earlier... This stuff Works! Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "AYRES, JIMMY L" <JAYRES(at)entergy.com> |
Phil,
I have installed an 0-200 in my 601HDS, so I can give you my perspective on
that:
pros:
1. Proven highly reliable engine
2. Cost, bought a wrecked C150 with engine & instruments for $5900.
Cons:
1. Weight, I believe the engine and accessories comes to around 250 lbs.
2. Everything forward of the firewall had to be custom made (mount,
cowling, etc), a real time consumer.
3. Large frontal area on nose (drag). Don't know what affect that will
have on my performance.
I'm still glad I went with the 0200 because of the money I saved and the
reputation of engine, but I would have been through months ago if I had gone
with a standard rotax and FWF package from ZAC.
My two cents worth.
Jimmy Ayres
601HDS
-----Original Message-----
From: PHIL_PFOERTNER(at)udlp.com [mailto:PHIL_PFOERTNER(at)udlp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 8:32 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: engine choice
I am about 1/3 done with my 601hds and am still undecided about engines, I
have
a good lead on a 0-200 with low time at a good price but what are the
pros/cons
of the choices. The 912s seems too expensive, the e81 dosen't seem so bad.
Thanks
Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | scott bailey <badmrb(at)usa.net> |
Im needing other perspectives.
I have a 601 HD with an EA-81 and reductions of canada reduction unit. A few
weeks ago shortly after takeoff my top cowling piece decided to depart the
airplane. I returned to the airport without any troubles other than a
scratched up canopy and a ding in my tail. I never was able to find the
remains of the cowling to figure what happened. I assume that I failed to get
one or more of the cowling camlock fasteners set and they worked there way out
during the flight. A fairly scary event in the air at 1500 ft.
My problem now is this. Replacing the cowling. I bought the plane complete
with only minor finishing touches needed as well as the 40 hr fly off. I
ordered the cowling from ZAC. Drove several hundred miles to the airplane to
find out it doesnt fit. The front of the cowling matches up with my bottom
piece but at the back it is nearly an inch and a half short on both sides of
reaching my fastener holes.
I called ZAC and was informed that the same top piece is used for either the
rotax or subaru installation. NO difference. I need the cowling to be around
48 inches around the curve at the back in order to reach the bottom cowling.
ZAC said all there pieces in stock measure 44 1/2".
In order to make it fit I need to either add pieces on both sides or split the
cowling down the middle and add a piece. My delema is, the top cowling that I
lost was not cut or added to in any way. Another thing, my bottom piece is
original except for a scoop added on the bottom to accomodate the oil pan.
ZAC informed me that the subaru cowlings need bubbles on the side to fit the
engine. Mine doesnt have these yet the subaru fits fine. ZAC couldn't explain
this either, saying it was impossible.
I know this is long but does anyone have a subaru installation without the
cheeks on the bottom cowling and yet the subaru still fits? Does anyone have a
top cowling piece with measured circumference at the back of more than 44
1/2"? The information Im getting from ZAC combined with what Im looking at
just doesnt make sense.
I really appreciate the info.
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank_Hinde(at)ex.cv.hp.com |
| Subject: | 601 Choke cable alternatives |
My engine is a Status Soob and the primer port (which is a small brass tube that
allows fuel to be squited straight down the inlet manifold) is located on the
discharge side of the carb...obviously!
I used the primer solenoid from AS&S which gets energised from a momentary
contact switch on my instrument panel.
Its very, very sweet....no pumping or gorilla pulls on choke cables! The engine
fires immediatly!
Unles you Rotax guys don't have the primer ports I really can't see any good
reason to use the awful choke cable system.
As to only choking one carb.... well that would work except your starting will
be much more difficult and it will run rough immediatly after starting..... It
might not even start at all in cold weather!
Now lets talk about using a small battery to run the redundant ignition
system...:-)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: brentbattles(at)pipeline.com [mailto:brentbattles(at)pipeline.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 8:31 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: 601 Choke cable alternatives
Battles)
Having installed the 2-into-1 choke cable splice for my 912 and pulling off
the choke cable knob due to high friction and questionable geometry in the
design, I'm looking for alternatives. Archive search led me to e-mail
Frank Hinde who has suggested substituting a primer circuit using a port
that is nowhere so identified in either the Bing manual or in the
California Power Systems catalog containing a bunch of Rotax info. I don't
doubt his advice, but wonder why no mention is made of a primer circuit at
all.
