Zenith-Archive.digest.vol-bo
March 23, 2000 - April 05, 2000
> http://members.aol.com/phfd400
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Llewellyn" <llewellyn(at)tinet.ie> |
| Subject: | Re: the right engine for 701 |
Dick
Thanks for that info and especialey the figures in your message. I see your
point about the problem with direct drive. The one thing missing from my
evaluarion is a graph of propeller efficiency against RPM if you had this
you could say things like "even though I have 70 HP at 3200 RPM in one
configuration it is not as good as 65 HP at 2000 RPM because of the relative
efficiencies.
If anyone knows where I could get information on propeller efficiency versus
RPM I would love to have it.
Ralph Llewellyn (Ireland)
Tail Made Spars Clecoed,cutting out .032 pieces.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Gunn" <ragunn(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Old Style Gear Legs |
Hey Group:
I received my kit back in early 1995 (please don't kid me about being so
slow to finish).
The gear legs have the "old" 70x70 millimeter plates (which bolt to the
wheel forks). The new design (90x90) calls for six bolt holes, where at
most I can only get four in the old plate.
My question is - are any of you flying with the old gear legs that use only
four bolts? If so, are you having any problems?
I don't want to have to try to talk Zenith into a swap if the old legs will
work okay.
By the way, I did search the archives, and found no references to this
problem.
Thanks,
Tony Gunn
Houston, HDS kit, still 2/3 done, but making headway
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Pinneo <George.Pinneo(at)trw.com> |
| Subject: | Old Style Gear Legs |
I'm flying 4 bolts with no known problems: 242. hours.
GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Old Style Gear Legs |
Tony;
My "old" 4 bolt system is still holding up well. 850 hours.
Mike
UHS Spinners
Tony Gunn wrote:
>
>
> Hey Group:
> I received my kit back in early 1995 (please don't kid me about being so
> slow to finish).
>
> The gear legs have the "old" 70x70 millimeter plates (which bolt to the
> wheel forks). The new design (90x90) calls for six bolt holes, where at
> most I can only get four in the old plate.
>
> My question is - are any of you flying with the old gear legs that use only
> four bolts? If so, are you having any problems?
>
> I don't want to have to try to talk Zenith into a swap if the old legs will
> work okay.
>
> By the way, I did search the archives, and found no references to this
> problem.
>
> Thanks,
> Tony Gunn
> Houston, HDS kit, still 2/3 done, but making headway
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darryl West" <rdwest(at)cadvision.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Old Style Gear Legs |
ditto
Darryl
>
> I'm flying 4 bolts with no known problems: 242. hours.
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Re: Old Style Gear Legs |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Hi Tony,
I'm in about the same 'speed range' as you when it comes to finishing this
aircraft - now 5 years + and counting..;-)
I also have the 4-bolt legs and when I raised this issue a couple of years
ago, most indicated it was not a big problem - as I recall George Pinneo did
his forced landing on such gear with no damage.
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
(at least it will be one day....)
> From: "Tony Gunn" <ragunn(at)hotmail.com>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 08:26:45 PST
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Old Style Gear Legs
>
>
> Hey Group:
> I received my kit back in early 1995 (please don't kid me about being so
> slow to finish).
>
> The gear legs have the "old" 70x70 millimeter plates (which bolt to the
> wheel forks). The new design (90x90) calls for six bolt holes, where at
> most I can only get four in the old plate.
>
> My question is - are any of you flying with the old gear legs that use only
> four bolts? If so, are you having any problems?
>
> I don't want to have to try to talk Zenith into a swap if the old legs will
> work okay.
>
> By the way, I did search the archives, and found no references to this
> problem.
>
> Thanks,
> Tony Gunn
> Houston, HDS kit, still 2/3 done, but making headway
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SkyKingN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: the right engine for 701 |
Mike, have you thought of using a Hirth engine? Also, there are a few new
alternatives out there as well, all which have a smaller price tag
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Frisby" <marslander(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: the right engine for 701 |
I'm very impressed with what I see at the web site for the CAM 100 and CAM
125 engines (http://www.camfire.bc.ca). Prices and performance seem great.
Are these engines too heavy for the CH701?
CH801 kit on the way to Alaska.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Baker" <okiejoe(at)brightok.net> |
| Subject: | Re: the right engine for 701 |
Fellows,
On the subject of engine weight, does anyone know how to calculate added
engine weight versus added horsepower?
For instance, if the 701 was equipped with the Rotax 912 with 80 hp and the
engine weight is 140.8 lbs and an engine change was made to the Cam 100
with 100 hp and the engine weight was 226 lbs (according to Firewall
Forward), how would this affect usefull load, this being more important to
me than any other factor.
Of course if the change was made without increasing hp the extra engine
weight would have to deducted from usefull load. The thing I have always
wondered about is how to calculate how much the extra hp nullifies the extra
weight, all else being equal?
Thanks,
Joe Baker
just lurking...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven J. Devine" <steve(at)tzogon.com> |
| Subject: | Re: the right engine for 701 |
> On the subject of engine weight, does anyone know how to calculate added
> engine weight versus added horsepower?
> For instance, if the 701 was equipped with the Rotax 912 with 80 hp and
the
> engine weight is 140.8 lbs and an engine change was made to the Cam 100
> with 100 hp and the engine weight was 226 lbs (according to Firewall
> Forward), how would this affect usefull load, this being more important
to
> me than any other factor.
> Of course if the change was made without increasing hp the extra engine
> weight would have to deducted from usefull load. The thing I have always
> wondered about is how to calculate how much the extra hp nullifies the
extra
> weight, all else being equal?
Well, according to ZAC, teh airframe was designed with a particular maximum
gross weight, and that's the final number... if you want to use up on the
empty weight of the plane, be it a larger engine, added fuel, or Lazy Boy
recliners for seats, the gross is still the max limit. It is the ability
for the airframe to support the weight that is the factor. Extra horsepower
will not help if the wings collapse the first time you hit turbulence...
Steve
Steven J. Devine, President, Consultant, TZOGON Enterprises Incorporated
steve@tzogon.com HAM Tech lic: N1YZJ http://www.tzogon.com
http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/glass_cockpit
http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/stolch801
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Bauer <jimbauer(at)nicolettech.com> |
| Subject: | 701 good choice for low-time pilot? |
Greetings!
I am a low-time (100 hrs mostly in Cessnas) private pilot. I am seriously considering
building the 701. Do any of you 701 builders/flyers have any opinions
regarding this aircraft? Especially in regards to flying qualities for a low-time
pilot? Any and all comments on building, handling, safety, etc would be appreciated!
Thanks in advance!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Cajun" <sam.caj(at)worldnet.att.net> |
"'Zenith-List Digest Server'"
| Subject: | 701_flaperon-mixer_deflection_Question |
I'm currently fitting the flap mixer box to the rear fuse.
According to the manual, as I read it, total flaperon
deflection should be approx. 58 degrees (32 flap and
13 each way aileron , page 39). I see no way the mixer box
can have sufficient clearance for more than a max of 22 flap
plus 13 each way for aileron, giving a total of 48 degrees.
All measurements mounting brackets, bellcranks, mixer,
etc. are to plan specs.
Questions: For those of you already flying or with flaperons
rigged, are you seeing 58 to 60 degrees total travel?
Has there been any update to the plans or manual
concerning hole spacing in 7-A-2-5, amount of flaperon deflection
required, or mounting brackets 7-F-6-3, that you are aware of?
Most with experience indicate that 22 deg. flaps on a 701 is
more than one would ever want to use anyway, but I get
bothered when things deviate that far from the plans for
no apparent reason.
I would be forever grateful to anyone that can shed some
light on this matter and/or where I have gone astray.
Sam
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | stevedanielson(at)mindspring.com |
| Subject: | Re: 701 good choice for low-time pilot? |
Hi Jim,
I have about 100 hours too, 80 of it in Cessnas and then 20 in my CH-701 that I
bought. Flying is very easy, visibility is much greater than in a 152. It is
great to take pictures with. It took me a little while to get the landings down,
slightly more challenging than landing a 152 or 172. Part of this I feel was
my coming in at too slow of a speed. Once I picked the speed up slightly the
landings felt very similar to a 152. My instruments are very minimal compared
to what is in a 152, I have no Gyros and a single hand altimeter. It has taught
me to keep my eyes out the window more and less on the panel. The controls
in mine are more sensitive that a 152, it took a very short time to get accustomed
to the center Y-Stick arrangement. Even though it is more sensitive, it is
very easy to keep trimmed up. Mine has a Rotax 582,at gross it climbs about
700 fpm, about 1000 fpm with just me in it, cruises about 60 but I could puch
the cruise up higher (to about 65) if I was in a hurry!
!
to get somewhere. (Of course, if I was really in a hurry I wouldn't have a 701!)
What area of the country are you in? If you are near Raleigh, NC, I would be happy
to give you a ride (same goes to anyone else in the area) Max weight of passenger
220 lbs, and about 6'3" would be about as tall as you could get.
You can see some pictures here:
http://stevedanielson.home.mindspring.com
Steve Danielson
zenith-list(at)matronics.com wrote:
Greetings!
I am a low-time (100 hrs mostly in Cessnas) private pilot. I am seriously considering
building the 701. Do any of you 701 builders/flyers have any opinions
regarding this aircraft? Especially in regards to flying qualities for a low-time
pilot? Any and all comments on building, handling, safety, etc would be appreciated!
Thanks in advance!
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Re: the right engine for 701 |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Another thing I've yet to fully understand about engine performance
measurements - is horsepower the only important measurement?
I've been thinking that torque delivered at the propellor - at a useable rpm
- is also a significant measurement. If the engine can't deliver the power
into a decent-sized propellor at a 'good angle' then it isn't doing much
good.
Grant Corriveau
> From: "Joe Baker" <okiejoe(at)brightok.net>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 11:54:56 -0600
> To:
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: the right engine for 701
>
>
> Fellows,
> On the subject of engine weight, does anyone know how to calculate added
> engine weight versus added horsepower?
> For instance, if the 701 was equipped with the Rotax 912 with 80 hp and the
> engine weight is 140.8 lbs and an engine change was made to the Cam 100
> with 100 hp and the engine weight was 226 lbs (according to Firewall
> Forward), how would this affect usefull load, this being more important to
> me than any other factor.
> Of course if the change was made without increasing hp the extra engine
> weight would have to deducted from usefull load. The thing I have always
> wondered about is how to calculate how much the extra hp nullifies the extra
> weight, all else being equal?
>
> Thanks,
> Joe Baker
> just lurking...
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SkyKingN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 701_flaperon-mixer_deflection_Question |
sam, I am hooking my controls up this weekend, I will let you know how it
goes, from what I see it should work
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SkyKingN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: CH-701 project wanted |
Dick, the slats are easy to make. they where the first things that I did. I
felt that if I made a mistake than it should be on some thing that was small.
This helped improve my skills to go on to the bigger parts. If you get the
kit for them than it shouldn't take you more than 30 hours to make and
install. Have any questions contact me and I will help you along. I have mine
on the plane and they came out nice. good luck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PWalsh8045(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 701 good choice for low-time pilot? |
I dont know about the 701...but the 601 is a dream!...Sooo easy...I was a low
time pilot also...only in Cessnas.....easy to fly!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dick Baner <db8(at)mtco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CH-701 project wanted |
Actually I have found a professional zenair builder in Europe who will build me
a
set of slats for around $150 labor charge and deliver them to me at Air Adventure
for about $40 shipping and crating. I dont think I can beat that especially if
the build time for me would be 30 hours and I may well botch them up again. DB
SkyKingN(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Dick, the slats are easy to make. they where the first things that I did. I
> felt that if I made a mistake than it should be on some thing that was small.
> This helped improve my skills to go on to the bigger parts. If you get the
> kit for them than it shouldn't take you more than 30 hours to make and
> install. Have any questions contact me and I will help you along. I have mine
> on the plane and they came out nice. good luck
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
Listers:
Regarding the discussion on engine choice for 701, you've no doubt been
anxiously waiting to hear from the lunatic fringe. What I have, and am
planning to use, is a certified Franklin Model 2A-120-B two cylinder 60 HP @
3200RPM. This engine was used on the Bellanca Champ that appeared briefly
in the very early Seventies. It is the last engine designed by Franklin
before they went under and tooling was sold to Pezetel of Poland. The -B
version is a non-electric engine. The only holes in the accessory case are
for two mags and the tach drive. The -A version is the electric model with
accessory case provisions for mags, tach, starter, alternator & fuel pump.
Dry weight listed in the manual for my -B is 126 lbs. I don't know if that
weight includes mags & carb. This engine uses the same cylinders as the 125
HP four cylinder and the 220 HP six cylinder engine. Bore size is a full
4.625 inches, stroke is 3.5 inches.
I'm hoping the large bore size will provide the punch needed to still
supply resonable horsepower at a slightly lower rpm with a propellor that is
appropriate for the 701. Everyone who installs heavier engines in 701's
seems to have balance considerations. The fact that this engine has two
fewer cylinders than any Continental etc., should provide a geometry
advantage, it can be moved aft an additional 10 to 12 inches before it hits
the firewall, therefore it can be properly located without the need for
ballast elsewhere.
I have the original Sensenich wood propellor from the Champ, it is
marked 60 - 32 which I'm sure is 60" length, 32 pitch. Any input regarding
use of this prop size would be appreciated. If it won't work, I'll check
out Warp Drives's, etc.
Using this non-electric engine, only wing tanks, and a small battery
powered electric system, I hope to have a weight near that of a rotax
powered ship (582).
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing, 701/plans
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger & Mary" <rkmk(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | ZAC supplied VDO tach - Rotax 912 |
I installed the ZAC instrument package and last weekend fired up the 912 for
the first time
only to have no tach reading (this is the VDO tach). The ZAC diagram shows
the power,
and two other connections to the tach, both of which go to the engine and
are color coded.
After confirming I had the wiring right per the ZAC instructions, I gave up
and called. Nick said
the ground, which is one of the two wires that goes to the engine, ALSO has
to go to an
airframe ground. There is nothing in the instructions about this! After
making an airframe
ground as well, the tat worked fine. I have to give Nick credit for a quick
answer but I did
waste some of my very limited build time. So, if you use the SAC supplied
VDO tach, look out
for this one.
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Re: ZAC supplied VDO tach - Rotax 912 |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Roger,
Is the engine not itself grounded to the airframe with some sort of
'grounding strap' - such as sold by Aeroelectric, etc. etc ??
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
> From: "Roger & Mary" <rkmk(at)erols.com>
> I gave up
> and called. Nick said
> the ground, which is one of the two wires that goes to the engine, ALSO has
> to go to an
> airframe ground. There is nothing in the instructions about this! After
> making an airframe
> ground as well, the tat worked fine. I have to give Nick credit for a quick
> answer but I did
> waste some of my very limited build time. So, if you use the SAC supplied
> VDO tach, look out
> for this one.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Frisby" <marslander(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engine for 701 |
How about the Hexadyne p60, advertised in April 00 kitplanes?
http://www.hexatronengineering.com/prod02.htm
Projected availability is June 2000
Estimated cost to be between $8000 and $9000
Here's what they say about it:
60 HP
Air cooled through the head, keeps cylinder heads cooler
2 cylinders - four stroke
displacement 800 cc
compression ratio - 9 to 1
rated power - 60 BHP @ 5750 rpm
cruise power (75% of max) 45 bhp
electronic ignition
fuel injection
fuel - mogas
crankshaft @ 5750 rpm = 2300 rpm prop speed
size, approx. 22.5 inches wide 17.8 inches deep
55 to 60 inch propeller
Propeller is above crankshaft
2.5 to 1 reduction, gear box set at this speed, spur gear reduction drive
total weight - 98 lbs (44.5 kg)
total installation weight includes alternator, electric starter, muffler,
engine management system, oil tank (filter and oil - pressure fed system)
connector pipes and engine mounts
Dynamometer test has been running for approximately three months
TBO is expected to be greater than 500 hours due to simplicity and
reliability
Engine break-in will be conducted at the factory
Warranty for 2, possibly 3 years against defective parts
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | OWEN MOUNSEY <100371.1570(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | 701_flaperon-mixer_deflection_Question |
Hi Sam
I discovered the same flaperon problem so I re aligned the baggage floor to
go straight from the front [by seat back]
to the rear point, thus increasing the flaperon space for movment by an
extra 2 inches.
However I have recently decided to build my own electric flaps to actuate
them due to the manual system being some what difficult to engage.
Owen from New Zealand
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AWilson62(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 701 good choice for low-time pilot? |
Jim,
I am just like you, I have 130 hours and my scratch built 701 is the easiest
thing I have ever flown, which has only been 152, 172, warrior.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
Hi folks,
yesterday I had the most frustrating day working on the plane. Here is what
I did:
- installed the rubber seal to the canopy
- positioned canopy on fuselage and taped it down
- inserted hoops through the gap between fuselage and canopy and test-fitted
hoops
- bend / unbend where necessary
- finally, after I thought that the hoops had the right shape, drilled and
cleoed the hoops to the canopy
- come to find out, that after removing the tape certain areas on the front
and rear edge of the canopy lifted from the fuselage.
After installing the sideboxes I also found out, that the hoops need
signifcant more bending to fit to the sideboxes. Bad thing is, the canopy as
well as the hoops are already drilled.
Here is what I plan to do next:
Position canopy with sideboxes on fuselage. Bend 1/4 aluminum tubing, so
that is has the right shape. Transfer the shape of the aluminum tubing on a
large piece of cardboard. Bend / unbend the hoops using the cardboard as a
template. Hopefully, that will do it. Anybody with a better idea?
Here is another one: don't remove the protective film (like I did) until you
are ready to bold the hoops on. Otherwise you WILL scratch the canopy.
Thilo Kind
start to like the idea of an open canopy...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
>From my experience with the canopy, I found that even after you have
everything fitted so that the canopy touches all parts of the metal skins
and the hoops are clecoed in place, that days and days later the "memory
shape" of the canopy changes just a little bit so that there becomes areas
that have more contact with the skin than others, and areas where there
begins a gap. Perhaps it was because I basisly unwrapped it, and started
within a day at "fitting" it to the fuselage. Thereafter, it may have
loosened up from it's memory of shape from when it was all rolled up and
created the change in fit. However, I am really glad that I didn't allow
for any gap gap for the rubber seal while fitting. The whole thing has
lifted just a bit now that it has been sitting around attached to the canopy
frame.. I can always take a small amount off, but can't put it back. Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | VHF antenna cable |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Hi,
Is it okay to run my vhf coax cable to the antenna along the same bundles as
the other electrical cables? Will the sheilded cable be enough to prevent
any interference?
Thanks
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
| Subject: | VHF antenna cable |
Good question, Grant. I just run mine as far away from my other cables as I
could (just to be sure...).
Thilo Kind
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Grant
> Corriveau
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 1:53 PM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: VHF antenna cable
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Is it okay to run my vhf coax cable to the antenna along the
> same bundles as
> the other electrical cables? Will the sheilded cable be
> enough to prevent
> any interference?
>
> Thanks
>
> Grant Corriveau
> Montreal, Canada
> gfcorriv(at)total.net
> Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Cajun" <sam.caj(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 701_flaperon-mixer_deflection_Question |
Owen, thanks for the response.
Haven't gotten any responses from anyone already flying.
But it's the weekend, they're probably out flying!
The fix as I see it, takes quite a modification which leads
me to believe the 32 degree flap angle was never meant
to be. To get a little more specific:
7-A-2-5 has a hole spacing of 120 mm meaning the attachment
coming through the side of the fuse scribes a 754 mm circum.circle
when it moves around 7-A-2-4. It follows that to get the full 58 degrees,
(32 flaps 13 each way aileron)the attatchment and upper rod end
would have to move (58/360)*754 which is approx. 121mm.
Now, 7-C-3-3(flap adj. stop) as dimensioned in the plans will allow only
60mm movement of the flaperon control lever.
This gets reduced to about 30mm to the bellcranks because
of leverage in the mixer. 30mm at the bellcranks, as my feeble
mind sees it is approx. 15 degrees for flaps.
I can see about a 7 degree gain from altering 7-C-3-3 without
clearance for the mixer box becoming a problem.
Because getting sufficient clearance for the mixer involves a substantial
deviation from the plans i.e. moving the baggage floor as you
did, it leads me to the above conclusion, 32 degree flaps was
never meant to be.
Any of you 701ers that can make sense of the above
ramblings I would appreciate any comment.
If not (the next time your out at the hanger) I would appreciate a
measurement of the total movement(aileron neutral, flap up to
aileron neutral , flap doun) of the flaperon attachment passing
thru the fuse side.
Sam
>
>Hi Sam
>
>I discovered the same flaperon problem so I re aligned the baggage floor to
>go straight from the front [by seat back]
>to the rear point, thus increasing the flaperon space for movment by an
>extra 2 inches.
>However I have recently decided to build my own electric flaps to actuate
>them due to the manual system being some what difficult to engage.
>
>Owen from New Zealand
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Bertrand" <cgbrt(at)mondenet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CH-701 project wanted |
Increase cruise speed. I have 10% increase and expect another 5-10% with
some minor improvements.
Carl
----------
> From: SkyKingN(at)aol.com
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: CH-701 project wanted
> Date: March 20, 2000 7:05 PM
>
>
> Carl, could you tell us why you changed your wings out!! I am thinking of
> doing a new set for mine and would like to know your reason for doing
so.
> You can e-mail me direct if you like.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Dunning" <peterd(at)metec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Alternative Engines |
Date: 27 March 2000
Hi Listers
Recent postings to the list on the subject of
alternative engines prompted me to draw attention to
one that you may not be aware of, but is possibly of
interest to 701 builders/owners. This is information
only...I have no experience of the product:
4 stroke, 2 cylinder horiz. opposed 66HP at 5,200 rpm
belt redrive 2:1 weight 123 lbs, electric start, 1,500 hours
TBO, 13 litres/hour consumption, electric start, air
filters and emgine mounts included.
Price ex factory approx. USD 5,000.
Details at: www.pegasusaviation.cc
Cheers
Peter Dunning
CH601HD 912S
Email: peterd(at)metec.co.nz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Mucker" <mmucker(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | VHF antenna cable |
I'm not an expert, but....
If the other cables are carrying a constant voltage and load, they're not
likely to cause any interference at all. It's the changes in the magnetic
field around a wire, not the presence of the magnetic field, that cause
interference, from what I understand.
Now, as I said, I'm no expert, but I'm comfortably certain what I just said
is correct. Also, the nature of coax is that it is very immune to noise.
I'd bet some money that you'd be fine doing this.
-Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Thilo Kind
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 6:17 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: VHF antenna cable
Good question, Grant. I just run mine as far away from my other cables as I
could (just to be sure...).
Thilo Kind
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Grant
> Corriveau
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 1:53 PM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: VHF antenna cable
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Is it okay to run my vhf coax cable to the antenna along the
> same bundles as
> the other electrical cables? Will the sheilded cable be
> enough to prevent
> any interference?
>
> Thanks
>
> Grant Corriveau
> Montreal, Canada
> gfcorriv(at)total.net
> Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VHF antenna cable |
FWIW, I would hesitate to run the strobe wires next to the coax. Probably
okay, but if any wire was to cause a problem, it would most likely be a
strobe wire.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Mucker" <mmucker(at)airmail.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 8:56 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: VHF antenna cable
>
> I'm not an expert, but....
>
> If the other cables are carrying a constant voltage and load, they're not
> likely to cause any interference at all. It's the changes in the magnetic
> field around a wire, not the presence of the magnetic field, that cause
> interference, from what I understand.
>
> Now, as I said, I'm no expert, but I'm comfortably certain what I just
said
> is correct. Also, the nature of coax is that it is very immune to noise.
>
> I'd bet some money that you'd be fine doing this.
>
> -Matt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Thilo Kind
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 6:17 PM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: VHF antenna cable
>
>
> Good question, Grant. I just run mine as far away from my other cables as
I
> could (just to be sure...).
>
> Thilo Kind
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Grant
> > Corriveau
> > Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 1:53 PM
> > To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Zenith-List: VHF antenna cable
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is it okay to run my vhf coax cable to the antenna along the
> > same bundles as
> > the other electrical cables? Will the sheilded cable be
> > enough to prevent
> > any interference?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Grant Corriveau
> > Montreal, Canada
> > gfcorriv(at)total.net
> > Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SkyKingN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 701_flaperon-mixer_deflection_Question |
Sam, I finally hooked up the flaperon controls and all work just fine per
plans. I have followed them to the letter and every thing has come out fine.
I am lost as to your problem. You might want to check your work. Sounds like
some thing is off, check to see if your baggage floor is in the right
position. I remember when I did mine I had a discrepentcy in this area. The
floor of the baggage should not hook up with the extrusion as it shows in the
plans or in the photo book. This will raise the floor the proper level. I
played with this for quite some time before it worked. ZAC was not of help
when I questioned them on this. if you need further assistance write me
direct for more details
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kilby, Roger" <Roger.Kilby(at)DynCorp.com> |
Grant,
Yes, the 912 is grounded but this apparently has no bearing on the tach.
I believe (if my memory serves me) that it is a yellow/white wire that
connected
to the 3rd post on the back of the VDO tach (left to right) that needed to
have an airframe ground as well. This is per Nick and it made my tach work.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Gunn" <ragunn(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Gear Leg Drilling |
Hey Guys:
I'm drilling the gear legs to the wheel forks. I couldn't figure out any
other way to do it other than drill holes in the leg "plate" first, then
transfer those holes to the wheel fork and hope for good alignment. I did
one leg this way and it came out okay.
But, I would like to be able to clamp the two components together before
drilling so I could be SURE the holes in one match the holes in the other.
I have a 12" long bit that could allow me to drill the clamped components
together from the bottom (wheel fork) side.
I'm not confident in this method because I:
1.) have the 70x70 leg "plates" (ie very little room for mistakes),and
2.) I can't figure out a good way to hold the clamped assembly still in the
drill press.
Anybody got any suggestions?
Thanks,
Tony Gunn
Houston, now maybe 1% beyond the 2/3 through I've been for the last year :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Sa <wings1(at)videotron.ca> |
Hello,
There was a fatal crash yesterday in Toronto; the pilot of the homebuilt
airplane, Jules Citron, died.
In today's Gazette there is a picture, and by the looks of the ruder, it
looks like a Zenair model.
The plane registration was C-GCIT.
Does anyone have additional info on this?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gear Leg Drilling |
Tony,
This may not be the very best, but it worked great for me. I pre-drilled
all the holes in the strut flanges, then clamped the forks to the struts
with C clamps and carefully aligned the forks to be properly lined up
compared to the center line of the aircraft, then set the main pair with
1/16" toe in. I then very carefully reached in each hole and marked the
hole positions on the forks. I then dissasembled the forks from the stuts,
carefully marked the center of each hole, center punched it, then drilled
out the holes. I only had to do a tiny amount of filing on two of all those
holes in order for all of those bolts to line up and go in. I found this
method easier than any other ideas I came up with and it worked very well.
Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | HDS NR-9 problems |
Hi list. I am on the L wing and fitting the nose skin. The nose ribs are
properly positioned and LE skin also placed correctly. NR-6 thru 8 are fine.
However, NR 9 appears to be to long fore to aft. When I strapped up the skin,
it compressed/buckled at the spar base attachment and I also got a mild bend
on the top about halfway from spar to tip. I fiddled with it and, figuring on
ordering a replacement rib today, tried to bend and crimp it down on the tip
to make it fit - just rolled the tip to take off ~ 3/8" or so about 1 inch up
and down from the tip.. This seems like it will work if I do it gently but I
want to ask the list if this is the thing to do. If I can continue the nose
radius with the help of some crimps, it made the current one fit. Still will
need to shim the top rivets a bit but had to do that on the other wing and
gather this is common.
Any help greatly arrpeciated.
Chris Carey
601 HDS N601BZ
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Atkinson" <chris-atkinson(at)home.com> |
The National Post reports that the aircraft was a CH 601 that crashed near
Windsor, Ontario. No details regarding cause were reported.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Sa
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 9:29 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: crash
Hello,
There was a fatal crash yesterday in Toronto; the pilot of the homebuilt
airplane, Jules Citron, died.
In today's Gazette there is a picture, and by the looks of the ruder, it
looks like a Zenair model.
The plane registration was C-GCIT.
Does anyone have additional info on this?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russ Jones" <russj1(at)earthlink.net> |
Here is the info on the crash. It was a Zenith Zodiac 601 HDS
Mark C-GCIT Serial No 6-3489
Make ZENAIR Model ZENAIR ZODIAC 601 HDS
Base Of Operation ONT., WINDSOR File Location Ontario
Reg Purpose Private Flight Authority Special Certificate of
Airworthiness -
Amateur-Built
Category Aeroplane Weight (Kgs) 499
Year of Manufacture 1999
Country of Manufacture Canada
Owner Registration:
Issue date 1999-10-20 Owner Registration 1999-10-20
Engine: Reciprocating Number of Engines 1
Owner Information:
Name CITRON,JULES G. Multiple Owners No
Address 5885 OXLEY ST.
City LASALLE Province Ontario
Postal Code N9H 1N6 Region Ontario
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: HDS NR-9 problems |
In a message dated 3/27/00 10:30:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, SEAL2CC(at)aol.com
writes:
<< NR 9 appears to be to long fore to aft. When I strapped up the skin,
it compressed/buckled at the spar base attachment and I also got a mild bend
on the top about halfway from spar to tip. >>
In ordering the new rib, I spoke to Nick and he suggested replacing rear
flange w/ L angle to make the fit. May have to shim on top but sounds like a
much better solution that radiusing the tip - maybe can radius the top a bit
to reduce shimming.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Slaughter <mslaughter(at)interhop.net> |
]
This link has info.....
>http://www.southam.com/windsorstar/
>
>Subject: Zenith-List: crash
>
>
>Hello,
>
>
>There was a fatal crash yesterday in Toronto; the pilot of the homebuilt
>airplane, Jules Citron, died.
>In today's Gazette there is a picture, and by the looks of the ruder, it
>looks like a Zenair model.
>The plane registration was C-GCIT.
>Does anyone have additional info on this?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Austin" <daveaustin2(at)sprint.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: VHF antenna cable |
Re radio antenna wire.. another thing to consider: Keep the radoi as
far away as possible from your GPS. I have a constant "zip..zip..zip"
in the phones as the GPS updates the track info. Using a Garmin 55.
Dave Austin 601 HDS
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Honabach <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: VHF antenna cable
>
> FWIW, I would hesitate to run the strobe wires next to the coax.
Probably
> okay, but if any wire was to cause a problem, it would most likely
be a
> strobe wire.
>
> Don
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Mucker" <mmucker(at)airmail.net>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 8:56 PM
> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: VHF antenna cable
>
>
> >
> > I'm not an expert, but....
> >
> > If the other cables are carrying a constant voltage and load,
they're not
> > likely to cause any interference at all. It's the changes in the
magnetic
> > field around a wire, not the presence of the magnetic field, that
cause
> > interference, from what I understand.
> >
> > Now, as I said, I'm no expert, but I'm comfortably certain what I
just
> said
> > is correct. Also, the nature of coax is that it is very immune to
noise.
> >
> > I'd bet some money that you'd be fine doing this.
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Thilo
Kind
> > Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 6:17 PM
> > To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Zenith-List: VHF antenna cable
> >
> >
> >
> > Good question, Grant. I just run mine as far away from my other
cables as
> I
> > could (just to be sure...).
> >
> > Thilo Kind
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Grant
> > > Corriveau
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 1:53 PM
> > > To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> > > Subject: Zenith-List: VHF antenna cable
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Is it okay to run my vhf coax cable to the antenna along the
> > > same bundles as
> > > the other electrical cables? Will the sheilded cable be
> > > enough to prevent
> > > any interference?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Grant Corriveau
> > > Montreal, Canada
> > > gfcorriv(at)total.net
> > > Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Chapman <pchapman(at)ionsys.com> |
> The plane registration was C-GCIT.
> Does anyone have additional info on this?
http://www.canoe.ca/LondonNews/lf.lf-03-27-0034.html
http://www.southam.com/windsorstar/news/000327/673287.html
Summary of the apparent 'facts':
Crashed a few minutes after takeoff. Unclear from non-pilot witnesses
what was happening -- sounds like it could have been a spin. The
aircraft's 5th flight.
Peter Chapman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Knezacek <dknezace(at)bconnex.net> |
Hi Carlos,
CBC reported the location to be Windsor. Yes it was a zenair model but I
don't know which one at this point. Witnesses reported that it was running
roughly before it crashed. I think it was around 8 or 8:30 last
night. Probably too dark to find a landing site. Makes one wonder if
night flight in single engine A/C is advisable. Another possibility is
that he was fiddling with the engine controls and forgot to watch his
airspeed. But this is just speculation on my part.
The aviation safety inspector said last night that it appeared that all of
the airplane was there, it didn't appear that it broke up in flight.
Dan Knezacek
CH-601 HD
>
>Hello,
>
>
>There was a fatal crash yesterday in Toronto; the pilot of the homebuilt
>airplane, Jules Citron, died.
>In today's Gazette there is a picture, and by the looks of the ruder, it
>looks like a Zenair model.
>The plane registration was C-GCIT.
>Does anyone have additional info on this?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
-- sounds like it could have been a spin. The
> aircraft's 5th flight.
>
> Peter Chapman
+++ Peter, I just read the article in the Canadian newspaper that Mike
Slaughter referenced, and part of it said, "single-engine, homemade kit
airplane which went into a fluttering nosedive and crashed in a soybean
field near the Windsor Airport, killing the 58-year-old pilot. Two teenagers
from the church, who thought the plane was performing aerobatic manoeuvres,
rushed to the scene."
Several references to a "nose dive" which with the "fluttering nosedive"
comment above sounds more like an elevator linkage came loose rather than a
spin. Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)accessus.net> |
From the Canadian Data Base
Mark C-GCIT Serial No 6-3489
Make ZENAIR Model ZENAIR ZODIAC 601 HDS
Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact!
(Click here to visit our Club site at http://www.bellanca-championclub.com)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos Sa" <wings1(at)videotron.ca>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 8:29 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: crash
>
> Hello,
>
>
> There was a fatal crash yesterday in Toronto; the pilot of the homebuilt
> airplane, Jules Citron, died.
> In today's Gazette there is a picture, and by the looks of the ruder, it
> looks like a Zenair model.
> The plane registration was C-GCIT.
> Does anyone have additional info on this?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 03/27/2000 12:51:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
fhulen(at)gabs.net writes:
<< went into a fluttering nosedive >>
I wonder if the term "fluttering" used in the news report refers to flutter
in the aviotion sense of the word, or if it's just a media selected
adjective..?
Chris Carey
601 HDS
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: VHF antenna cable |
In a message dated 03/27/2000 12:12:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
daveaustin2(at)sprint.ca writes:
<< Keep the radoi as
far away as possible from your GPS >>
What about a GPS/COM or GPS/NAV/COM?
Chris Carey
601 HDS
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ronbo135(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Gear Leg Drilling |
I have found that there are some good double-stick tapes that can really help
hold things while drilling. Clean the metal well and use what clamping force
you can, but if you have good contact area on the tape, it will hold well
enough to do pilot drilling without additional clamps. You may have to pry
with something to unstick them. Get it aligned the first time though as it
really sticks. Acetone gets it off when you're done.
The tape I use is about 1.5" wide, thicker than scotch tape but not as thick
as duct tape. It is what I bought to put golf club grips on shafts with.
Hobbies collide again.
Ron
In a message dated 3/27/2000 6:15:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
ragunn(at)hotmail.com writes:
<<
Hey Guys:
I'm drilling the gear legs to the wheel forks. I couldn't figure out any
other way to do it other than drill holes in the leg "plate" first, then
transfer those holes to the wheel fork and hope for good alignment. I did
one leg this way and it came out okay.
But, I would like to be able to clamp the two components together before
drilling so I could be SURE the holes in one match the holes in the other.
I have a 12" long bit that could allow me to drill the clamped components
together from the bottom (wheel fork) side.
I'm not confident in this method because I:
1.) have the 70x70 leg "plates" (ie very little room for mistakes),and
2.) I can't figure out a good way to hold the clamped assembly still in the
drill press.
Anybody got any suggestions?
Thanks,
Tony Gunn
Houston, now maybe 1% beyond the 2/3 through I've been for the last year :-)
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Austin" <daveaustin2(at)sprint.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: VHF antenna cable |
Neither my radio nor the GPS are screened as both are hand-helds. A
"canned" in-panel GPS would be far less likely to cause interference.
Dave Austin 601 HDS
----- Original Message -----
From: <SEAL2CC(at)aol.com>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: VHF antenna cable
>
> In a message dated 03/27/2000 12:12:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> daveaustin2(at)sprint.ca writes:
>
> << Keep the radoi as
> far away as possible from your GPS >>
>
> What about a GPS/COM or GPS/NAV/COM?
>
> Chris Carey
> 601 HDS
> Richmond, VA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven J. Devine" <steve(at)tzogon.com> |
> << went into a fluttering nosedive >>
>
> I wonder if the term "fluttering" used in the news report refers to
flutter
> in the aviotion sense of the word, or if it's just a media selected
> adjective..?
I would think that the "fluttering" referred to by the non-pilot
witnesses/media may more aptly be described as porpoising"... which would
appear to be a fluttering descent... I would not think that they'd be
reporting "fluttering" as we know it...
Steve
Steven J. Devine, President, Consultant, TZOGON Enterprises Incorporated
steve@tzogon.com HAM Tech lic: N1YZJ http://www.tzogon.com
http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/glass_cockpit
http://www.tzogon.com/~steve/stolch801
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Cajun" <sam.caj(at)worldnet.att.net> |
>Hi Carlos,
>
>CBC reported the location to be Windsor. Yes it was a zenair model but I
>don't know which one at this point.
Check the archives. I believe Mr. Citron posted on this
list only a few weeks ago. If I remember correctly,
he flew an HDS with a ea82 subaru. A larger version
of the ea81, with a overhead belt driven cam.
Sam
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Sa <wings1(at)videotron.ca> |
Sam, you are quite right! Mr. Citron was a member of this list, having
paticipated in different discussions as recently as this month.
Carlos
Sam Cajun wrote:
>
>
> >Hi Carlos,
> >
> >CBC reported the location to be Windsor. Yes it was a zenair model but I
> >don't know which one at this point.
>
> Check the archives. I believe Mr. Citron posted on this
> list only a few weeks ago. If I remember correctly,
> he flew an HDS with a ea82 subaru. A larger version
> of the ea81, with a overhead belt driven cam.
>
> Sam
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Hey folks,
This kind of speculation really isn't helpful and can even start rumours
that can hurt people. There are a lot of 'aerodynamic' reasons that an
aircraft could enter what an untrained observer would call "A fluttering
nosedive" (i.e. repeated cycles of stall, recovery, secondary stall, etc.
etc.)...
Why not let the investigators sort it out? That'll help all of us.
Sincerly,
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
------------------
From the Windsor Star:
"Mayville suspects a mechanical failure is responsible for the crash because
the plane itself has a good track record and Citron was an able, cautious
pilot."
And this list:
> Several references to a "nose dive" which with the "fluttering nosedive"
> comment above sounds more like an elevator linkage came loose rather than a
> spin.
-------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Thanks Roger,
I haven't bought my tach yet, so I was curious... Can you tell me what size
panel hole this vdo tack requires? And does it monitor engine rpm or
propellor rpm?
Grant
> From: "Kilby, Roger" <Roger.Kilby(at)DynCorp.com>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:04:16 -0500
> To: "'Zenith-List(at)matronics.com'"
> Subject: Zenith-List: ..912 Tach
>
>
>
> Grant,
>
> Yes, the 912 is grounded but this apparently has no bearing on the tach.
> I believe (if my memory serves me) that it is a yellow/white wire that
> connected
> to the 3rd post on the back of the VDO tach (left to right) that needed to
> have an airframe ground as well. This is per Nick and it made my tach work.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 03/27/2000 2:02:01 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
sam.caj(at)worldnet.att.net writes:
<< I believe Mr. Citron posted on this
list only a few weeks ago >>
Well this all very sobering isn't it? I hope we can get some more details
and stop speculating. I know spam cans go down every day but I sure would
like to know why this plane fell out of the sky.
I remember reading Mr. Citrons post recently as well. My heartfelt
condolences and prayers go out to his family and friends.
Steve Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VHF antenna cable |
>Is it okay to run my vhf coax cable to the antenna along the same bundles as
>the other electrical cables? Will the sheilded cable be enough to prevent
>any interference?
The most offensive coax cable run is for the transponder.
Using a good grade of coax like double shielded RG-400
keeps this potential interference source pretty well boxed
up. Contrary to common legends, properly connected coax
cables are neither potential sources nor are they potential
victims of interference between systems. Every case of
noise I've worked were proximity of coax and other wires
was the coupling mode, one end of the coax had lost it's
shield ground and was no longer able to do its job as
a transmission line.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( The only time you don't fail is the last )
( time you try something, and it works. )
( One fails forward toward success. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
I would like to think that our fellow pilot is, at this very moment,
flying in a better place.
God bless his soul.....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Norris <rnorris4(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gear Leg Drilling |
When you say 1/16", from where do you measure? At wheel rim? End of the
axle?
Rob Norris
Wrestling with the baggage shelf.
fhulen wrote:
> with C clamps and carefully aligned the forks to be properly lined up
> compared to the center line of the aircraft, then set the main pair with
> 1/16" toe in. I then very carefully reached in each hole and marked the
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Norris <rnorris4(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VHF antenna cable |
Looks like you're gonna hafta get an axe, swing very carefully, then
mount the two halves on opposite ends of the panel.
SEAL2CC(at)aol.com wrote:
> << Keep the radoi as
> far away as possible from your GPS >>
>
> What about a GPS/COM or GPS/NAV/COM?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kilby, Roger" <Roger.Kilby(at)DynCorp.com> |
Grant,
It monitors engine RPM only. While I don't have it in front of me, I am
guessing it took
a 3 1/8" hole. I will measure it when I get back to the workshop on
Saturday.
Roger
N98RK - 601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rocketpilot" <rocketpilot(at)email.msn.com> |
Thank you Grant for being the stand of stopping all of the rumors on the
recent Zodiac accident!
Having done extensive accident investigation when I worked for a major
aircraft manufacturer, speculation will only cause additional grief and
upset. The truth is we have no right to speculate. We should all be a
clearing for the truth, which may take many months.
Steven C. Wieczorek
rocketpilot(at)msn.com
Zodiac 601 HDS plans built
Wing ribs and spars complete
Tail surfaces complete
Fuselage partially assembled
-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net>
Date: Monday, March 27, 2000 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: crash
>
>Hey folks,
>
>This kind of speculation really isn't helpful and can even start rumours
>that can hurt people. There are a lot of 'aerodynamic' reasons that an
>aircraft could enter what an untrained observer would call "A fluttering
>nosedive" (i.e. repeated cycles of stall, recovery, secondary stall, etc.
>etc.)...
>
>Why not let the investigators sort it out? That'll help all of us.
>
>Sincerly,
>Grant Corriveau
>Montreal
>
>------------------
>From the Windsor Star:
>
>"Mayville suspects a mechanical failure is responsible for the crash
because
>the plane itself has a good track record and Citron was an able, cautious
>pilot."
>
>And this list:
>
>> Several references to a "nose dive" which with the "fluttering nosedive"
>> comment above sounds more like an elevator linkage came loose rather than
a
>> spin.
>-------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gear Leg Drilling |
> When you say 1/16", from where do you measure? At wheel rim? End of the
> axle?
Rob, This should be done with the two tires off the ground a bit. What you
do is put a small piece of masking tape (just an inch will do) on the center
line of each tire. Make a mark on each piece of tape. It is not critical
that the mark be "exactly perfectly centered" as you will see, because it is
only used to do a "front to rear comparison", and it won't make any
difference if the line isn't centered exactly to do that. Now, rotate each
tire to position the masking tape to be forward, and useing what ever you
have rigged up to measure with, measure the distance from the mark on one
piece of tape on one tire to the mark on the other tire. Now, rotate the
tires so that each marked piece of tape is to the back and measure it again.
Make any adjustment of the fork (clamped to the strut with a "C" clamp as
needed so that when you are done, the distance between the marks when the
wheels are rotated forward is 1/16" LESS in Front than when the marks are
rotated to the back. This is the way the old gas stations used to align
cars waaaaay back when they didn't have more elaborate equipment to work
with. That's it! Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RUSSELL JOHNSON" <entec1(at)pld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gear Leg Drilling |
I can't figure out a good way to hold the clamped assembly still in the
> drill press.
>
> Anybody got any suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Tony Gunn
I haven't drilled the gear forks to the gear legs yet, but I drilled a 3/16"
hole in the center of the fork and doubler, then drilled and tapped a hole
in center of the gear leg plate. This way I will be able to align the gear
forks without having to mess with clamps. Once the forks are aligned, one
clamp will hold them in alignment while the holes are being drilled. If the
pilot holes drilled in the bottom plate of the gear legs are 3/32" then a
3/32" x 12" drill bit will flex enough to drill thru the forks.
Russell J.
601-HDS / on hold until I get back from Arizona.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darryl West" <rdwest(at)cadvision.com> |
Perhaps the best thing that we Zodiac pilots and builders can do at this
time in respect of our lost member is to take this opportunity to do an
"extra" thorough annual inspection (or pre-flight at least) on our own
aircraft, and review emergency procedures. It is important to learn what
caused this accident, but in the meantime let us all take what action we can
to prevent our group from becoming any smaller.
Darryl
>
> Thank you Grant for being the stand of stopping all of the rumors on the
> recent Zodiac accident!
>
> Having done extensive accident investigation when I worked for a major
> aircraft manufacturer, speculation will only cause additional grief and
> upset. The truth is we have no right to speculate. We should all be a
> clearing for the truth, which may take many months.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darryl West" <rdwest(at)cadvision.com> |
I don't have the exact OD, but I seem to recall it was an oddball value (not
3 1/8").
Darryl
>
> Grant,
>
> It monitors engine RPM only. While I don't have it in front of me, I am
> guessing it took
> a 3 1/8" hole. I will measure it when I get back to the workshop on
> Saturday.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Halsall" <halsall(at)nonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 701_flaperon-mixer_deflection_Question |
> Now, 7-C-3-3(flap adj. stop) as dimensioned in the plans will allow only
> 60mm movement of the flaperon control lever.
> This gets reduced to about 30mm to the bellcranks because
> of leverage in the mixer. 30mm at the bellcranks, as my feeble
> mind sees it is approx. 15 degrees for flaps.
Hi Sam,
Don't forget that the mixer moves the PIVOT POINT of the belcrank up/down
approx. 30mm. resulting in the outer end of the bellcrank moving approx
60mm. or approx. 30 degrees of flap.
Peter Halsall, CH701-912
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Chapman <pchapman(at)ionsys.com> |
> Having done extensive accident investigation when I worked for a major
> aircraft manufacturer, speculation will only cause additional grief and
> upset. The truth is we have no right to speculate.