A call to Nick Heintz resulted in a sheepish admission that (1) the 2 into
1 set-up is a questionable design, (2) that the factory demo has only one
choke connected for this reason, and (3) he'd try to get me an alternative.
No need to describe my thoughts. Nick and CPS tech people both say this
arrangement is a "no-no", however my technical counselor at tonight's EAA
meeting doesn't see a problem.
One alternative is use of electric solenoids as on outboard motors. Tech
counselor prefers manual cable system but is a little vague as to why -
presumably shock of hitting enrichment valve stop with overly energetic
solenoid? Nick says at times he leaves choke on for as much as 2 minutes.
I tried an automotive solenoid (door/trunk lock type) and found it can't
take more than a few seconds' continuous current. (Also too bulky for me.)
Any thoughts out there?
Thanks, Brent Battles 601HD - Rotax 912 N16BZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Re: top cowling? |
> Does anyone have a
>top cowling piece with measured circumference at the back of more than 44
>1/2"? The information Im getting from ZAC combined with what Im looking at
>just doesnt make sense.
>
Scott,
I have the Subaru firewall forward package but have not installed the
cowling yet. It did come with the cheek cowls to be added. I just went and
measured the back circumference of the top cowling and it is 44 1/2"!
Maybe you could speak to the original builder and find out how this
discrepancy might have happened?
Regards,
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank_Hinde(at)ex.cv.hp.com |
Sorry to be the beare of bad news but my experience with the ZAC cowling is that
it simply does not fit or line up anywhere.
If your cowling is such that the spinner comes out anwhere near the center of
the cowling opening (like it should....and believe me mine does'nt) then you
cowling is either modified of it has been made especially to fit...... If you
saw how bad mine is then making one from scratch is not a bad option considering
they charge $450 for such a piece of rubbish.
Incidently... The camlock (mine are dzeus) fasteners are pretty awful too. I
replaced mine to match the top and bottom cowls with nutplates and screws 'cos
I
simply did'nt trust them to engage properly.
I still used the dzeus to mate the alu cockpit to the fiberglass, they work well
here.
How did you not bend the top aluminium cockpit panel when you lost the cowl top?
The cowl goes under the alu which would have been bent horribly!... Some planes
I have seen have the alu trimmed back to the firewall and the cowl fits to L
brackets mounted on the firewall.
If yours is like this it is non standard....No way will the ZAC form a nice butt
joint with the firewall either!
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: scott bailey [mailto:badmrb(at)usa.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 8:18 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: top cowling?
Im needing other perspectives.
I have a 601 HD with an EA-81 and reductions of canada reduction unit. A few
weeks ago shortly after takeoff my top cowling piece decided to depart the
airplane. I returned to the airport without any troubles other than a
scratched up canopy and a ding in my tail. I never was able to find the
remains of the cowling to figure what happened. I assume that I failed to get
one or more of the cowling camlock fasteners set and they worked there way out
during the flight. A fairly scary event in the air at 1500 ft.
My problem now is this. Replacing the cowling. I bought the plane complete
with only minor finishing touches needed as well as the 40 hr fly off. I
ordered the cowling from ZAC. Drove several hundred miles to the airplane to
find out it doesnt fit. The front of the cowling matches up with my bottom
piece but at the back it is nearly an inch and a half short on both sides of
reaching my fastener holes.
I called ZAC and was informed that the same top piece is used for either the
rotax or subaru installation. NO difference. I need the cowling to be around
48 inches around the curve at the back in order to reach the bottom cowling.
ZAC said all there pieces in stock measure 44 1/2".
In order to make it fit I need to either add pieces on both sides or split the
cowling down the middle and add a piece. My delema is, the top cowling that I
lost was not cut or added to in any way. Another thing, my bottom piece is
original except for a scoop added on the bottom to accomodate the oil pan.
ZAC informed me that the subaru cowlings need bubbles on the side to fit the
engine. Mine doesnt have these yet the subaru fits fine. ZAC couldn't explain
this either, saying it was impossible.
I know this is long but does anyone have a subaru installation without the
cheeks on the bottom cowling and yet the subaru still fits? Does anyone have a
top cowling piece with measured circumference at the back of more than 44
1/2"? The information Im getting from ZAC combined with what Im looking at
just doesnt make sense.
I really appreciate the info.
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: 601 Choke cable alternatives |
Hi Brenton et al:
I do use the double choke system, but I did modify the arrangement to permit
straighter runs of the cable. Works fine. After 5 years, the handle separated where
it was crimped on to the wire. A repair with steel type solder and very hard pull
test and its working fine again. This double choke system makes for very fast starts
in sub zero weather. Don't give up on it too easily.