Opinions differ in this regard, and these sorts of arguments come up
after many accidents. I find it interesting to try to piece together
different scenarios, even though one knows full well that there's
information missing. Translating witnesses accounts into "facts" is
often a tough problem.
I have speculated in this case but kept it brief, because of the limited
info. I would and have done the same in cases where it is a friend who
died. Similar to what they say with final accident reports, anything
that is said is not intended to assign blame to any person, device, or
act of nature.
It still is a valid point you make.
Peter Chapman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Ivers" <jivers(at)microtech.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: 601 firewall |
Hello builders,
I would like to move the firewall back 2" on my 601HD taildragger, to help
visibility and compensate for heavy (subaru) engine. Has anyone done this?
It looks like simply a matter of shortening skins, longerons, floor, etc, as
we are having wing tanks rather than the behind-firewall tank (apart from a
small header tank).
Jim Ivers.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Frank,
Thanks for the reply. I've managed to cut my flight instrument holes
following this procedure. I've cut a spot already for a 'standard' tack (3
1/8"), and I'm hoping that the vdo tach isn't much larger (or smaller!).
My engine should be on the way - as soon as I'm sure of the required specs,
I'll nail down my tack purchase.
Thanks again,
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
> From: frank_hinde(at)hp.com
> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 07:32:26 -0800
> To: gfcorriv(at)total.net
> Subject: VDO tach
>
> Hey Grant,
>
> The list won't accept my postings for some reason...so off the list..
>
> The VDO is an odd size as I remember, which brings up what is the best way to
> cut the panel holes?
>
> I started off using hole cutters but be careful 'cos they drift!...I nearly
> ruined 50 hours of work, but just got away with it and I have a gauge slightly
> out of line but only I can see it.
>
> What I did was to use the fly cutter mounted in the hand held battery drill
> and
> run it real slow. Don't bother cutting half way through from one side and then
> the other...cut it all the way from one side only.
>
> Weight or clamp the panel to a sheet of thick plywood to hold the drill on
> center. Run the drill real slow for a few revolutions and you will cut perfect
> holes.
>
> Practice on a few scraps of metal first as the is a knack to it...imagine
> drawing and arc with a compass/divider where you sort of drag the pencil round
> behind the head of the divider...do the same with the drill.
>
> The other handy thing is you can cut any size hole you want!!...always test
> the
> size on a scrap piece before cutting it on the panel.
>
> This all takes longer but will give perfect results, especially if you have
> plotted your instrument locations on a CAD plotter first.
>
> Frank
>
> You could copy this to the list for me if you want.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frank_hinde(at)hp.com |
| Subject: | Re: 601 firewall |
Personally I would think again!
Lack of (a lot of) fuel behind the firewall helps the W&B. You also have a tail
wheel which will help.
I have a 12lb battery behind the pilots seat and get the forward worst case
about 1 inch behind the forward limit...Yes a little nose heavy but it is not a
problem to fly. You could put the battery at the back of the baggage area if you
really want to.
I think You are in danger of running out of pedal travel if you move the
firewall back.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Ivers [mailto:jivers(at)microtech.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:05 PM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601 firewall
Hello builders,
I would like to move the firewall back 2" on my 601HD
taildragger, to help
visibility and compensate for heavy (subaru) engine. Has anyone
done this?
It looks like simply a matter of shortening skins, longerons,
floor, etc, as
we are having wing tanks rather than the behind-firewall tank
(apart from a
small header tank).
Jim Ivers.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TOMGILES(at)aol.com |
If the problem turns out to involve the elevator system and since this was a
plans built aircraft I hope the question of use of a trim tab is addressed.
The electric trim tab gives a fly-by-wire backup for the elevator cable
system.
|
__!__
/ \
===== {______ }=====
_______ | o |______ _______________________
_|______ \_____ /______|_______________________/*
][ ][ ][
(_) (_) (_)
TomGiles(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Steer <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
Hello, folks. I've looked through the archives for info
on this, and looked at the construction pix on ZAC's web
site, but have a couple of questions on installation of
the fiberglass wing tips for the 601 HD.
First of all, dumb question maybe, but the fiberglass goes
outside the aluminum tip rib, right? The fit between the
glass tip and the tip rib is best that way, but not great.
Second, if I install it on the outside, and align the leading
edge and bottom edge with the rest of the ribs, I end up with
the aft edge of the glass about parallel to the rivet line
in the tip rib. So far, so good. But the flat part for
mounting the nav/strobe light is then slanted horizontally
about 30 degrees, with the leading edge towards the root of
the wing. The vertical angle is close to zero, maybe 5
degrees in at the top. I saw in one posting that a DAR had
a problem with lights that were't correctly aligned.
Has this been other people's experience, or am I missing
something?
Thanks.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Bockius <elrond(at)xprt.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 601 firewall |
frank_hinde(at)hp.com wrote:
Jim, I agree with Frank and would be cautious of moving the firewall back. I have
a
601HD taildragger with Stratus engine with 14 lbs of battery mounted at the back
of
the baggage compartment. The CG ranges from the forward limit to the aft limit
depending on how I load the plane (I have the std 16 gallon header tank, so changing
fuel shifts the CG significantly).
I will also say the I have no problems with visibility on the ground at all. S
turns while taxiing are not required.
And lastly, I had to bend over one of the strengthening L's on the back of the
firewall because of interference with the rudder pedals, so I would be very
concerned about pedal placement (unless you have very short legs!).
-Bruce, 601HD/TDO/Stratus 105 hours
***********************
Bruce Bockius
elrond(at)xprt.net
Hillsboro, OR, USA
http://www.xprt.net/~elrond
>
> Personally I would think again!
>
> Lack of (a lot of) fuel behind the firewall helps the W&B. You also have a tail
> wheel which will help.
>
> I have a 12lb battery behind the pilots seat and get the forward worst case
> about 1 inch behind the forward limit...Yes a little nose heavy but it is not
a
> problem to fly. You could put the battery at the back of the baggage area if
you
> really want to.
>
> I think You are in danger of running out of pedal travel if you move the
> firewall back.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Ivers [mailto:jivers(at)microtech.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:05 PM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601 firewall
>
>
>
> Hello builders,
>
> I would like to move the firewall back 2" on my 601HD
> taildragger, to help
> visibility and compensate for heavy (subaru) engine. Has anyone
> done this?
> It looks like simply a matter of shortening skins, longerons,
> floor, etc, as
> we are having wing tanks rather than the behind-firewall tank
> (apart from a
> small header tank).
>
> Jim Ivers.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: HD wing tips |
In a message dated 3/28/00 8:24:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, bsteer(at)gwi.net
writes:
<< First of all, dumb question maybe, but the fiberglass goes
outside the aluminum tip rib, right? >>
ZAC says that either way is acceptable but the instructions say al. tip rib
overlaps the glass. I did mine that way and trimmed (rounded the corners) the
al. nicely. My glass tip is aligned with the root but you have to strongarm
it a bit. Even with that, I had some small amount of space between the glass
and LE. I tack riveted strips of 016 for rivet bite behind the fiberglass
-along the LE rivet line and behind the tip rib. Glass is purportedly ok for
the rivets but I felt more comfortable with the strips and weight is minimal.
Also 5-min. epoxied same strips in the rivet lines of the stab. glass tips. I
understand what you refer to re the slant of the NAV/strobe but I think when
the wing is mounted at it's cant, the angle will be OK.
Chris Carey
HDS N601BZ
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: HD wing tips |
In re-reading the post, I see the question is about an HD..I have HDS..
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
>Thanks for the reply. I've managed to cut my flight instrument holes
>following this procedure. I've cut a spot already for a 'standard' tack (3
>1/8"), and I'm hoping that the vdo tach isn't much larger (or smaller!).
>
Grant,
The VDO tach is slightly bigger than the standard 3 1/8" instrument hole.
The hole for mine is 3.150". The tach will not quite fit in the holes I
drilled for my flight instruments.
Regards,
Bill
(instrument panel all drilled out - fabricating fuse panel - then on to
wiring)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HD wing tips |
I just finished the wing tip installation on my right
wing last weekend.
You can put the fiberglass either in our outside of
the rear rib, but it is much neater inside.
When I installed mine, I removed about 10mm of
fiberglass on the aft end to ease the installation.
The fairing (tip) is riveted with a row of rivets 35mm
from my spar extension rivet line (I installed the L
angle inside the extension instead of having it facing
forward).
I cut the skin rear tip about 8mm from the rivet line.
The top part of the rear tip rib is cut to leave only
about 5mm overlap with the fiberglass rib (this solve
the problem of poor fitting). It looks really nice.
The cut I am talking about is an horizontal cut about
3mm under the radius of the bend in the aluminium tip
rib.
--- Bill Steer wrote:
> First of all, dumb question maybe, but the
> fiberglass goes
> outside the aluminum tip rib, right? The fit
> between the
> glass tip and the tip rib is best that way, but not
> great.
>
=====
Michel Therrien
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby/ch601
-- updated on March 12, 2000
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Lazear <tomlazear(at)netscape.net> |
I noticed in the 912 installation manual it showes a 4 way tee downstream of
the fuel pump. With one of the branches on the tee as a return back to the
fuel tank. I was not going to install a return line to the fuel tank on my
installtion, does any one see a problem with not installing a return line to
the fuel tank?
Tom 701
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: 601 firewall |
Not a good idea. You will be a little tight for rudder pedal movement.
Mike
Jim Ivers wrote:
>
>
> Hello builders,
>
> I would like to move the firewall back 2" on my 601HD taildragger, to help
> visibility and compensate for heavy (subaru) engine. Has anyone done this?
> It looks like simply a matter of shortening skins, longerons, floor, etc, as
> we are having wing tanks rather than the behind-firewall tank (apart from a
> small header tank).
>
> Jim Ivers.
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim and Lucy <jpollard(at)mnsi.net> |
| Subject: | Zenith site update |
There is a new pdf doc. on the zenith site
http://www.zenithair.com/pdf-doc/601hds-le-wing-tanks.pdf
Fuel system faq
Jim Pollard
Merlin Ontario
ch601 hds
forming wing root fairings from 6061
(or trying to)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Norris <rnorris4(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: HD wing tips |
I have an HDS, but the concept is the same... As others have stated, ZAC
doesn't care one way or the other, but I put the glass on the outside
for 2 reasons.
1. General rule of thumb to have fwd parts overlapping aft parts so
airflow does not try to separate the parts.
2. I used nutplates and screws to attach the glass tip for ease of
inspection and maint of nav/strobe wires. Placing glass on the outside
of Al makes it much easier to install and remove tip.
My initial fit was not great either, (ok, so it still is not great, but
it is better) but a little work with a heat gun (or blow dryer), and the
glass softens up to where you can reshape it. Don't try to bend it too
much at once. Hold it in place until it cools and it will stay. Reheat
and bend some more if needed. Do all your adjustments within a few
hours, as the resin will then require a higher temperature to get soft
again.
Rob Norris
Silicon Valley, Ca, where mo gas is $2.10/gal. I'm afraid to find out
what avgas is.
Bill Steer wrote:
> First of all, dumb question maybe, but the fiberglass goes
> outside the aluminum tip rib, right? The fit between the
> glass tip and the tip rib is best that way, but not great.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darryl West" <rdwest(at)cadvision.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 Fuel System |
I did not install a fuel return line to my tank (601HD/912/300 hrs). I did
put firesleeve insulation on all my fuel lines to help avoid vapor lock. I
live in Calgary (not too hot).
Darryl
>
> I noticed in the 912 installation manual it showes a 4 way tee downstream
of
> the fuel pump. With one of the branches on the tee as a return back to the
> fuel tank. I was not going to install a return line to the fuel tank on my
> installtion, does any one see a problem with not installing a return line
to
> the fuel tank?
>
> Tom 701
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Coston" <Jerryc(at)Silverglobe.com> |
Silverglobe, Inc.
Fellow Listers,
Dreams die hard. Family and financial considerations have finally killed
mine.
While I never felt that I had much to contribute to the list, I gleaned many
many good ideas from it and I'd like to express heartfelt appreciation to
everyone for their help and insight.
I have 601HD tail feathers and outboard wings complete and need to sell them
if anyone is interested. They aren't show quality, but I have no doubts
about their airworthiness.
Electric aileron and elevator trim are installed (recessed on the elevator).
The wings have the nav/strobe option installed. The left wing has a leading
edge landing/taxi light.
I guarantee that for anyone who is seriously interested, we can work out a
deal on the price.
I'll linger around the list for another week or so, but would prefer
inquiries be sent personally to Jerryc(at)Silverglobe.com or feel free to call
Thanks again for all of your help
--Jerry Coston
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ivan Rosales" <ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx> |
Hi everyone:
I'm about to rivet my leading edge skin with the LE fuel tank WITHOUT a fuel
sender because I though it was simpler and not very necessary since I'll use
the small tank in the firewall, but right now I'm having second thoughts
about that. I think that with careful flight planning you don't need the
fuel gauges for the wing tanks and only the visor in the front tank will
provide a safe margin in case I forget to fill the tanks in the wings.
Am I missing something?
Any feedback is very appreciated.
Ivan Rosales
Building 601HD
Mexico City.
ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Ivers" <jivers(at)microtech.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: 601 firewall |
Thanks people, I can see the wisdom in what you say, and will leave well
alone. I would be very interested to know how the 601 taildragger+subaru
flies, re t/o and landing, climb, cruise speed etc, also what size prop.
thanks, JIm.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Bockius <elrond(at)xprt.net>
Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 601 firewall
>
>frank_hinde(at)hp.com wrote:
>
>Jim, I agree with Frank and would be cautious of moving the firewall back.
I have a
>601HD taildragger with Stratus engine with 14 lbs of battery mounted at the
back of
>the baggage compartment. The CG ranges from the forward limit to the aft
limit
>depending on how I load the plane (I have the std 16 gallon header tank, so
changing
>fuel shifts the CG significantly).
>
>I will also say the I have no problems with visibility on the ground at
all. S
>turns while taxiing are not required.
>
>And lastly, I had to bend over one of the strengthening L's on the back of
the
>firewall because of interference with the rudder pedals, so I would be very
>concerned about pedal placement (unless you have very short legs!).
>
> -Bruce, 601HD/TDO/Stratus 105 hours
>***********************
>Bruce Bockius
>elrond(at)xprt.net
>Hillsboro, OR, USA
>http://www.xprt.net/~elrond
>
>>
>> Personally I would think again!
>>
>> Lack of (a lot of) fuel behind the firewall helps the W&B. You also have
a tail
>> wheel which will help.
>>
>> I have a 12lb battery behind the pilots seat and get the forward worst
case
>> about 1 inch behind the forward limit...Yes a little nose heavy but it is
not a
>> problem to fly. You could put the battery at the back of the baggage area
if you
>> really want to.
>>
>> I think You are in danger of running out of pedal travel if you move the
>> firewall back.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Ivers [mailto:jivers(at)microtech.com.au]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:05 PM
>> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601 firewall
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello builders,
>>
>> I would like to move the firewall back 2" on my 601HD
>> taildragger, to help
>> visibility and compensate for heavy (subaru) engine. Has
anyone
>> done this?
>> It looks like simply a matter of shortening skins,
longerons,
>> floor, etc, as
>> we are having wing tanks rather than the behind-firewall
tank
>> (apart from a
>> small header tank).
>>
>> Jim Ivers.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Gear Leg Drilling |
Listers;
I set up the wheels on my taildragger for 0 degrees by inserting a long
tube through the axle holes, joining both forks. Then clamp the forks
solidly to the legs. Pilot holes are drilled for the bolts with long
drill then enlarged to 1/4" for bolts.
Mike
fhulen wrote:
>
>
> > When you say 1/16", from where do you measure? At wheel rim? End of the
> > axle?
>
> Rob, This should be done with the two tires off the ground a bit. What you
> do is put a small piece of masking tape (just an inch will do) on the center
> line of each tire. Make a mark on each piece of tape. It is not critical
> that the mark be "exactly perfectly centered" as you will see, because it is
> only used to do a "front to rear comparison", and it won't make any
> difference if the line isn't centered exactly to do that. Now, rotate each
> tire to position the masking tape to be forward, and useing what ever you
> have rigged up to measure with, measure the distance from the mark on one
> piece of tape on one tire to the mark on the other tire. Now, rotate the
> tires so that each marked piece of tape is to the back and measure it again.
> Make any adjustment of the fork (clamped to the strut with a "C" clamp as
> needed so that when you are done, the distance between the marks when the
> wheels are rotated forward is 1/16" LESS in Front than when the marks are
> rotated to the back. This is the way the old gas stations used to align
> cars waaaaay back when they didn't have more elaborate equipment to work
> with. That's it! Fred
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)accessus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Off topic........ |
Hey Steve... You have seen those quarters that have a horse on them... Do
you know what is the breed of that Horse???
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)accessus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Off topic........ |
It's a "quarter horse" of course!!
Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact!
(Click here to visit our Club site at http://www.bellanca-championclub.com)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)accessus.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Off topic........
>
> Hey Steve... You have seen those quarters that have a horse on them... Do
> you know what is the breed of that Horse???
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Bockius <elrond(at)xprt.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 601 firewall |
Jim,
You can see my current performance numbers for my 601HD/Stratus/Taildragger
at this url:
http://www.xprt.net/~elrond/zodiac/perform.htm
-Bruce
******************************
Bruce Bockius
elrond(at)xprt.net
Hillsboro, OR, USA
http://www.xprt.net/~elrond
Jim Ivers wrote:
>
> Thanks people, I can see the wisdom in what you say, and will leave well
> alone. I would be very interested to know how the 601 taildragger+subaru
> flies, re t/o and landing, climb, cruise speed etc, also what size prop.
>
> thanks, JIm.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Bockius <elrond(at)xprt.net>
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 601 firewall
>
> >
> >frank_hinde(at)hp.com wrote:
> >
> >Jim, I agree with Frank and would be cautious of moving the firewall back.
> I have a
> >601HD taildragger with Stratus engine with 14 lbs of battery mounted at the
> back of
> >the baggage compartment. The CG ranges from the forward limit to the aft
> limit
> >depending on how I load the plane (I have the std 16 gallon header tank, so
> changing
> >fuel shifts the CG significantly).
> >
> >I will also say the I have no problems with visibility on the ground at
> all. S
> >turns while taxiing are not required.
> >
> >And lastly, I had to bend over one of the strengthening L's on the back of
> the
> >firewall because of interference with the rudder pedals, so I would be very
> >concerned about pedal placement (unless you have very short legs!).
> >
> > -Bruce, 601HD/TDO/Stratus 105 hours
> >***********************
> >Bruce Bockius
> >elrond(at)xprt.net
> >Hillsboro, OR, USA
> >http://www.xprt.net/~elrond
> >
> >>
> >> Personally I would think again!
> >>
> >> Lack of (a lot of) fuel behind the firewall helps the W&B. You also have
> a tail
> >> wheel which will help.
> >>
> >> I have a 12lb battery behind the pilots seat and get the forward worst
> case
> >> about 1 inch behind the forward limit...Yes a little nose heavy but it is
> not a
> >> problem to fly. You could put the battery at the back of the baggage area
> if you
> >> really want to.
> >>
> >> I think You are in danger of running out of pedal travel if you move the
> >> firewall back.
> >>
> >> Frank
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jim Ivers [mailto:jivers(at)microtech.com.au]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:05 PM
> >> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> >> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601 firewall
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello builders,
> >>
> >> I would like to move the firewall back 2" on my 601HD
> >> taildragger, to help
> >> visibility and compensate for heavy (subaru) engine. Has
> anyone
> >> done this?
> >> It looks like simply a matter of shortening skins,
> longerons,
> >> floor, etc, as
> >> we are having wing tanks rather than the behind-firewall
> tank
> >> (apart from a
> >> small header tank).
> >>
> >> Jim Ivers.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tom tiedman" <ttiedman(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Off topic........ |
A quarter horse, perhaps? Did you know there is a hitch-hiker on the back of
a ten dollar bill? (He's in the car... they already picked him up!)
>From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)accessus.net>
>Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Off topic........
>Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:56:25 -0600
>
>
>Hey Steve... You have seen those quarters that have a horse on them... Do
>you know what is the breed of that Horse???
>
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Hey Jerry,
Sometimes it's a matter of timing. Family has to come first. But hang on to
that dream! You never know the ways that it might be fulfilled yet.
When I was in University a lOOONG time ago, I first drooled over the BD5 -
in fact we were 'BD5 College Club #1'....
So here I am now at 50+ years and my 601 slowly comes together.
Warm regards,
Grant (... 30+ years on the project and counting ;-) Corriveau
Montreal
> From: "Jerry Coston" <Jerryc(at)Silverglobe.com>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 11:09:52 -0600
> To:
> Subject: Zenith-List: Dreams
>
>
> Silverglobe, Inc.
>
> Fellow Listers,
>
> Dreams die hard. Family and financial considerations have finally killed
> mine.
>
> While I never felt that I had much to contribute to the list, I gleaned many
> many good ideas from it and I'd like to express heartfelt appreciation to
> everyone for their help and insight.
>
> I have 601HD tail feathers and outboard wings complete and need to sell them
> if anyone is interested. They aren't show quality, but I have no doubts
> about their airworthiness.
>
> Electric aileron and elevator trim are installed (recessed on the elevator).
> The wings have the nav/strobe option installed. The left wing has a leading
> edge landing/taxi light.
>
> I guarantee that for anyone who is seriously interested, we can work out a
> deal on the price.
>
> I'll linger around the list for another week or so, but would prefer
> inquiries be sent personally to Jerryc(at)Silverglobe.com or feel free to call
>
> Thanks again for all of your help
>
> --Jerry Coston
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Sa <wings1(at)videotron.ca> |
Indeed, Jerry, reality does have a way of interfering with dreams.
My dream took back seat to real life for most of my life. All I could do
was to feed it with whatever I could afford; magazines, mostly. Scale
models when I was (much) younger.
Around 96-97 I participated on a list much like this, but dedicated to
the KR. I contributed with what I could, like keeping the archives and
other info for the group. The remnants of the web site are still at
http://www.axess.com/users/wings/
Eventualy I figured that working on a glass airplane in Canada was not
practical for me. So I set my sights on the Zodiac and joined this list.
Only recently (about a year ago) things fell into place (more or less;
you always have to give it a jiggle) and I actually got started.
Bottomline: keep your dream alive and well fed, as dreams are an
essential part of life.
Things will change and you will have a chance to make it real.
Best regards
Carlos Sa
Montreal, Canada
Jerry Coston wrote:
>
>
> Silverglobe, Inc.
>
> Fellow Listers,
>
> Dreams die hard. Family and financial considerations have finally killed
> mine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Slaughter <mslaughter(at)interhop.net> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
Hi Ivan,
My 2 cents says you can never have enough information when up
in the air!
I consider myself a very carefull flight planner, but have
still found myself with less fuel than I would like after a deviation for
weather or being routed the long way 'round by ATC.
Cheers,
Mike S.
>Hi everyone:
>I'm about to rivet my leading edge skin with the LE fuel tank WITHOUT a fuel
>sender because I though it was simpler and not very necessary since I'll use
>the small tank in the firewall, but right now I'm having second thoughts
>about that. I think that with careful flight planning you don't need the
>fuel gauges for the wing tanks and only the visor in the front tank will
>provide a safe margin in case I forget to fill the tanks in the wings.
>Am I missing something?
>Any feedback is very appreciated.
>Ivan Rosales
>Building 601HD
>Mexico City.
>ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
Jerry:
The best thing about Zenith airplanes is their all aluminum design, you
can put the parts in a pile anywhere and a month, 6 months or a year later
they will be there waiting for you to continue. Wood warps, fabric rots,
steel tube rusts, but the aluminum just lies there. how do I know this? I
bought my plans in 1994 and am about 50 % done. My financial & business
situation is constantly in flux, but anytime I care to pick up snips or a
rivet gun, my project awaits and costs me very little to continue.
Here's hoping you find a way to balance things and keep your dream
alive.
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing, 701/plans
----- Original Message -----
From: Carlos Sa <wings1(at)videotron.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Dreams
>
> Indeed, Jerry, reality does have a way of interfering with dreams.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuse blocks and breakers |
>
>
>Hey "Electric Bob"... please help me out. I spent hours yesterday reading
>and re-reading your Aeroelectric Connection book, and wrote down a lot of
>good things out of it. I've got a couple of problem/concerns. In order to
>not try to cover too many things on one listing, I'll just ask one or two
>for now. I made a list of "things" and protective values as best I've been
>able to determin below. Which ones should be easily accesable on the panel
>as a switch/breaker or breaker and which can be hidden away on the fuse
>panel? (some are obvious, such as lights, etc., but I'd rather leave the
>listing to you?)
There's no need to have any protective devices
accessable in flight. The ways that things
break that DONT pop a fuse outnumber the things
that DO pop fuses by 100 to 1, if your system is
designed to eliminate nuisance trips, then the
fuse opens for one and one reason only . . . that
system is broke.
If you want to, you can just put a "B" behind the ones for
>the panel, and the rest will be assumed as a fuse. In spite of the long
>list I'm sure I'm forgetting something too, so feel free to tack something
>on. I agree with you on the fuse blocks, but "How do you know that the
>encoder or something has quit working when it's protected by a fuse that
>won't give you any visual clues such as a breaker would. (yeah, I know I
>could install an LED and drop-down resistor across each fuse, so it would
>light if the fuse opened, but that would sure be a lot of wiring.
How would this help? Your first indication that anything
is broke is that you flipped a switch or twisted a knob
and the expected thing didn't happen. If the problem
is one of those 100:1 things that don't pop fuses,
then the LED doesn't light and the thing is broke anyhow.
We place far too much emphasis on knowing what might
be wrong and not enough on having PLAN B in place to
deal with anything loss of necessary items, fuses
popped or not.
Hopefully
>the list below can serve as a starting point for others who will be needing
>to list goodies for their panels. Comments from you builders VERY
>welcome!! Fred N601LX (perpetually at 85% done)
>
> protective value
>Digital engine monitor 3
>Elevator trim 1
>Aileron trim 1
>Transponder 3
>Encoder for transponder 2
>GPS/COM 10
>Nav lights 15
>Landing lights 4
>Intercom 1
>Aux 1 (spare) 3
>Aux 2 (spare) 3
>Fan 1
>Boost Pump 5
>Master switch 30
>Ignition 5
>Hobbs 1
>Alternator Field 5
>Turn coordinator 3
>Essentual buss 15
>Low voltage warning 3
>Instruments (fuel level etc.) 3
Do you plan a dual-feedpath essential bus?
The critters on this bus are typically Turn Coord,
voltmeter, minimal panel lighting, primary navigation
radio, transponder . . . . nothing else
What's the MASTER switch at 30A? . . . this doesn't
sound like you're using one of our published distribution
diagrams.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( The only time you don't fail is the last )
( time you try something, and it works. )
( One fails forward toward success. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PWalsh8045(at)aol.com |
Hey guys...
Dreams??...I started my Zodiac in march of 96...finished it the fall of
97...test flew it for 40 hours...was quite thorough with it. It was partly to
inspire my children that a person CAN do things...have dreams. They loved it
when I took them up the very first...and only time I ever did...on Nov. 6,
1997. Two flights...one half hour each for both...they were my first
passengers and they both really loved it!...It was.... the last thing I ever
did with them. After the flight...they left for their Mothers.That was a
thursday......they returned home Sun eve., went to drop off their friends.
On the way back home, they were killed by a man going 90 miles per hour in a
1 ton pickup...at night, with his headlights off.
Needless to say, I was...and am devestated. But I have a special place
now...in my little Zodiac....and wouldnt trade that memory for anything in
the world. When I go flying now, it is even better than ever before...and it
was damn good before!!
I say...go for those dreams...even if it takes 50 years!
Regards,
Patrick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net> |
Patrick,
Through tears, I would like to express that I am sorry for your
loss. Your e-mail today has reminded me how precious life is and how we
should always make every day count. As I work today I am reminded of
something a little old lady told me once when I was just a young adult.
" I just wish that I had danced a
little harder!"
phil
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 03/29/2000 11:44:21 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
PWalsh8045(at)aol.com writes:
<< I say...go for those dreams...even if it takes 50 years! >>
Your story touched me deeply. And I am profoundly sorry for your loss. Your
children will be in my prayers tonight. Your strength to go forward is an
inspiration. I could not for the life of me imagine losing my daughter.
Take care!
Steve Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Pinneo <George.Pinneo(at)trw.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuse blocks and breakers |
Potter & Brumfield make circuit-breakers, W23 series, that are switches as well
as breakers. Why would you ever, ever, ever go to the complexity and added weight
of fuses????
GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Burrill <burrill(at)cs.umass.edu> |
Hi,
I just received my 601 HDS wing kit and leading edge
tanks. I am trying to decide what else I should have
before my building effort progresses much further.
One of the items I have thought about is an angle of
attack instrument. There are two on the market that
I am aware of. Does anyone on the list have any
experience with such an instrument?
I work & live in Western Massachusetts and I would be
interested in meeting anyone else in my area. I have
already built the rudder (factory workshop) and completed
the H. stablizer & elevator.
Thanks,
Jim Burrill
--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects
of folly is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Atkinson" <chris-atkinson(at)home.com> |
Hi Ivan,
We're doing the LE tanks as well and I would not even consider the option of
omitting the senders. No matter how carefully you plan your flight, some
parameter will be different when you get airborne...so you'll end up
recalculating in the air. The gauges are there to confirm your (mental)
recalcs and maybe save you if you make an arithmetic mistake or wrong
assumption (e.g. wrong fuel burn rate).
This happened in real life to a friend of mine in his Mooney. He had
calculated the last leg of a Florida to Toronto trip and had it worked out
with legal reserves and more to spare. It turns out his fuel flow was much
higher than expected and he would have run out about at the middle of Lake
Erie. The lake was frozen that year, so he would have had a good chance of
surviving if the SAR found him quickly...but it would have been a very
costly and inconvenient experience at best. Fortunately, he checked the gas
gauges & landed for fuel on the U.S. side.
Aside from the x-country story above, fuel burn rate is just about
impossible to predict accurately if you're "sport flying". So a couple of
senders & gauges seem like pretty cheap insurance to me.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Slaughter
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
Hi Ivan,
My 2 cents says you can never have enough information when up
in the air!
I consider myself a very carefull flight planner, but have
still found myself with less fuel than I would like after a deviation for
weather or being routed the long way 'round by ATC.
Cheers,
Mike S.
>Hi everyone:
>I'm about to rivet my leading edge skin with the LE fuel tank WITHOUT a
fuel
>sender because I though it was simpler and not very necessary since I'll
use
>the small tank in the firewall, but right now I'm having second thoughts
>about that. I think that with careful flight planning you don't need the
>fuel gauges for the wing tanks and only the visor in the front tank will
>provide a safe margin in case I forget to fill the tanks in the wings.
>Am I missing something?
>Any feedback is very appreciated.
>Ivan Rosales
>Building 601HD
>Mexico City.
>ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frank_hinde(at)hp.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fuse blocks and breakers |
Because you can buy hardware store fuses and switches that are local (don't have
to send away for them when you need one extra) and cost a lot less. My panel
switches were $2 each.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: George Pinneo [mailto:George.Pinneo(at)trw.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 8:26 AM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Fuse blocks and breakers
Potter & Brumfield make circuit-breakers, W23 series, that are
switches as well as breakers. Why would you ever, ever, ever go to the
complexity and added weight of fuses????
GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frank_hinde(at)hp.com |
I would agree for wing tanks only (like mine) but in this case a 7 gallon (?)
header tank is being fitted with a visual sight guage.
While I personally would not want a header tank, it does have a big advantage in
that you can see when your down to your last 7 gallons. If you can't top it off
any more because the wing tanks are dry then you still have 1.5 hours or so to
fly to somewhere to land.
I have never known of a rental aircraft at least where the guages were worth
anything, unless one was going down way fast.
I would love to have a Matronics fuel totalizer device!!!
This is probably academic anyway.... Don't the FARs require a guage for each
tank?
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Atkinson [mailto:chris-atkinson(at)home.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 9:20 AM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
Hi Ivan,
We're doing the LE tanks as well and I would not even consider
the option of
omitting the senders. No matter how carefully you plan your
flight, some
parameter will be different when you get airborne...so you'll
end up
recalculating in the air. The gauges are there to confirm your
(mental)
recalcs and maybe save you if you make an arithmetic mistake or
wrong
assumption (e.g. wrong fuel burn rate).
This happened in real life to a friend of mine in his Mooney.
He had
calculated the last leg of a Florida to Toronto trip and had it
worked out
with legal reserves and more to spare. It turns out his fuel
flow was much
higher than expected and he would have run out about at the
middle of Lake
Erie. The lake was frozen that year, so he would have had a
good chance of
surviving if the SAR found him quickly...but it would have been
a very
costly and inconvenient experience at best. Fortunately, he
checked the gas
gauges & landed for fuel on the U.S. side.
Aside from the x-country story above, fuel burn rate is just
about
impossible to predict accurately if you're "sport flying". So
a
couple of
senders & gauges seem like pretty cheap insurance to me.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Mike Slaughter
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 9:08 PM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
Hi Ivan,
My 2 cents says you can never have enough
information when up
in the air!
I consider myself a very carefull flight planner,
but have
still found myself with less fuel than I would like after a
deviation for
weather or being routed the long way 'round by ATC.
Cheers,
Mike S.
>Hi everyone:
>I'm about to rivet my leading edge skin with the LE fuel tank
WITHOUT a
fuel
>sender because I though it was simpler and not very necessary
since I'll
use
>the small tank in the firewall, but right now I'm having second
thoughts
>about that. I think that with careful flight planning you don't
need the
>fuel gauges for the wing tanks and only the visor in the front
tank will
>provide a safe margin in case I forget to fill the tanks in the
wings.
>Am I missing something?
>Any feedback is very appreciated.
>Ivan Rosales
>Building 601HD
>Mexico City.
>ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jules Citron" <citron(at)mnsi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Jules Citron |
Dear Zenith Members,
I am Jules' daughter, my family and I are still recovering from the shock of
my father's tragic accident. Although, it gives us some comfort to know that
he died doing what he loved best, flying. It was his passion.
To all of you pilots, I wish you continued safe and enjoyable flying. I
think of the poem by John Magee which hangs at the flying club here in
Windsor where my father flew his plane and was a member for 15 yrs. It was
also read at his funeral, and I think helps to sum up his passion for
flight.
Thank you for your ongoing e-mails with my father.
At my mother's request, please remove him from the e-mail list,
Sincerely,
Sherry Citron
----- Original Message -----
From: <TOMGILES(at)aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: crash
>
> If the problem turns out to involve the elevator system and since this was
a
> plans built aircraft I hope the question of use of a trim tab is
addressed.
> The electric trim tab gives a fly-by-wire backup for the elevator cable
> system.
>
> |
> __!__
> / \
> ===== {______ }=====
> _______ | o |______ _______________________
> _|______ \_____ /______|_______________________/*
>
[
> (_) (_) (_)
>
> TomGiles(at)aol.com
>
>
/search
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jules Citron" <citron(at)mnsi.net> |
Dear Zenith Members,
I am Jules' daughter, my family and I are still recovering from the shock of
my father's tragic accident. Although, it gives us some comfort to know that
he died doing what he loved best, flying. It was his passion.
To all of you pilots, I wish you continued safe and enjoyable flying. I
think of the poem by John Magee which hangs at the flying club here in
Windsor where my father flew his plane and was a member for 15 yrs. It was
also read at his funeral, and I think helps to sum up his passion for
flight.
Thank you for your ongoing e-mails with my father.
At my mother's request, please remove him from the e-mail list,
Sincerely,
Sherry Citron
----- Original Message -----
From: <STEFREE(at)aol.com>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: crash
>
> In a message dated 03/27/2000 2:02:01 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> sam.caj(at)worldnet.att.net writes:
>
> << I believe Mr. Citron posted on this
> list only a few weeks ago >>
>
> Well this all very sobering isn't it? I hope we can get some more details
> and stop speculating. I know spam cans go down every day but I sure would
> like to know why this plane fell out of the sky.
>
> I remember reading Mr. Citrons post recently as well. My heartfelt
> condolences and prayers go out to his family and friends.
>
> Steve Freeman
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jules Citron" <citron(at)mnsi.net> |
Dear Zenith Members,
I am Jules' daughter, my family and I are still recovering from the shock of
my father's tragic accident. Although, it gives us some comfort to know that
he died doing what he loved best, flying. It was his passion.
To all of you pilots, I wish you continued safe and enjoyable flying. I
think of the poem by John Magee which hangs at the flying club here in
Windsor where my father flew his plane and was a member for 15 yrs. It was
also read at his funeral, and I think helps to sum up his passion for
flight.
He will be greatly missed.
Thank you for your ongoing e-mails with my father.
At my mother's request, please remove him from the e-mail list,
Sincerely,
Sherry Citron
PS The details as we know them so far, are that he ran into engine problems
and his plane went down
on Sunday around 12:47PM. More details are in The Windor Star, The National
Post and other
papers.
----- Original Message -----
From: <STEFREE(at)aol.com>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: crash
>
> In a message dated 03/27/2000 2:02:01 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> sam.caj(at)worldnet.att.net writes:
>
> << I believe Mr. Citron posted on this
> list only a few weeks ago >>
>
> Well this all very sobering isn't it? I hope we can get some more details
> and stop speculating. I know spam cans go down every day but I sure would
> like to know why this plane fell out of the sky.
>
> I remember reading Mr. Citrons post recently as well. My heartfelt
> condolences and prayers go out to his family and friends.
>
> Steve Freeman
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Knezacek <dknezace(at)bconnex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuse blocks and breakers |
Hey George,
Where are these switches/breakers available from?
Thanks,
Dan
>
>Potter & Brumfield make circuit-breakers, W23 series, that are switches as
>well as breakers. Why would you ever, ever, ever go to the complexity and
>added weight of fuses????
>
>GGP
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Pinneo <George.Pinneo(at)trw.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuse blocks and breakers |
ACS #W23X1A1G1, is a 1 amp there's a whole table for amp-ratings,or Wickes, of
course! No fuses ever!
GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Chapman <pchapman(at)ionsys.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Angle of Attack |
> One of the items I have thought about is an angle of
> attack instrument. There are two on the market that
> I am aware of. Does anyone on the list have any
> experience with such an instrument?
No experience with them, but I'm willing to offer unqualified opinions!
While the HDS's actual stall is fairly sharp, when moving the stick back
there's a wide range of stick position where there's buffet, so there is
excellent aerodynamic warning. Almost too much buffeting, to allow it to
be fun to hang around just at the stall. (Although I haven't rigorously
tried stalls under a variety of conditions.)
Still, the idea of an AoA sensor has come up occasionally, although I
don't recall anyone on the list ever having one.
Models on the market that I can think of, from least to most
sophisticated:
- Bacon Saver -- Just a vane (like a weather vane) against a background,
perhaps attached to a lift strut on a high wing plane. You mark your own
stall point on the background after testing it.
- one that uses a vane and potentiometer out on a boom ahead of the
wing, driving a vertical row of LED lights. Don't have their name or URL
with me.
- Huntington Lift Reserve Indicator (LRI)- Uses differential pressure
ports above & below leading edge, driving a sort of airspeed indicator
with green and red zones. Mechanical, no electrics.
- PSS - Fancy computer controlled one using differential pressure ports
above & below leading edge, custom designed military style indicator of
too high or low AoA, advertised in Sport Aviation.
Note that the LRI measures pure differential pressure, which means that
it responds to speed as well as angle of attack, so it would
theoretically be less accurate for accelerated stalls. The PSS one,
though, can electronically divide the pressure difference by the dynamic
pressure (or something like that), so it eliminates any dependence on
speed.
Also, one photo on a page of the European Zenair builder's group
('GEZUB'), shows that someone has installed a European system on their
leading edge, one that uses a tab of the type that is on the leading
edges of Cessnas etc. -- the type that rotates slightly up or down
depending on the airflow and pressures at the carefully chosen point on
the leading edge. Plus there's some sort of electrical hookup.
If I ever get around to making one, then I'd either go for a vane &
potentiometer out on a boom, or try simple differential pressure such as
in the LRI -- which is unobtrusive and doesn't get bent by people
walking by. Not sure how I'd arrange a moisture trap / drain. One is
also wary of cutting new holes in one's nice aeroplane.
I just noticed your email address, that includes "cs" and "umass" -- so
I'd guess you just might like to have fun with electronics if you do go
ahead with an AoA project. :)
Peter Chapman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Bockius <elrond(at)xprt.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Jules Citron |
Listers,
At Sherry's request I removed the Citron account from this email list, so if
you want to contact the Citron family you will have to do so directly.
-Bruce
Jules Citron wrote:
>
> Dear Zenith Members,
>
> I am Jules' daughter, my family and I are still recovering from the shock of
> my father's tragic accident. Although, it gives us some comfort to know that
> he died doing what he loved best, flying. It was his passion.
>
> To all of you pilots, I wish you continued safe and enjoyable flying. I
> think of the poem by John Magee which hangs at the flying club here in
> Windsor where my father flew his plane and was a member for 15 yrs. It was
> also read at his funeral, and I think helps to sum up his passion for
> flight.
>
> Thank you for your ongoing e-mails with my father.
> At my mother's request, please remove him from the e-mail list,
> Sincerely,
> Sherry Citron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <TOMGILES(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 6:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: crash
>
> >
> > If the problem turns out to involve the elevator system and since this was
> a
> > plans built aircraft I hope the question of use of a trim tab is
> addressed.
> > The electric trim tab gives a fly-by-wire backup for the elevator cable
> > system.
> >
> > |
> > __!__
> > / \
> > ===== {______ }=====
> > _______ | o |______ _______________________
> > _|______ \_____ /______|_______________________/*
> >
> [
> > (_) (_) (_)
> >
> > TomGiles(at)aol.com
> >
> >
> /search
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Burrill <burrill(at)cs.umass.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Angle of Attack |
Peter Chapman wrote:
>
> I just noticed your email address, that includes "cs" and "umass" -- so
> I'd guess you just might like to have fun with electronics if you do go
> ahead with an AoA project. :)
>
> Peter Chapman
Peter,
Thanks for your informative reply. I was not aware that the LRI model
was airspeed dependent. The AoA I saw at Oshkosh last year had a single
probe that extended under the wing (like a Piper pitot) with the two
ports on the one probe. I think it was made in the Czech Republic.
I have the info buried in one of my files at home.
Unfortunately, I am a systems programmer and not an electrical engineer.
While this is the second plane I am building (the first was a bolt-together
ultralight), I still have to spend a lot of time just trying to understand
the drawings & instructions. I am terrible at soldering. I choose the
CH601HDS because I felt that I could handle drilling holes and blind riveting.
Thanks again,
Jim
--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects
of folly is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Angle of Attack |
Jim,
I have installed the RiteAngle AOA system on my HDS but I am not flying yet
so I can't give you my opinion from an operational standpoint.
I have photos of my installation. If you would like to see them, contact me
directly. The web site for the Rite Angle is at:
http://www.riteangle.com/
Regards,
Bill
>One of the items I have thought about is an angle of
>attack instrument. There are two on the market that
>I am aware of. Does anyone on the list have any
>experience with such an instrument?
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Ivan,
If your fuel set up involves feeding the engine from the fuselage tank, and
the wing tanks only transfer to re-fill this tank, then this can work, I'd
say.
The drawbacks would be constant need to operate the fuel transfer system to
refill (is your fuselage tank only 8 galls?). I believe that the sight gauge
on the panel only shows the top half of the tank, so it would indicate
'empty' after each hour (approx 4 gph), and then you'd have to run the
transfer pump for a few minutes each hour...
And then you'll have to determine how to deal with 'over transfers' - i.e.
you get distracted and forget to shut off the transfer pump when the 'little
tank' is full. Where does the overflow go? Ideally NOT overboard!
I'm using le tanks only and I'm glad that I've been procrastinating about
drilling holes in the tanks for my senders. Thanks to the new Zenair pdf
file regarding these tanks, I see now that the recommended location for the
sender is on the END (i.e. side) of the tank, not on top as I was going to
drill it!!
Have fun!
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
> From: "Ivan Rosales" <ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:07:07 -0600
> To: "Lista Zenith"
> Subject: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
>
>
> Hi everyone:
> I'm about to rivet my leading edge skin with the LE fuel tank WITHOUT a fuel
> sender because I though it was simpler and not very necessary since I'll use
> the small tank in the firewall, but right now I'm having second thoughts
> about that. I think that with careful flight planning you don't need the
> fuel gauges for the wing tanks and only the visor in the front tank will
> provide a safe margin in case I forget to fill the tanks in the wings.
> Am I missing something?
> Any feedback is very appreciated.
> Ivan Rosales
> Building 601HD
> Mexico City.
> ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Angle of Attack |
| From: | Clyde D Ehlers <clydes-shop(at)juno.com> |
Hi: List
the resin for AOA is that it helps to Keep airspeed and rate of descent
for the airplane in a consent descent with relative to angle of the
airplane especially on instrument approaches. It helps to keep from
Oscillating the air plane up and down.
writes:
>
>
> Jim,
>
> I have installed the RiteAngle AOA system on my HDS but I am not
> flying yet
> so I can't give you my opinion from an operational standpoint.
>
> I have photos of my installation. If you would like to see them,
> contact me
> directly. The web site for the Rite Angle is at:
>
> http://www.riteangle.com/
>
>
> Regards,
> Bill
>
> >One of the items I have thought about is an angle of
> >attack instrument. There are two on the market that
> >I am aware of. Does anyone on the list have any
> >experience with such an instrument?
>
>
>
>
>
Yours Truly,
Clyde Ehlers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuse blocks and breakers |
Potter & Brumfield make circuit-breakers, W23 series, that are
>switches as well as breakers. Why would you ever, ever, ever go to the
>complexity and added weight of fuses????
Because fuses are always lighter, less expensive and faster
to install than breakrs. Breakers used as switches on the
left side of the airplane forces you to build two bus structures,
one for things that ARE NOT switched on the right and things
that ARE switched on the left. All, in all, fuse blocks and
toggle switches are the simplest, lightest and least expensive
combination of materials you can install.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( The only time you don't fail is the last )
( time you try something, and it works. )
( One fails forward toward success. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Angle of Attack |
Jim,
I also wanted to install an AOA for the primary reason of finding the best
glide angle during a power failure. However, when I was building my wings I
wrote to ZAC (postal mail) and asked where the best location would be (wing
chord, etc.) for a particular AOA instrument, Nick's response was the plane
flew fine without one (nothing else, just that and that only)
Spent two weeks bitc**** about the response, then just decided I didn't have
the time to deal with it and moved on.
However, I wish I would of taken the extra time to install one. I believe
the knowledge of how much lift is available seems so much more important
than airspeed.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Burrill" <burrill(at)cs.umass.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Angle of Attack
>
> Peter Chapman wrote:
> >
> > I just noticed your email address, that includes "cs" and "umass" -- so
> > I'd guess you just might like to have fun with electronics if you do go
> > ahead with an AoA project. :)
> >
> > Peter Chapman
>
> Peter,
>
> Thanks for your informative reply. I was not aware that the LRI model
> was airspeed dependent. The AoA I saw at Oshkosh last year had a single
> probe that extended under the wing (like a Piper pitot) with the two
> ports on the one probe. I think it was made in the Czech Republic.