Mike
"Brenton E. Battles" wrote:
>
> Having installed the 2-into-1 choke cable splice for my 912 and pulling off
> the choke cable knob due to high friction and questionable geometry in the
> design, I'm looking for alternatives. Archive search led me to e-mail
> Frank Hinde who has suggested substituting a primer circuit using a port
> that is nowhere so identified in either the Bing manual or in the
> California Power Systems catalog containing a bunch of Rotax info. I don't
> doubt his advice, but wonder why no mention is made of a primer circuit at
> all.
>
> A call to Nick Heintz resulted in a sheepish admission that (1) the 2 into
> 1 set-up is a questionable design, (2) that the factory demo has only one
> choke connected for this reason, and (3) he'd try to get me an alternative.
> No need to describe my thoughts. Nick and CPS tech people both say this
> arrangement is a "no-no", however my technical counselor at tonight's EAA
> meeting doesn't see a problem.
>
> One alternative is use of electric solenoids as on outboard motors. Tech
> counselor prefers manual cable system but is a little vague as to why -
> presumably shock of hitting enrichment valve stop with overly energetic
> solenoid? Nick says at times he leaves choke on for as much as 2 minutes.
> I tried an automotive solenoid (door/trunk lock type) and found it can't
> take more than a few seconds' continuous current. (Also too bulky for me.)
>
> Any thoughts out there?
>
> Thanks, Brent Battles 601HD - Rotax 912 N16BZ
>
________________________________________________________________________________
NSI makes a completely different cowl for their subaru installation. You
don't suppose that the previous builder used their cowl? This could account
for the different dimension on the top cowl and the ability to fit the
Subaru in the bottom cowl without the cheek pieces. I have the Stratus
Subaru and the zenith cowl. It definitely required the cheek pieces to
clear the valve covers.
Jim Weston
McDonough, Ga.
-----Original Message-----
From: scott bailey [mailto:badmrb(at)usa.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 11:18 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: top cowling?
Im needing other perspectives.
I have a 601 HD with an EA-81 and reductions of canada reduction unit. A
few
weeks ago shortly after takeoff my top cowling piece decided to depart the
airplane. I returned to the airport without any troubles other than a
scratched up canopy and a ding in my tail. I never was able to find the
remains of the cowling to figure what happened. I assume that I failed to
get
one or more of the cowling camlock fasteners set and they worked there way
out
during the flight. A fairly scary event in the air at 1500 ft.
My problem now is this. Replacing the cowling. I bought the plane complete
with only minor finishing touches needed as well as the 40 hr fly off. I
ordered the cowling from ZAC. Drove several hundred miles to the airplane to
find out it doesnt fit. The front of the cowling matches up with my bottom
piece but at the back it is nearly an inch and a half short on both sides of
reaching my fastener holes.
I called ZAC and was informed that the same top piece is used for either the
rotax or subaru installation. NO difference. I need the cowling to be
around
48 inches around the curve at the back in order to reach the bottom cowling.
ZAC said all there pieces in stock measure 44 1/2".
In order to make it fit I need to either add pieces on both sides or split
the
cowling down the middle and add a piece. My delema is, the top cowling that
I
lost was not cut or added to in any way. Another thing, my bottom piece is
original except for a scoop added on the bottom to accomodate the oil pan.
ZAC informed me that the subaru cowlings need bubbles on the side to fit the
engine. Mine doesnt have these yet the subaru fits fine. ZAC couldn't
explain
this either, saying it was impossible.
I know this is long but does anyone have a subaru installation without the
cheeks on the bottom cowling and yet the subaru still fits? Does anyone have
a
top cowling piece with measured circumference at the back of more than 44
1/2"? The information Im getting from ZAC combined with what Im looking at
just doesnt make sense.
I really appreciate the info.
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Exstrom <exstromb(at)onlinemac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engine choice |
>
>I am about 1/3 done with my 601hds and am still undecided about engines, I
have
>a good lead on a 0-200 with low time at a good price but what are the
pros/cons
>of the choices. The 912s seems too expensive, the e81 dosen't seem so bad.
Phil,
If you want an affordable, air cooled, aircraft type engine you might
consider the Corvair 6 cylinder. Engines are cheap to buy & rebuild and
without all the plumbing of the E81 or CAM 100 conversions.