> I have the info buried in one of my files at home.
>
> Unfortunately, I am a systems programmer and not an electrical engineer.
> While this is the second plane I am building (the first was a
bolt-together
> ultralight), I still have to spend a lot of time just trying to understand
> the drawings & instructions. I am terrible at soldering. I choose the
> CH601HDS because I felt that I could handle drilling holes and blind
riveting.
>
> Thanks again,
> Jim
> --
> The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects
> of folly is to fill the world with fools.
> -- Herbert Spencer
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SkyKingN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 701_flaperon-mixer_deflection_Question |
Sam, I hooked up my flaperones this week end and fine tuned them last night.
I get 30 degrees of flap with no problems. I have 13 degrees of aleron plus
or minus 1 with no problems, this is all done by the plans. If all you are
getting is 15 degrees for flaps then something is wrong with the flap stop
plate. You need 80 mm of distance according to the print, this will give you
plenty. I found , to get 32 degrees as zac calls for requires 84 mm on the
cut out of the stop plate.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuse blocks and breakers |
>
> >
+++ Thank you Bob. I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I just got
home and am tired, so I won't ask anything tonight, but I wanted to
acknowledge your reply and thank you. I had also sent you another note
directly to you, not posted to the e-mail group. I do want to buy some
things from you as soon as I can clarify what the list is.
Thanks again.
Fred Hulen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Mucker" <mmucker(at)airmail.net> |
Folks, this may be a moot point.
FAR 91.205 (b)(9) says "...the following instruments are required... fuel
gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank."
I don't see any 'outs' on this regulation.
-Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Grant
Corriveau
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
Ivan,
If your fuel set up involves feeding the engine from the fuselage tank, and
the wing tanks only transfer to re-fill this tank, then this can work, I'd
say.
The drawbacks would be constant need to operate the fuel transfer system to
refill (is your fuselage tank only 8 galls?). I believe that the sight gauge
on the panel only shows the top half of the tank, so it would indicate
'empty' after each hour (approx 4 gph), and then you'd have to run the
transfer pump for a few minutes each hour...
And then you'll have to determine how to deal with 'over transfers' - i.e.
you get distracted and forget to shut off the transfer pump when the 'little
tank' is full. Where does the overflow go? Ideally NOT overboard!
I'm using le tanks only and I'm glad that I've been procrastinating about
drilling holes in the tanks for my senders. Thanks to the new Zenair pdf
file regarding these tanks, I see now that the recommended location for the
sender is on the END (i.e. side) of the tank, not on top as I was going to
drill it!!
Have fun!
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
> From: "Ivan Rosales" <ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:07:07 -0600
> To: "Lista Zenith"
> Subject: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
>
>
> Hi everyone:
> I'm about to rivet my leading edge skin with the LE fuel tank WITHOUT a
fuel
> sender because I though it was simpler and not very necessary since I'll
use
> the small tank in the firewall, but right now I'm having second thoughts
> about that. I think that with careful flight planning you don't need the
> fuel gauges for the wing tanks and only the visor in the front tank will
> provide a safe margin in case I forget to fill the tanks in the wings.
> Am I missing something?
> Any feedback is very appreciated.
> Ivan Rosales
> Building 601HD
> Mexico City.
> ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
>Folks, this may be a moot point.
>
>FAR 91.205 (b)(9) says "...the following instruments are required... fuel
>gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank."
>
The ZAC information on LE tanks is a bit misleading in this regard. On the
other hand, regs are regs and it looks like I may be tearing my wings apart
to install fuel gauges in the LE tanks. (bummer)
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Re: Angle of Attack |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Don,
I don't think it even has to be installed on a wing. It's a matter of
calibrating it so that you get useful readings.
On most airliners, there's a vane installed on the fuselage which gives the
onbaord flight data instruments aoa information. I don't know how they
initially calibrate the system - maybe during test flights with some long
probes attached that reach forward into the 'undisturbed' airflow?
It'd have to be an exercise that you the purchaser would carry out for your
own aircraft, unless the aoa manufacturer has done if for your type of
aircraft and determined a position/installation and calibration that is
'known' to work.
I think so...
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
> From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:54:58 -0700
> To:
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Angle of Attack
>
>
> Jim,
>
> I also wanted to install an AOA for the primary reason of finding the best
> glide angle during a power failure. However, when I was building my wings I
> wrote to ZAC (postal mail) and asked where the best location would be (wing
> chord, etc.) for a particular AOA instrument, Nick's response was the plane
> flew fine without one (nothing else, just that and that only)
>
> Spent two weeks bitc**** about the response, then just decided I didn't have
> the time to deal with it and moved on.
>
> However, I wish I would of taken the extra time to install one. I believe
> the knowledge of how much lift is available seems so much more important
> than airspeed.
>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Burrill" <burrill(at)cs.umass.edu>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 2:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Angle of Attack
>
>
>>
>> Peter Chapman wrote:
>>>
>>> I just noticed your email address, that includes "cs" and "umass" -- so
>>> I'd guess you just might like to have fun with electronics if you do go
>>> ahead with an AoA project. :)
>>>
>>> Peter Chapman
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> Thanks for your informative reply. I was not aware that the LRI model
>> was airspeed dependent. The AoA I saw at Oshkosh last year had a single
>> probe that extended under the wing (like a Piper pitot) with the two
>> ports on the one probe. I think it was made in the Czech Republic.
>> I have the info buried in one of my files at home.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I am a systems programmer and not an electrical engineer.
>> While this is the second plane I am building (the first was a
> bolt-together
>> ultralight), I still have to spend a lot of time just trying to understand
>> the drawings & instructions. I am terrible at soldering. I choose the
>> CH601HDS because I felt that I could handle drilling holes and blind
> riveting.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Jim
>> --
>> The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects
>> of folly is to fill the world with fools.
>> -- Herbert Spencer
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Matt,
I'm building in Canada and haven't looked up the Canadian requirement in
this matter, but that's a good place to start for sure.
Is FAR 91.205, the section that deals specifically with 'Amateur Built'
aircraft?
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
-------------------
> From: "Matthew Mucker" <mmucker(at)airmail.net>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 23:02:32 -0600
> To:
> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
>
> Folks, this may be a moot point.
>
> FAR 91.205 (b)(9) says "...the following instruments are required... fuel
> gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank."
>
> I don't see any 'outs' on this regulation.
>
> -Matt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Grant
> Corriveau
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 5:13 PM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
>
>
> Ivan,
> If your fuel set up involves feeding the engine from the fuselage tank, and
> the wing tanks only transfer to re-fill this tank, then this can work, I'd
> say.
>
> The drawbacks would be constant need to operate the fuel transfer system to
> refill (is your fuselage tank only 8 galls?). I believe that the sight gauge
> on the panel only shows the top half of the tank, so it would indicate
> 'empty' after each hour (approx 4 gph), and then you'd have to run the
> transfer pump for a few minutes each hour...
>
> And then you'll have to determine how to deal with 'over transfers' - i.e.
> you get distracted and forget to shut off the transfer pump when the 'little
> tank' is full. Where does the overflow go? Ideally NOT overboard!
>
> I'm using le tanks only and I'm glad that I've been procrastinating about
> drilling holes in the tanks for my senders. Thanks to the new Zenair pdf
> file regarding these tanks, I see now that the recommended location for the
> sender is on the END (i.e. side) of the tank, not on top as I was going to
> drill it!!
>
> Have fun!
>
> Grant Corriveau
> Montreal, Canada
> gfcorriv(at)total.net
> Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
>
>
>> From: "Ivan Rosales" <ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx>
>> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:07:07 -0600
>> To: "Lista Zenith"
>> Subject: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi everyone:
>> I'm about to rivet my leading edge skin with the LE fuel tank WITHOUT a
> fuel
>> sender because I though it was simpler and not very necessary since I'll
> use
>> the small tank in the firewall, but right now I'm having second thoughts
>> about that. I think that with careful flight planning you don't need the
>> fuel gauges for the wing tanks and only the visor in the front tank will
>> provide a safe margin in case I forget to fill the tanks in the wings.
>> Am I missing something?
>> Any feedback is very appreciated.
>> Ivan Rosales
>> Building 601HD
>> Mexico City.
>> ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
>> Folks, this may be a moot point.
>>
>> FAR 91.205 (b)(9) says "...the following instruments are required... fuel
>> gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank."
>>
>
>
> The ZAC information on LE tanks is a bit misleading in this regard. On the
> other hand, regs are regs and it looks like I may be tearing my wings apart
> to install fuel gauges in the LE tanks. (bummer)
>
> Bill
Hey Bill,
You might want to hold on before deciding... First of all you need to know
if FAR 91.205 etc. is specifically speaking to amateur built aircraft or to
certified aircraft.
In Canada the regs have a general statement for amateur built aircraft that
says basically, you can do what you want with the manufacturer's blessing,
BUT you may be required to prove/demonstrate that what you do meets the
INTENT of the certified aircraft rules.
For example, my building inspector said that if I desired to use welding
cable in place of AWG cable for the battery cable runs, then I'd better try
burning some with a torch, remove the flame, and prove that the insulation
won't support combustion - which is basically the requirement for aviation
'certified' wiring.
You might be able to install something simpler - how about the 'good ole'
float/wire-sticking-up-through-the-fuel-cap...?
But first you need to know exactly what the regs are.
On the other hand, de-rivetting the le skins isn't THAT big a deal - ask me
how I know!!!
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frank_hinde(at)hp.com |
| Subject: | Stratus air cleaner elbows |
Has anyone come across this issue on Stratus engines where the air cleaner
elbows are being melted by fuel?
The advise is to seal the inside of the elbow with a fuel resistant paint or
sealer. Has anyone done this and can affirm the effectiveness?
It seems like a marginal solution at best, What did folks use to seal and where
can you get it from?
Frank
93 hours HDS/Stratus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Angle of Attack |
Grant,
The particular model I was looking at had CAD diagrams and suggested
locations on the wings based on the chord value or similiar measurement.
After installation the AOA instrument still needed to be calibrated, but I
just wanted to get the instrument installed in the best position to ensure
the best results.
Thanks for the information on fuselage mount ones. Might be an easy way to
install one after the fact. Do you know of any particular brands that are
fuselage mountable?
Thanks, Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grant Corriveau" <gfcorriv(at)total.net>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 8:18 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Angle of Attack
>
> Don,
>
> I don't think it even has to be installed on a wing. It's a matter of
> calibrating it so that you get useful readings.
>
> On most airliners, there's a vane installed on the fuselage which gives
the
> onbaord flight data instruments aoa information. I don't know how they
> initially calibrate the system - maybe during test flights with some long
> probes attached that reach forward into the 'undisturbed' airflow?
>
> It'd have to be an exercise that you the purchaser would carry out for
your
> own aircraft, unless the aoa manufacturer has done if for your type of
> aircraft and determined a position/installation and calibration that is
> 'known' to work.
>
> I think so...
>
> Grant Corriveau
> Montreal, Canada
> gfcorriv(at)total.net
> Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
>
>
> > From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
> > Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> > Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:54:58 -0700
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Angle of Attack
> >
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > I also wanted to install an AOA for the primary reason of finding the
best
> > glide angle during a power failure. However, when I was building my
wings I
> > wrote to ZAC (postal mail) and asked where the best location would be
(wing
> > chord, etc.) for a particular AOA instrument, Nick's response was the
plane
> > flew fine without one (nothing else, just that and that only)
> >
> > Spent two weeks bitc**** about the response, then just decided I didn't
have
> > the time to deal with it and moved on.
> >
> > However, I wish I would of taken the extra time to install one. I
believe
> > the knowledge of how much lift is available seems so much more important
> > than airspeed.
> >
> > Don
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "James Burrill" <burrill(at)cs.umass.edu>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 2:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Angle of Attack
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Peter Chapman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I just noticed your email address, that includes "cs" and "umass" --
so
> >>> I'd guess you just might like to have fun with electronics if you do
go
> >>> ahead with an AoA project. :)
> >>>
> >>> Peter Chapman
> >>
> >> Peter,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your informative reply. I was not aware that the LRI model
> >> was airspeed dependent. The AoA I saw at Oshkosh last year had a
single
> >> probe that extended under the wing (like a Piper pitot) with the two
> >> ports on the one probe. I think it was made in the Czech Republic.
> >> I have the info buried in one of my files at home.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, I am a systems programmer and not an electrical
engineer.
> >> While this is the second plane I am building (the first was a
> > bolt-together
> >> ultralight), I still have to spend a lot of time just trying to
understand
> >> the drawings & instructions. I am terrible at soldering. I choose the
> >> CH601HDS because I felt that I could handle drilling holes and blind
> > riveting.
> >>
> >> Thanks again,
> >> Jim
> >> --
> >> The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects
> >> of folly is to fill the world with fools.
> >> -- Herbert Spencer
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Steer <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
Luckily, I haven't had to try it, since I'm installing the LE
tanks and the sender units as I build, but wouldn't it be
possible to reach through the large lightening hole in the
tip ribs to install the sender in the end of the tank? You'd
have to cut the hole in the tank, of course, the the material
is fairly thin. I cut mine with a circle cutter, by hand,
just by drilling a 1/4" hole, putting the center drill of the
cutter in it, and turning it several (make that "many") times.
Bill
>
>>> Folks, this may be a moot point.
>>>
>>> FAR 91.205 (b)(9) says "...the following instruments are required... fuel
>>> gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank."
>>>
>>
>>
>> The ZAC information on LE tanks is a bit misleading in this regard. On the
>> other hand, regs are regs and it looks like I may be tearing my wings apart
>> to install fuel gauges in the LE tanks. (bummer)
>>
>> Bill
>
>Hey Bill,
>
>You might want to hold on before deciding... First of all you need to know
>if FAR 91.205 etc. is specifically speaking to amateur built aircraft or to
>certified aircraft.
>
>In Canada the regs have a general statement for amateur built aircraft that
>says basically, you can do what you want with the manufacturer's blessing,
>BUT you may be required to prove/demonstrate that what you do meets the
>INTENT of the certified aircraft rules.
>
>For example, my building inspector said that if I desired to use welding
>cable in place of AWG cable for the battery cable runs, then I'd better try
>burning some with a torch, remove the flame, and prove that the insulation
>won't support combustion - which is basically the requirement for aviation
>'certified' wiring.
>
>You might be able to install something simpler - how about the 'good ole'
>float/wire-sticking-up-through-the-fuel-cap...?
>
>But first you need to know exactly what the regs are.
>
>On the other hand, de-rivetting the le skins isn't THAT big a deal - ask me
>how I know!!!
>
>Grant Corriveau
>Montreal, Canada
>gfcorriv(at)total.net
>Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Steer <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Angle of Attack |
I believe you're correct, Grant. I remember an article in either
Private Pilot or Sport Aviation, at least 6 months ago, that discussed
AOA meters. They implied in the article that the systems had to
be calibrated for every installation.
Bill
>
>Don,
>
>I don't think it even has to be installed on a wing. It's a matter of
>calibrating it so that you get useful readings.
>
>On most airliners, there's a vane installed on the fuselage which gives the
>onbaord flight data instruments aoa information. I don't know how they
>initially calibrate the system - maybe during test flights with some long
>probes attached that reach forward into the 'undisturbed' airflow?
>
>It'd have to be an exercise that you the purchaser would carry out for your
>own aircraft, unless the aoa manufacturer has done if for your type of
>aircraft and determined a position/installation and calibration that is
>'known' to work.
>
>I think so...
>
>Grant Corriveau
>Montreal, Canada
>gfcorriv(at)total.net
>Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
>
>
>> From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
>> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:54:58 -0700
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Angle of Attack
>>
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> I also wanted to install an AOA for the primary reason of finding the best
>> glide angle during a power failure. However, when I was building my wings I
>> wrote to ZAC (postal mail) and asked where the best location would be (wing
>> chord, etc.) for a particular AOA instrument, Nick's response was the plane
>> flew fine without one (nothing else, just that and that only)
>>
>> Spent two weeks bitc**** about the response, then just decided I didn't
have
>> the time to deal with it and moved on.
>>
>> However, I wish I would of taken the extra time to install one. I believe
>> the knowledge of how much lift is available seems so much more important
>> than airspeed.
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "James Burrill" <burrill(at)cs.umass.edu>
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 2:40 PM
>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Angle of Attack
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Peter Chapman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I just noticed your email address, that includes "cs" and "umass" -- so
>>>> I'd guess you just might like to have fun with electronics if you do go
>>>> ahead with an AoA project. :)
>>>>
>>>> Peter Chapman
>>>
>>> Peter,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your informative reply. I was not aware that the LRI model
>>> was airspeed dependent. The AoA I saw at Oshkosh last year had a single
>>> probe that extended under the wing (like a Piper pitot) with the two
>>> ports on the one probe. I think it was made in the Czech Republic.
>>> I have the info buried in one of my files at home.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I am a systems programmer and not an electrical engineer.
>>> While this is the second plane I am building (the first was a
>> bolt-together
>>> ultralight), I still have to spend a lot of time just trying to understand
>>> the drawings & instructions. I am terrible at soldering. I choose the
>>> CH601HDS because I felt that I could handle drilling holes and blind
>> riveting.
>>>
>>> Thanks again,
>>> Jim
>>> --
>>> The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects
>>> of folly is to fill the world with fools.
>>> -- Herbert Spencer
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Chapman <pchapman(at)ionsys.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Angle of Attack |
> I don't think it even has to be installed on a wing. It's a matter of
> calibrating it so that you get useful readings.
We just have the added complication of having the prop up front, which
will change the airflow anytime power changes. Might still work, who
knows.
Peter Chapman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Schemmel, Grant" <Schemmel(at)utmc.utc.com> |
Luckily, I haven't had to try it, since I'm installing the LE
tanks and the sender units as I build, but wouldn't it be
possible to reach through the large lightening hole in the
tip ribs to install the sender in the end of the tank? You'd
have to cut the hole in the tank, of course, the the material
is fairly thin. I cut mine with a circle cutter, by hand,
just by drilling a 1/4" hole, putting the center drill of the
cutter in it, and turning it several (make that "many") times.
Bill
I certainly wouldn't recommend it! I had my LE tank installation with
the capacitive senders complete, and suspected a problem with one of the
senders leaking after doing a pressure/soap bubble test. Went back in
through that lightening hole, removed the bolts, added sealant, then
reinstalled them, including saftying the heads. The saftying part was a
major pain, as you cannot see what you are doing, and can only work with
one hand. Ever try safety wiring three bolt heads together with just
one hand? Trust me, it's a real bastich.
Grant Schemmel
Penrose CO.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frank_hinde(at)hp.com |
The circle cutter can be rotated with a bettery drill, that's how I cut my
instrument panel holes. If you can get the drill through the hole in the root
rib this may be possible.
I did not use the VDO sender bracketry but don't you also have to drill six
holes for the bolts??
I was thinking of making a long range tank that would be removable and sits in
the wing baggage locker, this would be used to top off the LE tank. I was
thinking of using the above method to install a hose connection in the LE tank.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Steer [mailto:bsteer(at)gwi.net]
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 8:15 AM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
Luckily, I haven't had to try it, since I'm installing the LE
tanks and the sender units as I build, but wouldn't it be
possible to reach through the large lightening hole in the
tip ribs to install the sender in the end of the tank? You'd
have to cut the hole in the tank, of course, the the material
is fairly thin. I cut mine with a circle cutter, by hand,
just by drilling a 1/4" hole, putting the center drill of the
cutter in it, and turning it several (make that "many") times.
Bill
>
>>> Folks, this may be a moot point.
>>>
>>> FAR 91.205 (b)(9) says "...the following instruments are
required... fuel
>>> gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank."
>>>
>>
>>
>> The ZAC information on LE tanks is a bit misleading in this
regard. On the
>> other hand, regs are regs and it looks like I may be tearing
my wings apart
>> to install fuel gauges in the LE tanks. (bummer)
>>
>> Bill
>
>Hey Bill,
>
>You might want to hold on before deciding... First of all you
need to know
>if FAR 91.205 etc. is specifically speaking to amateur built
aircraft or to
>certified aircraft.
>
>In Canada the regs have a general statement for amateur built
aircraft that
>says basically, you can do what you want with the
manufacturer's blessing,
>BUT you may be required to prove/demonstrate that what you do
meets the
>INTENT of the certified aircraft rules.
>
>For example, my building inspector said that if I desired to
use welding
>cable in place of AWG cable for the battery cable runs, then
I'd better try
>burning some with a torch, remove the flame, and prove that the
insulation
>won't support combustion - which is basically the requirement
for aviation
>'certified' wiring.
>
>You might be able to install something simpler - how about the
'good ole'
>float/wire-sticking-up-through-the-fuel-cap...?
>
>But first you need to know exactly what the regs are.
>
>On the other hand, de-rivetting the le skins isn't THAT big a
deal - ask me
>how I know!!!
>
>Grant Corriveau
>Montreal, Canada
>gfcorriv(at)total.net
>Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ivan Rosales" <ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx> |
Hi listers:
After reading your responses I finally decided to use fuel gauges for the
leading edge tanks. I think safety and regulations are the main issues here.
But another question came: I'm planning to use the wing tanks to feed the
small 8 gal header tank and someone commented that it would be a problem if
it gets overfilled.
Do you think is safer not having a fuselage tank and feed the engine
directly from the wing tanks?
I'm willing to exchange airplane endurance for improved safety. I plan to
use either the Subaru EA81 or the CAM100. Is anyone flying with three tanks
having problems?
Thanks everyone for the input.
Ivan Rosales
Building 601HD
Mexico City.
ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Steer <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
The VDO sender units I got from ZAC have five screws. Those screws
JUST fit inside the large hole, so no extras are needed.
Bill
>
>The circle cutter can be rotated with a bettery drill, that's how I cut my
>instrument panel holes. If you can get the drill through the hole in the root
>rib this may be possible.
>
>I did not use the VDO sender bracketry but don't you also have to drill six
>holes for the bolts??
>
>I was thinking of making a long range tank that would be removable and
sits in
>the wing baggage locker, this would be used to top off the LE tank. I was
>thinking of using the above method to install a hose connection in the LE
tank.
>
>Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Steer [mailto:bsteer(at)gwi.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 8:15 AM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
>
> Luckily, I haven't had to try it, since I'm installing the LE
> tanks and the sender units as I build, but wouldn't it be
> possible to reach through the large lightening hole in the
> tip ribs to install the sender in the end of the tank? You'd
> have to cut the hole in the tank, of course, the the material
> is fairly thin. I cut mine with a circle cutter, by hand,
> just by drilling a 1/4" hole, putting the center drill of the
> cutter in it, and turning it several (make that "many")
times.
>
> Bill
>
>
> >
> >>> Folks, this may be a moot point.
> >>>
> >>> FAR 91.205 (b)(9) says "...the following instruments are
>required... fuel
> >>> gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank."
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> The ZAC information on LE tanks is a bit misleading in
this
>regard. On the
> >> other hand, regs are regs and it looks like I may be
tearing
>my wings apart
> >> to install fuel gauges in the LE tanks. (bummer)
> >>
> >> Bill
> >
> >Hey Bill,
> >
> >You might want to hold on before deciding... First of all
you
>need to know
> >if FAR 91.205 etc. is specifically speaking to amateur built
>aircraft or to
> >certified aircraft.