You can overhaul a 'Vair and have it ready to hang on the firewall for much
less than $5K (US). And as a 6 cylinder, the smoothness of operation over
any 4 cylinder will be nice in the air.
William Wynne has a nicely done manual on what it takes to use a 'Vair in a
plane:
http://www.omnispace.com/Corvair/infopack.htm
FWIW,
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank_Hinde(at)ex.cv.hp.com |
| Subject: | 601 Choke cable alternatives |
Incidently,
Many of my ideas are refinements of the thoughts of one Bruce Bockius,
(including the dual redundant batterry systems).... He got me thinking of using
a primer when he purchased the manual primer pump from AS&S for about
$13....Apperently this works fine too.
I went with the solenoid 'cos I still don't like the pumping ya have to do when
renting a Cessna, nor did i want flex lines with fuel in them in the cockpit.
As to using solenoids to pull the chokes..... well why go to the hassle of find
a solenoid with the right force and range of pull?
If you have the primer injection tube then just use it.... its so simple and
works so well I can't imagine why anyone would want to pull on a choke cable of
any sorts let alone the terrible arrangement supplied in the kit.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank_Hinde(at)ex.cv.hp.com [mailto:Frank_Hinde(at)ex.cv.hp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 8:58 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 601 Choke cable alternatives
My engine is a Status Soob and the primer port (which is a small brass tube that
allows fuel to be squited straight down the inlet manifold) is located on the
discharge side of the carb...obviously!
I used the primer solenoid from AS&S which gets energised from a momentary
contact switch on my instrument panel.
Its very, very sweet....no pumping or gorilla pulls on choke cables! The engine
fires immediatly!
Unles you Rotax guys don't have the primer ports I really can't see any good
reason to use the awful choke cable system.
As to only choking one carb.... well that would work except your starting will
be much more difficult and it will run rough immediatly after starting..... It
might not even start at all in cold weather!
Now lets talk about using a small battery to run the redundant ignition
system...:-)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: brentbattles(at)pipeline.com [mailto:brentbattles(at)pipeline.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 8:31 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: 601 Choke cable alternatives
Battles)
Having installed the 2-into-1 choke cable splice for my 912 and pulling off
the choke cable knob due to high friction and questionable geometry in the
design, I'm looking for alternatives. Archive search led me to e-mail
Frank Hinde who has suggested substituting a primer circuit using a port
that is nowhere so identified in either the Bing manual or in the
California Power Systems catalog containing a bunch of Rotax info. I don't
doubt his advice, but wonder why no mention is made of a primer circuit at
all.
A call to Nick Heintz resulted in a sheepish admission that (1) the 2 into
1 set-up is a questionable design, (2) that the factory demo has only one
choke connected for this reason, and (3) he'd try to get me an alternative.
No need to describe my thoughts. Nick and CPS tech people both say this
arrangement is a "no-no", however my technical counselor at tonight's EAA
meeting doesn't see a problem.
One alternative is use of electric solenoids as on outboard motors. Tech
counselor prefers manual cable system but is a little vague as to why -
presumably shock of hitting enrichment valve stop with overly energetic
solenoid? Nick says at times he leaves choke on for as much as 2 minutes.
I tried an automotive solenoid (door/trunk lock type) and found it can't
take more than a few seconds' continuous current. (Also too bulky for me.)
Any thoughts out there?
Thanks, Brent Battles 601HD - Rotax 912 N16BZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Knezacek <dknezace(at)bconnex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: engine choice |
I am in a similar predicament except my plane is already flying. I have a
JPX VW conversion installed exactly as the prototype CH-600 (in fact my
engine came out of the prototype). To make a long story short it just
doesn't have enough power. The minimum VW engine for the CH-601 is the 2180.
So I am seriously contemplating a Subaru installation.
My question is what numbers are you subaru guys working with? Empty
weight? Gross? Fuel burn?
Where are you installing the battery?
I may have a VW firewall forward package available soon, complete with
cowling and 2 props.
Dan Knezacek
>
>I am about 1/3 done with my 601hds and am still undecided about engines, I
have
>a good lead on a 0-200 with low time at a good price but what are the
pros/cons
>of the choices. The 912s seems too expensive, the e81 dosen't seem so bad.
>
>Thanks
>Phil
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 Choke cable alternatives |
Brenton E. Battles wrote:
> One alternative is use of electric solenoids as on outboard motors.