> >
> >In Canada the regs have a general statement for amateur
built
>aircraft that
> >says basically, you can do what you want with the
>manufacturer's blessing,
> >BUT you may be required to prove/demonstrate that what
you do
>meets the
> >INTENT of the certified aircraft rules.
> >
> >For example, my building inspector said that if I desired to
>use welding
> >cable in place of AWG cable for the battery cable runs, then
>I'd better try
> >burning some with a torch, remove the flame, and prove
that the
>insulation
> >won't support combustion - which is basically the
requirement
>for aviation
> >'certified' wiring.
> >
> >You might be able to install something simpler - how
about the
>'good ole'
> >float/wire-sticking-up-through-the-fuel-cap...?
> >
> >But first you need to know exactly what the regs are.
> >
> >On the other hand, de-rivetting the le skins isn't THAT
big a
>deal - ask me
> >how I know!!!
> >
> >Grant Corriveau
> >Montreal, Canada
> >gfcorriv(at)total.net
> >Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frank_hinde(at)hp.com |
A lot of this is personal preference but I for one hate the idea of having fuel
over my lap.
Note last year of the terrible accident when a hard landing doused an instructor
and student with fuel that caught fire.
Not for me thankyou.
Having said that the header tank does have advantages, assuming your LE tanks
are topping off the header, you can pump your wing tanks dry, no need for a
reserve and the sight guage (if you can make it so that you can see all the fuel
usage, not just the top half of the tank) is the most accurate way to see where
you are on fuel.
I find the LE tanks only is a little short on fuel, about 2.5 hours of cruise
safely assuming a climb to about 10,000ft.
The additional header tank will help but if you use a heavy engine (Stratus) you
will be hitting the forward W&B limit, even with the battery at the rear of the
parcel shelf, with wing tanks only mine is behind the pilots seat and I'm one
inch behind the forward limit worst case.
If you pump directly from the wing tanks to the engine you cannot risk pumping
a
tank dry. So pumping this way is not a good idea IMHO.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Rosales [mailto:ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx]
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 9:33 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
Hi listers:
After reading your responses I finally decided to use fuel
gauges for the
leading edge tanks. I think safety and regulations are the main
issues here.
But another question came: I'm planning to use the wing tanks to
feed the
small 8 gal header tank and someone commented that it would be
a
problem if
it gets overfilled.
Do you think is safer not having a fuselage tank and feed the
engine
directly from the wing tanks?
I'm willing to exchange airplane endurance for improved safety.
I plan to
use either the Subaru EA81 or the CAM100. Is anyone flying with
three tanks
having problems?
Thanks everyone for the input.
Ivan Rosales
Building 601HD
Mexico City.
ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LEO CORBALIS" <l.corbalis(at)worldnet.att.net> |
I don't see the need for an AOA indicator. Just maintain 90 on downwind an
base and slow to 80 after wings level on final. If you go below 70 you will
sink like a rock without any buffet. At 70 you will have to make a perfect
roundout to avoid spiking it into the runway. 145 hrs in my 601HDS TD. 4000
USAF. I learned in a J-3 Cub where you can't see the IAS because the
instructor is in the front. Solo in back only. Learn to listen to the wind,
pull your left earphone half off. Do some power off stalls to get started
then listen to your plane whisper to you what is happening. An AOA stuck up
in the edge of your line of sight would be valuable in an F-14 or a 747 as
it supplements the IAS.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
I never really liked the idea of fuel in my lap either, but there is one
point that keeps coming back to me that finally made me decide to put in the
center fuselage / header tank. If my LE tanks are low on fuel and I bank the
plane, there is a chance that instead of pumping fuel, I'll pump air from
the tank. Just not worth the risk.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ivan Rosales" <ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 10:33 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
> Hi listers:
> After reading your responses I finally decided to use fuel gauges for the
> leading edge tanks. I think safety and regulations are the main issues
here.
> But another question came: I'm planning to use the wing tanks to feed the
> small 8 gal header tank and someone commented that it would be a problem
if
> it gets overfilled.
> Do you think is safer not having a fuselage tank and feed the engine
> directly from the wing tanks?
> I'm willing to exchange airplane endurance for improved safety. I plan to
> use either the Subaru EA81 or the CAM100. Is anyone flying with three
tanks
> having problems?
> Thanks everyone for the input.
> Ivan Rosales
> Building 601HD
> Mexico City.
> ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frank_hinde(at)hp.com |
In real life I honestly don't think this is a problem, there are a huge number
of plane designs that use wing tanks only and if you think about it turns should
be coordinated and thus fuel should stay where it is.
If you don't coordinate the turn and you slip then yes this could happen but I
have never seen it in 100 hours.
In my plane I have a pump next to the outlet on each tank so even if a pump
became airlocked the other could be switched on (assuming I was only running
from one tank) quickly. When setting up for landing I always run both pumps in
any case.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Honabach [mailto:don(at)pcperfect.com]
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 11:39 AM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
I never really liked the idea of fuel in my lap either, but
there is one
point that keeps coming back to me that finally made me decide
to put in the
center fuselage / header tank. If my LE tanks are low on fuel
and I bank the
plane, there is a chance that instead of pumping fuel, I'll pump
air from
the tank. Just not worth the risk.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ivan Rosales" <ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx>
To: "Lista Zenith"
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 10:33 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
> Hi listers:
> After reading your responses I finally decided to use fuel
gauges for the
> leading edge tanks. I think safety and regulations are the
main issues
here.
> But another question came: I'm planning to use the wing tanks
to feed the
> small 8 gal header tank and someone commented that it would be
a problem
if
> it gets overfilled.
> Do you think is safer not having a fuselage tank and feed the
engine
> directly from the wing tanks?
> I'm willing to exchange airplane endurance for improved
safety. I plan to
> use either the Subaru EA81 or the CAM100. Is anyone flying
with three
tanks
> having problems?
> Thanks everyone for the input.
> Ivan Rosales
> Building 601HD
> Mexico City.
> ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Humphries <paul.humphries1(at)virgin.net> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
frank_hinde(at)hp.com wrote:
>
>
> A lot of this is personal preference but I for one hate the idea of having fuel
> over my lap.
>
> Note last year of the terrible accident when a hard landing doused an instructor
> and student with fuel that caught fire.
>
> Not for me thankyou.
Didn't the WWII aircraft have a rubber or similar tank INSIDE the metal
tank to make them self sealing if punctured by a bullet ?
Surely a similar flexible container inside the metal tank over your lap
would be a good idea to prevent the type of incident that Frank outlines
above. Is such a thing available ?
Paul Humphries,
Stoke-on-Trent,
Staffs.,
UK
(CH701 plans - not yet started)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Melanie @ Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
Instead of installing a fuel sender probe into the tank you always can
install a capacity type of fuel sender in a stand pipe. That would give you
an even more accurate reading than the fuel sender built into the tank - and
you don't have to de-install your LE skins.
Thilo Kind
----- Original Message -----
From: Schemmel, Grant <Schemmel(at)utmc.utc.com>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 11:44 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
> Luckily, I haven't had to try it, since I'm installing the LE
> tanks and the sender units as I build, but wouldn't it be
> possible to reach through the large lightening hole in the
> tip ribs to install the sender in the end of the tank? You'd
> have to cut the hole in the tank, of course, the the material
> is fairly thin. I cut mine with a circle cutter, by hand,
> just by drilling a 1/4" hole, putting the center drill of the
> cutter in it, and turning it several (make that "many") times.
>
> Bill
>
> I certainly wouldn't recommend it! I had my LE tank installation with
> the capacitive senders complete, and suspected a problem with one of the
> senders leaking after doing a pressure/soap bubble test. Went back in
> through that lightening hole, removed the bolts, added sealant, then
> reinstalled them, including saftying the heads. The saftying part was a
> major pain, as you cannot see what you are doing, and can only work with
> one hand. Ever try safety wiring three bolt heads together with just
> one hand? Trust me, it's a real bastich.
>
>
> Grant Schemmel
> Penrose CO.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
Definitely understand that it probably wouldn't happen. For me though, I
have a tendency to bank aggresively (no lectures please) and like to slip
during landing. Knowing this I prefer the header tank. However, I would
probably change my mind if the wing tanks had baffles. Otherwise, I'd always
worry whenever a LE Tank got more than 1/2 empty.
BTW, what's a coordinated turn? Does it have something to do with that silly
level bubble? (Just Kidding :) ).
Don
> If you don't coordinate the turn and you slip then yes this could happen
but I
> have never seen it in 100 hours.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Re: Angle of Attack |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Peter,
That's certainly something to consider. But given that the propflow does
affect the aoa (isn't that why we have different stall speeds with power on
vs. power off?), it might still be useful, as you mention...
Sounds like an interesting project to experiment with..
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
> From: Peter Chapman <pchapman(at)ionsys.com>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:36:30 -0800
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Angle of Attack
>
>
>> I don't think it even has to be installed on a wing. It's a matter of
>> calibrating it so that you get useful readings.
>
> We just have the added complication of having the prop up front, which
> will change the airflow anytime power changes. Might still work, who
> knows.
> Peter Chapman
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
> From: "LEO CORBALIS" <l.corbalis(at)worldnet.att.net>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:00:12 -0800
> To: "Zenith list"
> Subject: Zenith-List: AOA
...
> Learn to listen to the wind,
> pull your left earphone half off. Do some power off stalls to get started
> then listen to your plane whisper to you what is happening. An AOA stuck up
> in the edge of your line of sight would be valuable in an F-14 or a 747 as
> it supplements the IAS.
I agree with Leo on this... on a 'simple' aircraft a 'full up' aoa is of
limited value (even the B747 only uses this info for the flight systems and
it is not generally even displayed for the pilots. Procedures that take all
the variables into account are built into the standard operating procedures
based upon indicated airspeed _ i.e. approach and flap extension speeds are
determined by actual weight of aircraft, etc.)
That said, I would consider installing a stall warning system. Similar to
Leo's comments above, I used to be able to judge my approach speed pretty
well with the C-150 'aural' stall warning. When it would just begin to
'whine' in gusts, I knew I was at the MINIMUM approach speed for the
conditions.
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
> From: frank_hinde(at)hp.com
... When setting up for landing I always run both pumps in
> any case.
>
> Frank
Frank, in this configuration do you have a 'both' selection in your tank
selector that provides fuel from the 'other' tank automatically in case of a
side slip or whatever, uncovering the tank feed?
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Hey Don,
If you're slipping as an altitude-losing maneuver (i.e. a forward slip), you
always have the choice to slip in such a way as to keep the fuel sloshed
towards the inner end of the tank.
Also, I'd like to actually calculate the angle of bank that would be
required with say 30 minutes of fuel left in a tank, before the outlet would
be 'uncovered'... and compare that to actual angles used during slipping.
Have you figured this out?
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
> From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:55:05 -0700
> To:
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
>
> Definitely understand that it probably wouldn't happen. For me though, I
> have a tendency to bank aggresively (no lectures please) and like to slip
> during landing. Knowing this I prefer the header tank. However, I would
> probably change my mind if the wing tanks had baffles. Otherwise, I'd always
> worry whenever a LE Tank got more than 1/2 empty.
>
> BTW, what's a coordinated turn? Does it have something to do with that silly
> level bubble? (Just Kidding :) ).
>
> Don
>
>
>> If you don't coordinate the turn and you slip then yes this could happen
> but I
>> have never seen it in 100 hours.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
> From: frank_hinde(at)hp.com
...
> I find the LE tanks only is a little short on fuel, about 2.5 hours of cruise
> safely assuming a climb to about 10,000ft.
Frank,
How many gallons do you have altogether? I thought the tanks were rated at
about 11 usg each? Is this a little 'optimistic'?
With most reports I can find for the CAM100 indicating about 4 usg/hour
consumption average I was counting on 4 hours of flight with a one hour
reserve. This doesn't sound like what you're actually getting.... and I
don't think there's THAT much difference between the fuel consumption
figures with the soob... should I replan my estimates?
I was talking to Nick Heinz about possible tank extensions in the baggage
locker and he suggested 'why not just carry a jerry can and top up at your
enroute stop' ... a simplicity of logic I couldn't argue with.
My 'mission requirement' is for 2 hours 'outbound' and 2 hours home without
refueling. So with a jerry can of gas to be added at the outbound point, I
could stretch that easily...without having to add lines, valves, pumps etc..
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Ivan,
As I see it, the 'Fuselage-tank-ONLY' system has simplicity as it's major
advantage. However, unless your engine has a very low-positioned carb and
can gravity feed, some sort of pump is still required.
The disadvantage of course is the reduced behind the panel space and the
fact that you're sitting with a can of gas on your lap.
Once you add wing tanks to the system, you're compromising the 'simplicity'
factor. As I recall, the original fuselage tank was 16 gallons, and the wing
tanks were just 'add-ons' that held about 8 gallons. So if you waited until
the main tank was half-empty (or half-full if you are an optimist...?) then
you could switch on a transfer pump to move that extra fuel into the main
system. In this setup no extra fuel gauges are required because once it's
loaded into the main tank, you now have a visual guage. If there's any
problem transferring - well you should still have 8 gallons in the main -
plenty to find an enroute landing site. A LITTLE more complex - but worth it
if you need more range.
But, once you reduce the main 16 gallon tank to an 8 gallon 'header' tank -
(BUT you DON'T have a gravity feed system to the engine anyways - so it's
NOT really a 'header' tank), now I think you only have the 'worst' of each
system. So rather than bother with an 8 gallon fuselage tank, I've just
decided to go to an 'all wings' system. And since the leading edge tank
system has been developed, so that we don't have to give up the locker
space, I think it's an excellent choice.
That's my reasoning, anyways.
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
> From: "Ivan Rosales" <ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:33:22 -0600
> To: "Lista Zenith"
> Subject: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
>
>
> Hi listers:
> After reading your responses I finally decided to use fuel gauges for the
> leading edge tanks. I think safety and regulations are the main issues here.
> But another question came: I'm planning to use the wing tanks to feed the
> small 8 gal header tank and someone commented that it would be a problem if
> it gets overfilled.
> Do you think is safer not having a fuselage tank and feed the engine
> directly from the wing tanks?
> I'm willing to exchange airplane endurance for improved safety. I plan to
> use either the Subaru EA81 or the CAM100. Is anyone flying with three tanks
> having problems?
> Thanks everyone for the input.
> Ivan Rosales
> Building 601HD
> Mexico City.
> ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
Grant,
Being a low-time pilot, having one less thing to worry about appeals to me.
It would be rather neat to have a 1/2 gallon bubble (not for real, just
visual concept) placed just before the engine inlets that would magically
filter air away, but store approx. a 1/2 gallon of fuel. That way any
banking for less than a couple of minutes wouldn't affect the engine.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grant Corriveau" <gfcorriv(at)total.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
> Hey Don,
>
> If you're slipping as an altitude-losing maneuver (i.e. a forward slip),
you
> always have the choice to slip in such a way as to keep the fuel sloshed
> towards the inner end of the tank.
>
> Also, I'd like to actually calculate the angle of bank that would be
> required with say 30 minutes of fuel left in a tank, before the outlet
would
> be 'uncovered'... and compare that to actual angles used during slipping.
>
> Have you figured this out?
>
> Grant Corriveau
> Montreal, Canada
> gfcorriv(at)total.net
> Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
>
>
> > From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
> > Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> > Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:55:05 -0700
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
> >
> >
> > Definitely understand that it probably wouldn't happen. For me though, I
> > have a tendency to bank aggresively (no lectures please) and like to
slip
> > during landing. Knowing this I prefer the header tank. However, I would
> > probably change my mind if the wing tanks had baffles. Otherwise, I'd
always
> > worry whenever a LE Tank got more than 1/2 empty.
> >
> > BTW, what's a coordinated turn? Does it have something to do with that
silly
> > level bubble? (Just Kidding :) ).
> >
> > Don
> >
> >
> >> If you don't coordinate the turn and you slip then yes this could
happen
> > but I
> >> have never seen it in 100 hours.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Honabach <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
> Grant,
>
> Being a low-time pilot, having one less thing to worry about appeals to
me.
>
> It would be rather neat to have a 1/2 gallon bubble (not for real, just
> visual concept) placed just before the engine inlets that would magically
> filter air away, but store approx. a 1/2 gallon of fuel. That way any
> banking for less than a couple of minutes wouldn't affect the engine.
>
> Don
Don:
I think your idea has potential. What would be wrong with a 1 quart
gascolator, centered near the engine side of the firewall? Does a
gascolator know how much it holds?
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing 701/plans, riveting third nose skin on right wing tonight.
That's why we do such good work, we do everything three times!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
Randy,
You've sparked my interest in possibly forgetting about the fuselage header
tank for my LE Tank installation. Does a normal gascolator remove air
pockets from the fuel stream? If so, then a larger unit could give an extra
margin of safety for extended banked turns. The only reason I wanted the
smaller header tank was to ensure that air pockets weren't being feed to the
engine.
This would be great if it would work. Weight & Balance would be better with
the heavier Subaru engine. Overall plane weight would be reduced by
elimanating all the header tank and all the extra plumbing. Wouldn't have
fuel in my lap. Wow! Makes me want to make this work at all costs.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Honabach <don(at)pcperfect.com>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 8:37 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
>
> >
> > Grant,
> >
> > Being a low-time pilot, having one less thing to worry about appeals to
> me.
> >
> > It would be rather neat to have a 1/2 gallon bubble (not for real, just
> > visual concept) placed just before the engine inlets that would
magically
> > filter air away, but store approx. a 1/2 gallon of fuel. That way any
> > banking for less than a couple of minutes wouldn't affect the engine.
> >
> > Don
>
> Don:
> I think your idea has potential. What would be wrong with a 1 quart
> gascolator, centered near the engine side of the firewall? Does a
> gascolator know how much it holds?
> Regards,
> Randy L. Thwing 701/plans, riveting third nose skin on right wing tonight.
> That's why we do such good work, we do everything three times!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Don,
I agree - that'd be ideal.... I guess there's not much way to retro-fit a
baffle into these tanks, is there..
Grant
> From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:37:35 -0700
> To:
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
>
> Grant,
>
> Being a low-time pilot, having one less thing to worry about appeals to me.
>
> It would be rather neat to have a 1/2 gallon bubble (not for real, just
> visual concept) placed just before the engine inlets that would magically
> filter air away, but store approx. a 1/2 gallon of fuel. That way any
> banking for less than a couple of minutes wouldn't affect the engine.
>
> Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
Don:
I don't think gascolators remove air, nor does air accumulate in header
tanks. I would guess that the slight fuel pressure of gravity alone or
suction of pumps causes fuel to displace any air and sends it on through the
fuel system. Consider you fly along and and run your left wing tank dry in
a low wing ship, the engine stuttering shakes you awake real quick (not that
it ever happened to me, over Hanksville, Utah, last Thanksgiving!) you lower
the nose and finally your feeble brain reminds you that engines require fuel
to run, so you reach down and switch your fuel selector to the right tank,
the engine fires immediately (whew!) and your wife is looking at you kid of
funny, I can't imagine why? At the moment the engine starved, isn't the
route from the empty left tank all air? From the tank through the selector
valve, to the fuel pump to the Carb or F.I., to the cylinders? When you
switch to the right tank, fuel floods through the system and everything
works again, nothing seems to be airlocked.
I'm sure other listers can explain the actual mechanics better, but I
don't think it is a problem.
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing, 701/plans
>
> Randy,
>
> You've sparked my interest in possibly forgetting about the fuselage
header
> tank for my LE Tank installation. Does a normal gascolator remove air
> pockets from the fuel stream? If so, then a larger unit could give an
extra
> margin of safety for extended banked turns. The only reason I wanted the
> smaller header tank was to ensure that air pockets weren't being feed to
the
> engine.
>
> This would be great if it would work. Weight & Balance would be better
with
> the heavier Subaru engine. Overall plane weight would be reduced by
> elimanating all the header tank and all the extra plumbing. Wouldn't have
> fuel in my lap. Wow! Makes me want to make this work at all costs.
>
> Don
> > Don:
> > I think your idea has potential. What would be wrong with a 1 quart
> > gascolator, centered near the engine side of the firewall? Does a
> > gascolator know how much it holds?
> > Regards,
> > Randy L. Thwing 701/plans, riveting third nose skin on right wing
tonight.
> > That's why we do such good work, we do everything three times!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
On the lighter side, I forgot to add one important reason for having a
header tank. All my neighbors want me to give their children rides up and
down the street. However, the street is too narrow for wings so I was
planning on doing this without the outboard wings attached. No outboard
wings, no fuel though... urgg..
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grant Corriveau" <gfcorriv(at)total.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
> Don,
>
> I agree - that'd be ideal.... I guess there's not much way to retro-fit a
> baffle into these tanks, is there..
>
> Grant
>
> > From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
> > Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> > Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:37:35 -0700
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
> >
> >
> > Grant,
> >
> > Being a low-time pilot, having one less thing to worry about appeals to
me.
> >
> > It would be rather neat to have a 1/2 gallon bubble (not for real, just
> > visual concept) placed just before the engine inlets that would
magically
> > filter air away, but store approx. a 1/2 gallon of fuel. That way any
> > banking for less than a couple of minutes wouldn't affect the engine.
> >
> > Don
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuse blocks and breakers |
>
>
>>
>> >
>
>
>+++ Thank you Bob. I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I just got
>home and am tired, so I won't ask anything tonight, but I wanted to
>acknowledge your reply and thank you. I had also sent you another note
>directly to you, not posted to the e-mail group. I do want to buy some
>things from you as soon as I can clarify what the list is.
>
>Thanks again.
>
>Fred Hulen
>
My pleasure sir . . .
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( The only time you don't fail is the last )
( time you try something, and it works. )
( One fails forward toward success. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net> |
| Subject: | 701 wing nose skin |
Randy,
I had fairly good success on my 701 nose skin. I'll try to explain it
to you.
1.Top and bottom skins riveted on.
2.Wing right side up with support under rear channel to keep rear strut
attach from touching table.
3.A 12 foot 1x4 is screwed to the edge of the table under the nose ribs.
4. about 3 inches of the rear part of the nose ribs are on the 1x4 and
the rest of the nose rib is off the table.
5.I built a 2 foot platform 12 feet long about 2" below the nose ribs,
actually I clamped some 3' 1x4's to the support under the side of the
table and laid three 12' pieces of plastic pipe on them.
6. roll out the nose skin on the platform (it keeps you from kinking the
skin) and cut the slots for the slat mounts.
7.position the nose skin under the spar and drill thru the rear of the
nose ribs and cleco into the 1x4 screwed to the table (can only get
about 3 holes per rib into the 1x4). Start at the center ribs and work
outward, drilling one hole per rib then go back and drill the second
hole per rib and so on. Cleco the holes not in the 1x4 from the
outside. The clecos in the 1x4 will hold the wing in place while you
bend the skin around the nose ribs.
8.Figure out exactly where the holes in the top of the nose skin to the
spar will go.
9.Using nylon straps around the table and wing carefully wrap the skin
around the nose ribs, don't worry about how close it is to the front of
the ribs at this time.
10.With the top edge of the skin within 1 or two inches above the spar,
take another 12 foot 1x4 and drill #40 pilot holes for the spar thru the
skin into the 1x4 about 3/4" from the edge and cleco the hole line of
holes to the 1x4. The 1x4 should have four 1/4" holes spaced about 3'
apart with strong nylon cord loops through them.
11.With more nylon straps hooked to the nylon cords you can provide an
even pull on the nose skin to get a tight fit to the ribs.
Progressively drill the front of each rib about 2 or 3 holes which will
hold the skin in place so you can remove the 12 foot 1x4 and drill the
remaining holes including the spar through the #40 pilot holes.