Brenton you got me, it's a great idea ! I've already ordered 2 coils,
one for each carb. Because I don't see why not one coil per carb, won't
be big work to install directly on the carb. Will keep the idea of a
momentary switch, not to leave it ON (won't run smooth, anyway...).
What I don't like, it's the "FULL OR NOTHING" way, I like to push the choke
progressively, as I was used to 40 years ago on my first cars, but I'm sure
it's the best to do.
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Fetzer" <george.f(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 601 Choke cable alternatives |
-----Original Message-----
From: Brenton E. Battles <brentbattles(at)pipeline.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 11:25 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: 601 Choke cable alternatives
Battles)
>
>Having installed the 2-into-1 choke cable splice for my 912 and pulling off
>the choke cable knob due to high friction and questionable geometry in the
>design, I'm looking for alternatives. Archive search led me to e-mail
>Frank Hinde who has suggested substituting a primer circuit using a port
>that is nowhere so identified in either the Bing manual or in the
>California Power Systems catalog containing a bunch of Rotax info. I don't
>doubt his advice, but wonder why no mention is made of a primer circuit at
>all.
I also had a problem with the friction in the choke cables and after moving
the cable locations a couple times, I found that it can be done. I used a
lighter spring than supplied by Bing and brought both cables thru the
firewall in as straight a line with the inside cable as possible. I coupled
the three cables together in a solid aluminum block with setscrews located
right next to the throttle rod. In fact, I used the throttle rod bracket as
a cable jacket stop. A little lube on the cables and they work fine.
Incidentally, I used a lighter spring on the throttles also, just enough to
open the plates in the event of a cable failure but not enough to require
two hands to pull the throttle closed. As for the primer, the Bings
supplied by Stratus were clearly marked as to the location of primer ports.
They came with screws in the ports to keep foreign matter out of the carbs.
I also considered the Evinrude choke solution, but they are either on or off
with no part choke position for warm-up. BTW, door lock actuators are not a
solenoid, but are actually a motor with a linear actuator. Might work also.
Other possibilities are power mirror motors or the climate control motor
someone has fitted to their elevator trim. Hope this helps you.
George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Morelli <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 601 Choke cable alternatives |
>I used a lighter spring than supplied by Bing and brought both cables thru
the
>firewall in as straight a line with the inside cable as possible.
George,
I don't quite understand. The ZAC plans I have for the Stratus show the two
choke cables going to a bracket that is attached to the throttle stop
bracket on the firewall. From there the two cables are attached to one and
only that one cable goes through the firewall to the instrument panel.
Did you first try it this setup with poor results.
Thnks,
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Chapman <pchapman(at)ionsys.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 601 Choke cable alternatives |
Battles)
>Having installed the 2-into-1 choke cable splice for my 912 and pulling off
>the choke cable knob due to high friction and questionable geometry in the
>design, I'm looking for alternatives. Archive search led me to e-mail
My dad fiddled with using different springs on the choke actuation arms, as
well as drilling a new mounting hole closer to the actuation arms' axle. The
pull force is still somewhat high, but not as bad as before. The tough part
was to retain enough spring force to turn off the choke when the choke knob
is released. It's not an ideal solution, but shows that improvements can
be made without a complete replacement of all parts.
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Norris <rnorris4(at)earthlink.net> |
If you build a taildragger then the holes should go forward of the cross
Ls.
If a trike, then aft of the Ls, so the water will drain while sitting on
the ground.
Bill Morelli wrote:
>
>
> >Where, how many, and what size drain holes have you "pioneers" ahead of us
> >used. Or, if doing it again, what would you do this time? Thanks. Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Use (of Nightsun lites) with an alternator power source |
I checked out this product on several websits . . . please don't
spend a lot of bux purchasing these things for adaptation to
airplanes.
The bulbs used in their fixtures are plain vanilla halogen
spot/flood devices not unlike the one you'll see at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/exh.jpg
These bulbs have built in reflectors and come in a wide
variety of wattages and beam spreads. The 12V rated lamps
are used by the thousands in product displays in stores
and are quite inexpensive. One might also consider using
a common automotive headlamp like the one I show at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/4352.jpg
This lamp is 55w, very compact, the right shape for leading
edge incorporation and a whold lot less expensive than the
Nightsun products.
The respondant's concerns about "regulation of the vehicle"
shows lack of knowledge of how things are supposed to work.
It's true that a bulb's life varies strongly with voltage.