12.Take the top of the nose skin off, use the straps to hold it while
removing clecos, so you can get to remove the clecos that are into the
table. and then put the nose skin back on. You will have to screw some
blocks to the table under the trailing edge and blocks on top of these
to keep the wing from moving back when you restrap the nose skin to put
the
clecos back into the top of the ribs and spar.
13. Put clecos on the outside of the bottom ribs and turn the wing over
and drill the holes in the skin to the bottom of the spar. If you have
any bulges in the skin at the spar (I did), Drill mid way between the
ribs, cleco and the midway between the clecos and by continually
splitting the distance between holes all of the bulges will disappear.
14.The use of the 1x4 to pull the skin is the main thought here.
Chuck D.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 701 wing nose skin |
----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 9:19 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: 701 wing nose skin
>
> Randy,
> I had fairly good success on my 701 nose skin. I'll try to explain it
> to you.
Chuck:
Thanks for the help, my left wing is finished, I'm on my third nose skin
on this wing because:
1. On the first nose skin, I followed the plans regarding placement of the
slat bracket slots, the PLANS ARE WRONG, the slots are in the wrong place so
I scrapped the skin and made a new one with measurements off the ribs
themselves. If anyone is interested in the plans error, let me know and I
will try to describe my findings.
2. I had the second skin almost finished and strapped up, I was working
alone, and just lost control of the sheet and buckled the nose skin. I take
full responsibility for that one.
3. Tonight I just finished clecoing the third skin, success at last. I
actually use most of your procedure, but your trick of using a full length 1
x 4 is a neat.
Your entire posting will be a valuable article in the archives for future
builders. I intend to build another set of wings in the future with several
small improvements regarding oil-canning prevention, larger tanks etc.
Thanks again,
Randy L. Thwing, 701/plans The beauty of plans building is that when you
foul something up you don't call the factory, you just roll out more metal
and do it again!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Edflying(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith-List Digest: 22 Msgs - 03/31/00 |
Re the aoa gauge just do not forget that as you bank you stall speed goes up
and you have to know at what speed do you stall at 20 or 30 or 60 degrees of
bank that is where the aoa gauge is your savior hence the name of one such
gauge the Bacon Saver. ther have been a number of write ups in the magazines
about these aoa gauges and how they work so you can read and understand how
they work. Then judge for yourself if you want to install them. Eddy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
Hi Don,
not quite right. I have LE tanks only, so the problem that I was facing was
as following: tanks are in the wings; wings are stored in shelfs in my
garage. Engine is mounted to the fuselage. So, how does one conduct an
engine test run (and drive a little bit around...). Solution: I still have
the header tank (8 gal) laying around. So I built a bracket made from 2x4's
and mounted it to the right side of the centerwing. Installed the header
tank on the bracket, hooked it up with a fuel hose to the pump in the outer
bay of the centerwing and - voila - was able to drive around (although it
looks kind of strange....).
Thilo Kind
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> Don Honabach
> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 8:26 PM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
>
> On the lighter side, I forgot to add one important reason for having a
> header tank. All my neighbors want me to give their children
> rides up and
> down the street. However, the street is too narrow for wings so I was
> planning on doing this without the outboard wings attached.
> No outboard
> wings, no fuel though... urgg..
>
> Don
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Grant Corriveau" <gfcorriv(at)total.net>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 4:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
>
>
> >
> > Don,
> >
> > I agree - that'd be ideal.... I guess there's not much way
> to retro-fit a
> > baffle into these tanks, is there..
> >
> > Grant
> >
> > > From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
> > > Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> > > Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:37:35 -0700
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
> > >
>
> > >
> > > Grant,
> > >
> > > Being a low-time pilot, having one less thing to worry
> about appeals to
> me.
> > >
> > > It would be rather neat to have a 1/2 gallon bubble (not
> for real, just
> > > visual concept) placed just before the engine inlets that would
> magically
> > > filter air away, but store approx. a 1/2 gallon of fuel.
> That way any
> > > banking for less than a couple of minutes wouldn't affect
> the engine.
> > >
> > > Don
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger & Mary" <rkmk(at)erols.com> |
In order to connecte the cabin heat control cable to the arm on the
butterfly valve, the
control cable must have a large radius bend. This makes it very difficult to
operate.
I am using a 912 and the ZAC package.
How have you done this?????
Thanks,
Roger Kilby
N98RK - 601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 701 wing nose skin |
"Randy L. Thwing" wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net>
> To: zenith-list
> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 9:19 PM
> Subject: Zenith-List: 701 wing nose skin
>
> >
> > Randy,
> > I had fairly good success on my 701 nose skin. I'll try to explain it
> > to you.
>
> Chuck:
> Thanks for the help, my left wing is finished, I'm on my third nose skin
> on this wing because:
> 1. On the first nose skin, I followed the plans regarding placement of the
> slat bracket slots, the PLANS ARE WRONG, the slots are in the wrong place so
Randy,
I have found several differences in the plans and reality also. I have
finally figured out if several parts go together, do a fit check before
cutting or drilling, the flaperon arms, brackets, slat slots and mounts
are examples. I made templates of the flaperon profile and checked
movement where I discovered the flaperon arms were not exactly right, so
I'll keep on checking everything else too.
Another thing, I found a way to locate a hole in the skin over a rib or
spar etc. as follows:
Mount a laser pointer on a stand (I use a 4 foot 2x2 and clamp it to a
step ladder) and point it at the hole location in the rib trying to keep
the beam perpendicular to the drilling surface to avoid parallax. (I
modified mine with some wires and a switch so I could turn it off and on
with out moving it.) Put the skin on and mark where the lighted spot.
When drilling the hole in the fuselage for the flaperon hinge pin I will
shine the laser through all the hinge holes in the flaperon arms.
I'm sure there are many more areas where the laser can help alignments.
Chuck D.,
701 tail done, right wing almost done.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | vraned1(at)ix.netcom.com |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
Paul,
That aircraft that landed hard hit at 15g. The tanks in the Zenairs, like commerical
aircraft are
designed for 9g. The aircraft hit that hard because a wing locker came open, and
at lower speeds
acts as a spoiler. If they would have done a controllability test in the air they
would have
discovered that a higher than normal touchdown speed was required. Don't let that
accident
diswayed you from a fuselage tank. They have been used in aircraft for 70 years.
Randy Vranish
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
| From: | Jim <jashford(at)hawaii.rr.com> |
Roger,
I located my heater outlet at the lower right corner of the firewall and the
knob for butterfly valve control cable on the right side of my instrument
panel. There is no significant resistance in operation. I removed the
control cable from the casing and gave the casing a shot of LPS 2 for
lubrication prior to installation.
Jim Ashford
912 HDS
N 601Q
> From: "Roger & Mary" <rkmk(at)erols.com>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 11:04:14 -0400
> To:
> Subject: Zenith-List: cabin heat
>
>
> In order to connecte the cabin heat control cable to the arm on the
> butterfly valve, the
> control cable must have a large radius bend. This makes it very difficult to
> operate.
> I am using a 912 and the ZAC package.
> How have you done this?????
>
> Thanks,
>
> Roger Kilby
> N98RK - 601HDS
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Edflying(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith-List Digest: 18 Msgs - 04/01/00 |
Hi there listers for some information on fuel systems go to
www.ellison-fluid-systems.com a wealth of information is to be had here. On
the subject of angle of attack go to www.riteangle.com and read this
information. these should clear up some of the guess work for anybody who is
not sure of some of the facts also on each of these site many links can be
followed to similar sites Eddy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Lazear <TomLazear(at)netscape.net> |
Hi, Builder's
I started my 912 for the first time today, started right up, a little rough at
1700 RPM, but from 2000 RPM and above it was smooth and no vibration.
I had set the prop pitch at 13 1/2 degree's, Stattic RPM was 5200, the book
says I should have 5300 RPM at stattic. In every one opinion will I have a
hard time fine tunning the pitch to get that additional 100 RPM?
All so is there any avice on installing the cowlling on a 701. I got the two
piece fiber glass kit from Zenair. But I have noticed that I only have about 1
3/4 inch clearence between the radiator and the prop.
Any advice or comments would be appreciated.
Tom CH 701
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
Hi folks,
for those of you that are going to Sun's Fun next week: how about we meet
every day 3:00 pm at the Zenithair tent. In the mornings people attend the
workshops, so I think 3:00 pm is a good time. Also, if you have one, wear
one of the Zenith caps (I believe Steve Freeman manufactures them).
Hope to see many of you down there.
Thilo Kind
leaving Friday for Florida. Will be on Sun'n Fun Sunday and Monday....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michel" <michelboucher594(at)home.com> |
My brother is finishing a CH 300. We found an Lycoming O-320-H2AD engine for
it but the engine mount is for a standard Dynafocal Lycoming. Is it
modifiable or do we look for a different engine mount for it?
Michel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
After reading several days of concerns about using the wing tanks and running
out of fuel in a turn or a slip I must make a comment. This whole discussion
seems predicated on the fact that wing tanks are a new idea, not at all. I have
flown a Grumman Cheetah for 10 years it has two wing tanks and a right/left
fuel selector. This aircraft can be slipped both with and without flaps. I have
done both on approaches to landings and HAVE NEVER HAD A FUEL FLOW PROBLEM. Of
course if the pilot insists on flying on empty there is always a chance of fuel
starvation.
Tim Shankland
Thilo Kind wrote:
>
> Hi Don,
>
> not quite right. I have LE tanks only, so the problem that I was facing was
> as following: tanks are in the wings; wings are stored in shelfs in my
> garage. Engine is mounted to the fuselage. So, how does one conduct an
> engine test run (and drive a little bit around...). Solution: I still have
> the header tank (8 gal) laying around. So I built a bracket made from 2x4's
> and mounted it to the right side of the centerwing. Installed the header
> tank on the bracket, hooked it up with a fuel hose to the pump in the outer
> bay of the centerwing and - voila - was able to drive around (although it
> looks kind of strange....).
>
> Thilo Kind
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> > Don Honabach
> > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 8:26 PM
> > To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
> >
> >
> >
> > On the lighter side, I forgot to add one important reason for having a
> > header tank. All my neighbors want me to give their children
> > rides up and
> > down the street. However, the street is too narrow for wings so I was
> > planning on doing this without the outboard wings attached.
> > No outboard
> > wings, no fuel though... urgg..
> >
> > Don
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Grant Corriveau" <gfcorriv(at)total.net>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 4:29 PM
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Don,
> > >
> > > I agree - that'd be ideal.... I guess there's not much way
> > to retro-fit a
> > > baffle into these tanks, is there..
> > >
> > > Grant
> > >
> > > > From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
> > > > Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> > > > Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:37:35 -0700
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Grant,
> > > >
> > > > Being a low-time pilot, having one less thing to worry
> > about appeals to
> > me.
> > > >
> > > > It would be rather neat to have a 1/2 gallon bubble (not
> > for real, just
> > > > visual concept) placed just before the engine inlets that would
> > magically
> > > > filter air away, but store approx. a 1/2 gallon of fuel.
> > That way any
> > > > banking for less than a couple of minutes wouldn't affect
> > the engine.
> > > >
> > > > Don
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
| Subject: | Re: Started Engine |
| From: | Jim <jashford(at)hawaii.rr.com> |
Tom,
Congratulations on reaching a new milestone. I don't think it is worth the
effort to pitch your prop to get exactly 5300 RPM. On my first run, I only
got about 5150, and I left it there. On my first takeoff, I got 5700. In 20
hours of flight, the engine has run in a bit and I get slightly over 5800 on
takeoff.
Jim Ashford
912 601 HDS
N 601Q
> From: John Lazear <TomLazear(at)netscape.net>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: 2 Apr 00 17:24:53 PDT
> To:
> Subject: Zenith-List: Started Engine
>
>
> Hi, Builder's
>
> I started my 912 for the first time today, started right up, a little rough at
> 1700 RPM, but from 2000 RPM and above it was smooth and no vibration.
>
> I had set the prop pitch at 13 1/2 degree's, Stattic RPM was 5200, the book
> says I should have 5300 RPM at stattic. In every one opinion will I have a
> hard time fine tunning the pitch to get that additional 100 RPM?
>
> All so is there any avice on installing the cowlling on a 701. I got the two
> piece fiber glass kit from Zenair. But I have noticed that I only have about
1
> 3/4 inch clearence between the radiator and the prop.
>
> Any advice or comments would be appreciated.
>
>
> Tom CH 701
>
> Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
> http://webmail.netscape.com.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Llewellyn" <llewellyn(at)tinet.ie> |
| Subject: | Re: 701 wing nose skin |
Chuck
I am building a 701 from scratch here in Ireland. I have tail done and have
cut up most of the large sheets apart from .016. I hope to be starting the
Fuselage soon and would be very interested in any plan discrepancies you
have noted.
Regards
Ralph Llewellyn
llewellyn(at)tinet.ie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kilby, Roger" <Roger.Kilby(at)DynCorp.com> |
Grant,
As promised, I measured my VDO tach. As it is already installed I could only
measure the face of
the instrument. (It has a lip around it that sits against the panel). It
measured 87mm. Before I cut any
hole in my panel, I used a scrap piece of sheet metal and made a cut to
confirm that my fly cutter was set to
the right specs. Actually, I usually made several cuts. For me this worked
very well.
I got the cutter from A/C Spruce and latter saw the same item in my local
Home Depot.
I hope this helps.
Roger Kilby
N98RK - 601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kilby, Roger" <Roger.Kilby(at)DynCorp.com> |
I am using the 16 gallon header tank only. The shutoff valve is part of the
nipple on the bottom
of the tank and moves up & down with the open position being up. (Parallel
to the center of the aircraft
and facing the pilot). This valve is too far forward to reach easily by
hand.
What kind of alternate fuel shutoff is being used?
Thanks,
Roger Kilby
N98RK - 601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Hey Don,
I had that same thought -- even for initial engine runups in the driveway.
And when it comes time to move the aircraft to the little airport near hear,
I'd been hoping to be able to 'drive' it up the road (with an appropriate
escort). I'm thinking of someway to plumb in a temporary 'test' tank. Maybe
that's another good case for those 'bayonet' quick-release valves between my
pumps and the wing tanks...
Grant
> From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 18:25:47 -0700
> To:
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
>
> On the lighter side, I forgot to add one important reason for having a
> header tank. All my neighbors want me to give their children rides up and
> down the street. However, the street is too narrow for wings so I was
> planning on doing this without the outboard wings attached. No outboard
> wings, no fuel though... urgg..
>
> Don
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Grant Corriveau" <gfcorriv(at)total.net>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 4:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
>
>>
>> Don,
>>
>> I agree - that'd be ideal.... I guess there's not much way to retro-fit a
>> baffle into these tanks, is there..
>>
>> Grant
>>
>>> From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
>>> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:37:35 -0700
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>>>
>>>
>>> Grant,
>>>
>>> Being a low-time pilot, having one less thing to worry about appeals to
> me.
>>>
>>> It would be rather neat to have a 1/2 gallon bubble (not for real, just
>>> visual concept) placed just before the engine inlets that would
> magically
>>> filter air away, but store approx. a 1/2 gallon of fuel. That way any
>>> banking for less than a couple of minutes wouldn't affect the engine.
>>>
>>> Don
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen_Worstell(at)notes.seagate.com |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
> I think that with careful flight planning you don't need the
fuel gauges for the wing tanks and only the visor in the front tank will
provide a safe margin in case I forget to fill the tanks in the wings.
Am I missing something?
I think you might be missing the fact that a fuel gauge is required for
each tank, according to
the FARs, although in practice you might be able to get away without them.
cheers,
g.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
Tim,
Before I purchased the Zodiac 601HDS, I owned a Cherokee PA180 (low wing)
wing tanks only airplane. I also didn't have any issues or even concerns
about slipping on landing, etc. However, I also assumed (whether founded or
not) that the designers had something in their system to ensure that fuel
would be available during brief un-coordinated maneuvers.
After all the back and forth on these messages, not one person has said,
"don't worry about it, part x will keep fuel in the line during ...". As
such, I'm seriously worried that I could have an engine failure during
landing or take off. Also, after looking at how the shape of the LE Tank
(601HDS), it initially appears that if you have approx. 1/4 fuel that a
moderate bank turn could cause fuel issues.
Not trying to Mr. Super Retentive here, just want to take a logical approach
to produce a safer airplane in which my life will depend.
Don
> After reading several days of concerns about using the wing tanks and
running
> out of fuel in a turn or a slip I must make a comment. This whole
discussion
> seems predicated on the fact that wing tanks are a new idea, not at all. I
have
> flown a Grumman Cheetah for 10 years it has two wing tanks and a
right/left
> fuel selector. This aircraft can be slipped both with and without flaps. I
have
> done both on approaches to landings and HAVE NEVER HAD A FUEL FLOW
PROBLEM. Of
> course if the pilot insists on flying on empty there is always a chance of
fuel
> starvation.
>
> Tim Shankland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frank_hinde(at)hp.com |
I don't have a selector valve, I just switch the pumps and have a check valve at
the discharge of each pump. If one got uncovered it would stop pumping because
the pump is nowhere near as good at pumping air as the other one will be fuel.
In real life the power is pulled back and if that happened and you did lose fuel
pressure the engine will pick up if the fuel is restored before the engine dies.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Corriveau [mailto:gfcorriv(at)total.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 7:40 AM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
> From: frank_hinde(at)hp.com
... When setting up for landing I always run both pumps in
> any case.
>
> Frank
Frank, in this configuration do you have a 'both' selection in
your tank
selector that provides fuel from the 'other' tank automatically
in case of a
side slip or whatever, uncovering the tank feed?
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)presys.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel shutoff |
I have seen installations which use a piece of strait tubing slotted and
pined over the fuel valve handle, extending back to the panel with a handle
there to operate the valve from the handle on the panel
Richard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frank_hinde(at)hp.com |
I flight plan on 5 GPH. I and one other both get 4.8 gallons per hour in cruise.
I carry the Jerry can as well but there a few big hills around here that
require a climb to 9500 feet. That very act alone costs you three gallons
roughly.
If you land and have to get back up there the benefit if the 5 gallons you carry
largly goes away.
The removable tank idea Is also pretty simple but is something to do after you
get it flying but if I were doing it again I would at least add the hose
connection to the LE tank before buttoning up the wings...You don't have to use
it after all.
In theory it will contravene the FAA regs but would certainly NOT add a fuel
guage to it. Then its just a pump and a switch.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Corriveau [mailto:gfcorriv(at)total.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 7:40 AM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
> From: frank_hinde(at)hp.com
...
> I find the LE tanks only is a little short on fuel, about 2.5
hours of cruise
> safely assuming a climb to about 10,000ft.
Frank,
How many gallons do you have altogether? I thought the tanks
were rated at
about 11 usg each? Is this a little 'optimistic'?
With most reports I can find for the CAM100 indicating about 4
usg/hour
consumption average I was counting on 4 hours of flight with a
one hour
reserve. This doesn't sound like what you're actually
getting.... and I
don't think there's THAT much difference between the fuel
consumption
figures with the soob... should I replan my estimates?
I was talking to Nick Heinz about possible tank extensions in
the baggage
locker and he suggested 'why not just carry a jerry can and top
up at your
enroute stop' ... a simplicity of logic I couldn't argue with.
My 'mission requirement' is for 2 hours 'outbound' and 2 hours
home without
refueling. So with a jerry can of gas to be added at the
outbound point, I
could stretch that easily...without having to add lines, valves,
pumps etc..
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frank_hinde(at)hp.com |
Even if airpockets are fed the engine the output from the pumps is way more than
the engine will burn.
I did a tie down test at the W/E and ran at full Stratus power and shut down
both fuel pumps. When the engine sputtered I switched on one fuel pump.
The engine fired straight back up before the prop stopped turning.
Real life shows that banking really is not a problem.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Honabach [mailto:don(at)pcperfect.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 2:57 PM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
Randy,
You've sparked my interest in possibly forgetting about the
fuselage header
tank for my LE Tank installation. Does a normal gascolator
remove air
pockets from the fuel stream? If so, then a larger unit could
give an extra
margin of safety for extended banked turns. The only reason I
wanted the
smaller header tank was to ensure that air pockets weren't being
feed to the
engine.
This would be great if it would work. Weight & Balance would be
better with
the heavier Subaru engine. Overall plane weight would be reduced
by
elimanating all the header tank and all the extra plumbing.
Wouldn't have
fuel in my lap. Wow! Makes me want to make this work at all
costs.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com>
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Honabach <don(at)pcperfect.com>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 8:37 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
>
> >
> > Grant,
> >
> > Being a low-time pilot, having one less thing to worry about
appeals to
> me.
> >
> > It would be rather neat to have a 1/2 gallon bubble (not for
real, just
> > visual concept) placed just before the engine inlets that
would
magically
> > filter air away, but store approx. a 1/2 gallon of fuel.
That way any
> > banking for less than a couple of minutes wouldn't affect
the engine.
> >
> > Don
>
> Don:
> I think your idea has potential. What would be wrong with
a 1 quart
> gascolator, centered near the engine side of the firewall?
Does a
> gascolator know how much it holds?
> Regards,
> Randy L. Thwing 701/plans, riveting third nose skin on right
wing tonight.
> That's why we do such good work, we do everything three times!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frank_hinde(at)hp.com |
Yup that's exactly what happens...Not a problem! BUT that's why you should put
your pumps close to the tanks. Expecting a pump to suck through a bunch of air
before it can start pumping fuel is very very risky.
In my humble opinion of course!
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy L. Thwing [mailto:n4546v(at)mindspring.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 4:16 PM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
Don:
I don't think gascolators remove air, nor does air
accumulate in header
tanks. I would guess that the slight fuel pressure of gravity
alone or
suction of pumps causes fuel to displace any air and sends it on
through the
fuel system. Consider you fly along and and run your left wing
tank dry in
a low wing ship, the engine stuttering shakes you awake real
quick (not that
it ever happened to me, over Hanksville, Utah, last
Thanksgiving!) you lower
the nose and finally your feeble brain reminds you that engines
require fuel
to run, so you reach down and switch your fuel selector to the
right tank,
the engine fires immediately (whew!) and your wife is looking at
you kid of
funny, I can't imagine why? At the moment the engine starved,
isn't the
route from the empty left tank all air? From the tank through
the selector
valve, to the fuel pump to the Carb or F.I., to the cylinders?
When you
switch to the right tank, fuel floods through the system and
everything
works again, nothing seems to be airlocked.
I'm sure other listers can explain the actual mechanics
better, but I
don't think it is a problem.
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing, 701/plans
>
> Randy,
>
> You've sparked my interest in possibly forgetting about the
fuselage
header
> tank for my LE Tank installation. Does a normal gascolator
remove air
> pockets from the fuel stream? If so, then a larger unit could
give an
extra
> margin of safety for extended banked turns. The only reason I
wanted the
> smaller header tank was to ensure that air pockets weren't
being feed to
the
> engine.
>
> This would be great if it would work. Weight & Balance would
be better
with
> the heavier Subaru engine. Overall plane weight would be
reduced by
> elimanating all the header tank and all the extra plumbing.
Wouldn't have
> fuel in my lap. Wow! Makes me want to make this work at all
costs.
>
> Don
> > Don:
> > I think your idea has potential. What would be wrong
with a 1 quart
> > gascolator, centered near the engine side of the firewall?
Does a
> > gascolator know how much it holds?
> > Regards,
> > Randy L. Thwing 701/plans, riveting third nose skin on right
wing
tonight.
> > That's why we do such good work, we do everything three
times!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
Hey that sounds like a great idea....Can one of those hats be bought at
the airshow?