For example, running a bulb a 95% of its rated value doubles
the life, 105% of rated value halves the life. HOWEVER,
given that these bulbs are designed for thousands of hours
service in high duty cycle service like storefronts should
mitigate the builder's concerns for service life . . . especially
since the 4509 lamp used in tens of thousands of certified
ships has a service life on the order of 10-20 hours!
Check out the light bulbs I've suggested above and do some
poking around on your own in the lighting sections of hardware
stores and automotive suppliers . . .
> FYI
> With regard to the recent post about the Nitesun biking lighting......I
>asked them if these type of lights could be used with an alternator as a
>power source. Their response is below.
>
>--------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: "Nightsun" <night-sun(at)mail.wman.com>
>To: Dana Hill
>Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 09:24:09 +0000
>Subject: Re: Use on a car?
>Message-ID: <199910101625.JAA07838(at)home.wman.com>
>
>Might work ok, but what wories me is the voltage regulation of the
>vehicle. Some alternators / voltage regulators but out upto 16 vdc,
>way too much for our bulbs. Upto about 14 will work, but the lamp
>life will be shortened, over 14 and the lamp life would be very
>short. Most airplanes are 28 volt.
> In any event we do not sell headlights without batteries.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>Nightsun
>
>To: info@night-sun.com
>Subject: Use on a car?
>From: Dana Hill <dhill36(at)juno.com>
>
>Hi Night-Sun,
> I would like to know if your lighting system could be hardwired into
> a
>14 Volt DC charging system, such as a car/airplane? Would this sort
>of mod be difficult? Any info in this regard would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>Dana Hill
>
>Customer Service, Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Pacific time
>626-799-5074
>
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Independence Kansas: the >
< Jurassic Park of aviation. >
< Your source for brand new >
< 40 year old airplanes. >
=================================
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bulky, unreadable files |
>Hi netters.
>
>I hate to be a whiner, but I got two files in the Vol 01, Number 509
>Glastarnet that flat filled up my bit bucket. I had to stop and empty it
>before the computer would work again. I could name names, but I won't. One
>was a WINMAIL.DAT file, and the other was MIME. Please, please look at what
>you are putting out to avoid this problem. I know, I know. I had trouble
>passing "Works and plays well with others" too.
>
>Bobbi & Ric Lasher
>#5648 BN954BR
>Cocoa, Fl.
I subscribe to about a dozen list-servers so it takes quite
a bit of time to download ordinary message traffic. If a couple
of folks attach a few hundred K-bytes of "information" it
really slows things down and increases the risk of problems
like Rich describes.
There is an EASY way to avoid this for most folks. If you have
a real internet access account with server hardrive space,
you can upload large files to your server and then give people
pointers on how to find them. For example, click on this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/exh.jpg
You need an FTP program and little instruction which your ISP
provider should be able to provide. You'll gain a new skill,
a new tool for effective communications and avoid forcing
our friends to download data which may be of no interest.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Independence Kansas: the >
< Jurassic Park of aviation. >
< Your source for brand new >
< 40 year old airplanes. >
=================================
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | scott bailey <badmrb(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | EA81 Enging Cowling |
I appreciate the feedback so far but still trying to figure this out.
Does anyone else have the NSI cowling ? and could give me the rear radius
dimension to compare with what I have. The thing there, is I assume NSI and
ZAC cowlings are different, yet the ZAC top cowling I ordered matches shapes
with the bottom piece without the cheeks I still have on the plane.
To answer a few questions: I would love to consult the original builder but
unfortunately he passed away shortly after finishing the airplane. Thats the
beginning of a long story on how I acquired the airplane. So, Im on my own as
far as figuring this out.
My top cowling did bend the firewall ridge, but only very slightly where the
fastener was. Both the top and bottom cowling go over the aluminum skin,
instead of under which I take is ZAC recommended way of installing. When I was
at the airplane I even drilled out my firewall fasteners and placed the
cowling under the upper lip to see how much closer that would get me to the
needed dimension. I am still well over an inch short on each side.
This is the main part of my confusion. Other than the added scoop for the oil
pan, the bottom cowling appears unmodified, just as the former top piece
appeared unmodified. The undersides were not painted and all the fiberglass
looks to be the original lay-up.
Still looking for an answer. If anyone does have the NSI cowling or any other
source for a cowling and could give their dimensions or information I would
greatly appreciate it.
Scott
Salina KS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven J. Devine" <steve(at)tzogon.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EA81 Enging Cowling |
>To answer a few questions: I would love to consult the original builder
but
September 13, 1999 - October 14, 1999
Zenith-Archive.digest.vol-be