John
Thilo Kind wrote:
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> for those of you that are going to Sun's Fun next week: how about we meet
> every day 3:00 pm at the Zenithair tent. In the mornings people attend the
> workshops, so I think 3:00 pm is a good time. Also, if you have one, wear
> one of the Zenith caps (I believe Steve Freeman manufactures them).
>
> Hope to see many of you down there.
>
> Thilo Kind
> leaving Friday for Florida. Will be on Sun'n Fun Sunday and Monday....
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
Frank,
Are we sure that shutting down a fuel pump simulates the banking action. If
you bank and you start sucking air, the entire fuel line is filled with air,
and it might take just a tad longer to get the pump re-primmed and fuel into
the entire system which could mean the difference between sputtering and
restarting. Also, I'm not sure I would be that cool to switch the
tanks/pumps immediately.
I know that I'm stressing over this, but just don't like the idea of sucking
air into the fuel line.
Don
> Even if airpockets are fed the engine the output from the pumps is way
more than
> the engine will burn.
>
> I did a tie down test at the W/E and ran at full Stratus power and shut
down
> both fuel pumps. When the engine sputtered I switched on one fuel pump.
>
> The engine fired straight back up before the prop stopped turning.
>
> Real life shows that banking really is not a problem.
>
> Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frank_hinde(at)hp.com |
I disagree.
There is a large dihedral in the wings. The pumps will prime easily with one
gallon in each tank (min fuel is probably less but I did'nt measure it.
By law you have to have an hour of reserve at landing...I always plan on an
hours worth which is about 2.5 gallons in each tank.
Add that to min fuel gives 3.5 gals in each tank.
It would take one heck of a slip to uncover a tank outlet with that much fuel,
add to that the capacity of the pumps that will spark the engine right up and I
really think there is not a problem.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Honabach [mailto:don(at)pcperfect.com]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 8:03 AM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
Tim,
Before I purchased the Zodiac 601HDS, I owned a Cherokee PA180
(low wing)
wing tanks only airplane. I also didn't have any issues or even
concerns
about slipping on landing, etc. However, I also assumed (whether
founded or
not) that the designers had something in their system to ensure
that fuel
would be available during brief un-coordinated maneuvers.
After all the back and forth on these messages, not one person
has said,
"don't worry about it, part x will keep fuel in the line during
...". As
such, I'm seriously worried that I could have an engine failure
during
landing or take off. Also, after looking at how the shape of the
LE Tank
(601HDS), it initially appears that if you have approx. 1/4 fuel
that a
moderate bank turn could cause fuel issues.
Not trying to Mr. Super Retentive here, just want to take a
logical approach
to produce a safer airplane in which my life will depend.
Don
> After reading several days of concerns about using the wing
tanks and
running
> out of fuel in a turn or a slip I must make a comment. This
whole
discussion
> seems predicated on the fact that wing tanks are a new idea,
not at all. I
have
> flown a Grumman Cheetah for 10 years it has two wing tanks and
a
right/left
> fuel selector. This aircraft can be slipped both with and
without flaps. I
have
> done both on approaches to landings and HAVE NEVER HAD A FUEL
FLOW
PROBLEM. Of
> course if the pilot insists on flying on empty there is always
a chance of
fuel
> starvation.
>
> Tim Shankland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Atkinson" <chris-atkinson(at)home.com> |
Question: If the plane is rigged to feed from both LE tanks at once, would
this solve most potential problems?
The Piper Cherokees I've seen feed from one tank at a time, and there is
some risk of starving in a slip/skid...I forget whether I heard this or read
it, but will try to find something in the manual. On the other hand, I've
never heard of a similar concern for Cessnas...which usually feed from both
tanks together. I don't think the high wing vs low wing config is the
issue...g-forces or severe attitudes are the overriding factors in a
"slosh", I think.
In a x-feed system, I'd guess sloshing away from one pick-up would bury the
one in opposite tank...so you'd always have gas from one.
Comments anyone?
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Honabach
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
Tim,
Before I purchased the Zodiac 601HDS, I owned a Cherokee PA180 (low wing)
wing tanks only airplane. I also didn't have any issues or even concerns
about slipping on landing, etc. However, I also assumed (whether founded or
not) that the designers had something in their system to ensure that fuel
would be available during brief un-coordinated maneuvers.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | NOLIES4US(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: fuel shutoff |
I made an extension for the handle and ran it to botom of inst. panel
Bill J. 601 HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
I just made and shipped 288 hats that I know they are bringing to the show.
I don;t know if they are sellling them or giving them to "potential"
customers. But they will deffinately have inventory!
Have a great time.....
Steve Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frank_hinde(at)hp.com |
Me neither!
That's why (partly) my pumps are close to the tanks, so even if I completely
airlocked a pump the other one will be primed.
Filling the line on the discharge side of the pump with air is not a problem. I
also have check valves at the discharged of each pump to stop bakflowing into
the other pump.
The only difference then is an extra second or so to fill the dry line.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Honabach [mailto:don(at)pcperfect.com]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 8:58 AM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
Frank,
Are we sure that shutting down a fuel pump simulates the banking
action. If
you bank and you start sucking air, the entire fuel line is
filled with air,
and it might take just a tad longer to get the pump re-primmed
and fuel into
the entire system which could mean the difference between
sputtering and
restarting. Also, I'm not sure I would be that cool to switch
the
tanks/pumps immediately.
I know that I'm stressing over this, but just don't like the
idea of sucking
air into the fuel line.
Don
> Even if airpockets are fed the engine the output from the
pumps is way
more than
> the engine will burn.
>
> I did a tie down test at the W/E and ran at full Stratus power
and shut
down
> both fuel pumps. When the engine sputtered I switched on one
fuel pump.
>
> The engine fired straight back up before the prop stopped
turning.
>
> Real life shows that banking really is not a problem.
>
> Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
| Subject: | Re: fuel shutoff |
| From: | Jim <jashford(at)hawaii.rr.com> |
Roger,
ZAC offers a fuel shut-off kit that consists of a rod which engages the
valve handle with the other end mounted on a bracket that attaches to the
under side of the instrument panel.
Jim
> From: "Kilby, Roger" <Roger.Kilby(at)DynCorp.com>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 07:29:18 -0400
> To: "'zenith-list(at)matronics.com'"
> Subject: Zenith-List: fuel shutoff
>
>
> I am using the 16 gallon header tank only. The shutoff valve is part of the
> nipple on the bottom
> of the tank and moves up & down with the open position being up. (Parallel
> to the center of the aircraft
> and facing the pilot). This valve is too far forward to reach easily by
> hand.
> What kind of alternate fuel shutoff is being used?
> Thanks,
>
> Roger Kilby
> N98RK - 601HDS
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frank_hinde(at)hp.com |
Yes, but keep the pumps close to the tanks and incorporate a non return valve at
the discharge of the pump.
The problem with running both pumps together is that the pump pressures have to
be almost exactly the same or the flowrates from each tank will be different.
Thus for long cross country's where you need to know how much is in each tank,
you will run on one tank at a time.
But your right for TO and landing you will run both pumps, thus a skid will
cover one tank outlet or another.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Atkinson [mailto:chris-atkinson(at)home.com]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 10:07 AM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
Question: If the plane is rigged to feed from both LE tanks at
once, would
this solve most potential problems?
The Piper Cherokees I've seen feed from one tank at a time, and
there is
some risk of starving in a slip/skid...I forget whether I heard
this or read
it, but will try to find something in the manual. On the other
hand, I've
never heard of a similar concern for Cessnas...which usually
feed from both
tanks together. I don't think the high wing vs low wing config
is the
issue...g-forces or severe attitudes are the overriding factors
in a
"slosh", I think.
In a x-feed system, I'd guess sloshing away from one pick-up
would bury the
one in opposite tank...so you'd always have gas from one.
Comments anyone?
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don
Honabach
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 11:03 AM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
Tim,
Before I purchased the Zodiac 601HDS, I owned a Cherokee PA180
(low wing)
wing tanks only airplane. I also didn't have any issues or even
concerns
about slipping on landing, etc. However, I also assumed (whether
founded or
not) that the designers had something in their system to ensure
that fuel
would be available during brief un-coordinated maneuvers.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
> But your right for TO and landing you will run both pumps, thus a skid
will
> cover one tank outlet or another.
>
> Frank
Frank, I like your idea. I've read postings in the past to the effect
that if the fuel pressure is too high, the carb won't work properly. What
does running both fuel pumps do in this regard, or should we in all cases
include a fuel pressure regulator?
Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frank_hinde(at)hp.com |
Running more than one pump will not increase the pressure.
I get 5 psi on the guage whether I run one pump or two... The Facet pumps are
pressure relieved, they won't over pressure.
Just for interest, the pressure drops to about 4psi at full power with both
pumps, and about 3psi with one pump
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: fhulen [mailto:fhulen(at)gabs.net]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 1:08 PM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Zenith-List: Duel fuel pumps
> But your right for TO and landing you will run both pumps,
thus a skid
will
> cover one tank outlet or another.
>
> Frank
Frank, I like your idea. I've read postings in the past to
the effect
that if the fuel pressure is too high, the carb won't work
properly. What
does running both fuel pumps do in this regard, or should we in
all cases
include a fuel pressure regulator?
Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Melanie @ Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
They sold them last year on the show, where I bought mine. However, they are
somewhat pricy - I think they were $ 10.00.
Hope to see many of you down there...
Thilo Kind
----- Original Message -----
From: John W. Tarabocchia <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Sun'n Fun
>
> Hey that sounds like a great idea....Can one of those hats be bought at
> the airshow?
>
> John
>
> Thilo Kind wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > for those of you that are going to Sun's Fun next week: how about we
meet
> > every day 3:00 pm at the Zenithair tent. In the mornings people attend
the
> > workshops, so I think 3:00 pm is a good time. Also, if you have one,
wear
> > one of the Zenith caps (I believe Steve Freeman manufactures them).
> >
> > Hope to see many of you down there.
> >
> > Thilo Kind
> > leaving Friday for Florida. Will be on Sun'n Fun Sunday and Monday....
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
My Grumman Traveller had the same set up. Pro-sealed wet tank, no
baffles. I had slipped that thing all the way down final many times.
Never had a tank unport. You need to remember that the tanks do not lay
flat in the wing. They are tilted inboard due to diheral. You would
need to really bank it hard and for quite a while before you unport the
line.
John
Tim Shankland wrote:
>
>
> After reading several days of concerns about using the wing tanks and running
> out of fuel in a turn or a slip I must make a comment. This whole discussion
> seems predicated on the fact that wing tanks are a new idea, not at all. I have
> flown a Grumman Cheetah for 10 years it has two wing tanks and a right/left
> fuel selector. This aircraft can be slipped both with and without flaps. I have
> done both on approaches to landings and HAVE NEVER HAD A FUEL FLOW PROBLEM. Of
> course if the pilot insists on flying on empty there is always a chance of fuel
> starvation.
>
> Tim Shankland
>
> Thilo Kind wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Don,
> >
> > not quite right. I have LE tanks only, so the problem that I was facing was
> > as following: tanks are in the wings; wings are stored in shelfs in my
> > garage. Engine is mounted to the fuselage. So, how does one conduct an
> > engine test run (and drive a little bit around...). Solution: I still have
> > the header tank (8 gal) laying around. So I built a bracket made from 2x4's
> > and mounted it to the right side of the centerwing. Installed the header
> > tank on the bracket, hooked it up with a fuel hose to the pump in the outer
> > bay of the centerwing and - voila - was able to drive around (although it
> > looks kind of strange....).
> >
> > Thilo Kind
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> > > Don Honabach
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 8:26 PM
> > > To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> > > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On the lighter side, I forgot to add one important reason for having a
> > > header tank. All my neighbors want me to give their children
> > > rides up and
> > > down the street. However, the street is too narrow for wings so I was
> > > planning on doing this without the outboard wings attached.
> > > No outboard
> > > wings, no fuel though... urgg..
> > >
> > > Don
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Grant Corriveau" <gfcorriv(at)total.net>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 4:29 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Don,
> > > >
> > > > I agree - that'd be ideal.... I guess there's not much way
> > > to retro-fit a
> > > > baffle into these tanks, is there..
> > > >
> > > > Grant
> > > >
> > > > > From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
> > > > > Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> > > > > Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:37:35 -0700
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Grant,
> > > > >
> > > > > Being a low-time pilot, having one less thing to worry
> > > about appeals to
> > > me.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be rather neat to have a 1/2 gallon bubble (not
> > > for real, just
> > > > > visual concept) placed just before the engine inlets that would
> > > magically
> > > > > filter air away, but store approx. a 1/2 gallon of fuel.
> > > That way any
> > > > > banking for less than a couple of minutes wouldn't affect
> > > the engine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Roger,
Thanks very much for taking the time to do that. Yes, it helps a lot. I'm
expecting my engine to arrive this week, and after having read the official
manual, I'll be purchasing a tach. I'm looking forward to this next phase of
construction.
Regards,
Grant
> From: "Kilby, Roger" <Roger.Kilby(at)DynCorp.com>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 07:25:13 -0400
> To: "'zenith-list(at)matronics.com'"
> Subject: Zenith-List: VDO Tach
>
>
>
> Grant,
>
> As promised, I measured my VDO tach. As it is already installed I could only
> measure the face of
> the instrument. (It has a lip around it that sits against the panel). It
> measured 87mm. Before I cut any
> hole in my panel, I used a scrap piece of sheet metal and made a cut to
> confirm that my fly cutter was set to
> the right specs. Actually, I usually made several cuts. For me this worked
> very well.
> I got the cutter from A/C Spruce and latter saw the same item in my local
> Home Depot.
> I hope this helps.
>
> Roger Kilby
> N98RK - 601HDS
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
Regarding the fuel unporting issue. I fly a Beech Sundowner. It has 30
gallon tanks in each wing and a selector valve that will not allow
simoultaneous use of both tanks. 4 gallons in each tank is considered
unusable and I've been told that is because of the possibility of unporting
during slips and/or banks. Further, the POH states that the plane should not
take off with less than 10 gallons in each tank.
Incidentally, the Sundowner operates off the engine driven fuel pump
normally. An electric boost pump provides backup during takeoff and landing
and for failure of the mechanical pump in flight.
My Zodiac is being built with locker tanks and the small header tank. In my
opinion, the safety hazard of the tank in the cockpit is offset by reducing
the risk of an engine failure that is much more likely to occur if the fuel
system is such that an electric pump must be available at all times.
Further, I fly the Sundowner without trusting the fuel gauges one whit. They
are very unreliable and I plan all flights based on engine run time versus
what fuel quantity was verified while on the ground before flight.
Tim Cotter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Deiterich <cfd(at)tstar.net> |
To 701 Drivers,
Can you tell me what engine you are using, propeller diameter, ground
clearance, and about how much the nose gear compresses?
Thanks,
C. Deiterich
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Maxson <pmaxson(at)interactive.net> |
I'll be there at 3:00 on Sunday. I'll have to get one of those hats!
Phil Maxson
601XL - N601MX, waiting to by the new XL stuff.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
Hi Phil,
see you there on Sunday (i, too, will wear my Zenith hat...)
Thilo Kind
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> Phil Maxson
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 6:49 PM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Sun'n Fun
>
>
>
>
> I'll be there at 3:00 on Sunday. I'll have to get one of those hats!
>
> Phil Maxson
> 601XL - N601MX, waiting to by the new XL stuff.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
My plan for getting around the perceived problem is that the wing tanks I
designed are one section farther out than the Zenair design and are raised to the
top of the wing. There is about 50 mm clearance between the bottom of the tank
and the bottom skin. both tanks will be connected together in the seat area such
that there will at least 6 inches of drop from the bottom of the tank to the
selector valve. In addition each tank has it's own vent and the vents are
connected together to prevent any differential pressure between the tanks. In a
severe slip if one tanks pickup were to become uncovered fuel would be flowing
into it from the other tank.
Tim Shankland
Chris Atkinson wrote:
>
> Question: If the plane is rigged to feed from both LE tanks at once, would
> this solve most potential problems?
>
> The Piper Cherokees I've seen feed from one tank at a time, and there is
> some risk of starving in a slip/skid...I forget whether I heard this or read
> it, but will try to find something in the manual. On the other hand, I've
> never heard of a similar concern for Cessnas...which usually feed from both
> tanks together. I don't think the high wing vs low wing config is the
> issue...g-forces or severe attitudes are the overriding factors in a
> "slosh", I think.
>
> In a x-feed system, I'd guess sloshing away from one pick-up would bury the
> one in opposite tank...so you'd always have gas from one.
>
> Comments anyone?
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Honabach
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 11:03 AM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
>
>
> Tim,
>
> Before I purchased the Zodiac 601HDS, I owned a Cherokee PA180 (low wing)
> wing tanks only airplane. I also didn't have any issues or even concerns
> about slipping on landing, etc. However, I also assumed (whether founded or
> not) that the designers had something in their system to ensure that fuel
> would be available during brief un-coordinated maneuvers.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
>
> Come on Steve, when have you known ZAC to give anything away for
free!!!lol
>
> Cliff
+++ It Happened! Free hats to builders at Open Hanger day. Fred do
not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Dunning <peterd(at)metec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | FW: No fuel gauges ? |
Date: 4 April 2000
Greetings Listers
Communications on this subject has been quite lively
and perhaps a little controversal in some aspects. I have
always felt strongly about the issues and as someone
relatively new to aviation, I would like to comment to the
group on what I found and what I propose to do on my
601HD...for the purpose of learning from you guys out
there by soliciting your comments:
1. There should be a primary fuel supply system, about
which supplementary systems can be incorporated as
back-up. The primary system sacrosanct.
2. All items in the line/s between tank/s and engine are a form
of potential obstruction, leak or additional work-load
for the pilot.
3. Baffles should be incorporated in the tank/s to avoid
sudden displacement of fuel (eg on heavy landing) or
providing supplementary mech. support externally. Metal
fatigue of tanks is possible.
The system I propose (bearing in mind the above) is as follows:
LE tanks in both wings, with the smaller 8 gal ZAC header
tank. Both LE tanks have Facet 40105 pumps close to each
tank for simple gravity-fed priming and each tank has a course
finger filter on the feed side of each pump. Fuel gauge senders
in each LE tank.
LE tank pumps feed directly and independently to the TOP
of the header tank. NO check valves and NO filters.(Besides,
the very design of Facet pump is one-way but has no relevance
when feeding to the top of the tank)
The three tanks give me 6.5 hours max endurance plus reserve
at 75% power, which is heaps. (More than a bladder full)
From the header tank with another course finger filter and stop
valve, to gascolator, to fine metal filter (NOT paper) and finally to
the mech fuel pump of the motor. This forms the PRIMARY
fuel system. Fuel supply tubes sleeved with heat protecting sleeves.
A boost pump is installed from the gascolator then to a non-return
valve (to protect the primary mech. fuel pump in event of boost pump
failure) and then to the outlet side of the mech. fuel pump which leads
to the carburetor/s. ie the boost pump is essentially in parallel to the
primary system.
A fuel pressure gauge provides testing of the boost pump (engine
not running) and usual monitoring of the primary system. NB
the pressure tube running to the IP gauge is wire reinforced tubing for
additional safety as a leak or rupture would be serious.
The header tank has the usual sight gauge, but with an optical
sensor near the top which alerts the pilot to "near full" when pumping
from either LE tank. This top sensor is wired to operate only when either
or both LE pumps are operating.
Another optical sensor is employed at the bottom of the gauge (or
where a minimum tank level is nominated) to alert the pilot when
pumping is required to top-up the header. This lower sensor runs
continuously.
Notes:
- The optical sensor stradles the vertical column of the fuel gauge.
- The primary system does not draw fuel up but is partially assisted
- I am of the opinion that the header tank is very unlikely to be affected
- I dislike paper filters in fuel lines after one experience of forced
landing
- The header tank can provide engine ground tests and initial prop pitch
adjustment without wings attached etc.
- the reduced header tank size is a compromise of less fuel in the cabin
and supplementary restraint of the tank is more effective.
- No tank transfer switching etc etc.
The above is my approach (IMHO) and I welcome your comments. I tried
to condense all this but....
Cheers
Peter Dunning
CH601HD ZK-SPD
Email: peterd(at)metec.co.nz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | 701 plans errors 7.V.7 |
Dear Listers:
I have been asked to comment on the wing nose skin, wrong slat bracket
slot measurement on the plans, so here goes.
In the Sept/Oct 1988 Zenair newsletter, Chris Heintz provided a new
leading edge slat position. In that newsletter or later, a mention was made
that all new plans issued would reflect this new slat position. After
botching my first nose skins by adding the slots according to my 1994
vintage plans, I compared my plans with the new position described in the
newsletter, and they did reflect the new position for all parts EXCEPT the
slots in the nose skin. I believe all other parts and locations were
updated, but somehow the nose skin slot location was not updated, that is,
the slots reflect the original slat location. I could have lengthened the
slots to accommodate, but that would have left a very ugly wing, so I opted
to make new nose skins, using measurements taken directly from my plans
built nose ribs.
In the following, the measurements are from my plans built ribs, I
followed the plans closely, and they should be as shown in the plans, but
variations can exist and I recommend taking measurements directly from your
parts, not all factory kit parts follow the plans!
The coordinates I use for a location on the plans are from the full size
plans sheet, in millimeters, with the first number being millimeters ACROSS
from the left ink border of the sheet, and the second number is millimeters
DOWN from the top ink border of the sheet. All measurements are from the
drawn border, not the edge of the paper.
Plans sheet 7.V.7 shows the bottom of the slat bracket slot to be
located 240mm from the lower edge of the wing nose skin see (85,59) with a
slot length of 110mm. My slot starts 262mm from the bottom and ends at
363mm from the bottom for a length of 101mm. This slot length provides a
3mm clearance on each end of the bracket.
The slot for rib 1 is really the edge of the sheet. This slot or notch
has now moved up 22mm further than the plans measurement. The plans show a
40mm measurement at (15,75). I increased this to 50mm, and blended the
angle at (23,64) to the new slot position. I'm not sure this adjustment is
necessary, but the added metal allows for future trimming.
I would appreciate comments on whether this helps, and if my coordinate
system is usable. I believe all plans errors should be available in the
archive in a simple, retrievable system. I plan on eventually posting all
the errors I have discovered in the plans on the list so other builders
might avoid the amount of scrap I've made by following the plans. When a
builder on the list states "I'm making all the parts first, then I will
start assembling" I just cringe. There are many errors that are simple to
overcome, and there are other errors that ruin large chunks of material.
I plan on using the above subject line for all plans errors listings
(changing sheet numbers) with the goal being that one searching the archives
can input "701 plans errors" to get a full list, or input "701 plans errors
7.V.7" for a list of errors on a particular plans sheet.
I have made and assembled all the control surfaces, and wings. I have
cut out and made most of the fuselage parts (I hope their right!) but have
not assembled them yet, except for the cabin sides. I can only comment on
the parts I have worked on so far. The only assembly that is error free is
the rudder, I guess enough builder's forums have occured to purge any errors
from this part.
I hope this is a help to other builders, and I hope other builders will
post their discoveries. I know if I had a list of errors, it would have
saved me a great deal of grief. Let me know.
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing, 701/plans, enough typing, my brains full, I'm going to go
rivet!
I
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Dunning <peterd(at)metec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | FW: no fuel gauges ? |
Date: 4 April 2000
Listers
Two errors (I believe) in my posting earlier today !
Under "Notes" should read.......
- The primary system does not draw fuel up but is partially assisted
- I am of the opinion that the header tank is very unlikely to be affected
Sorry if this caused confusion,
Cheers
Peter
Email: peterd(at)metec.co.nz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SkyKingN(at)aol.com |
They sent me two free hats after I bought the kit!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Norris <rnorris4(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
Not true in the US. The required reserve for airplanes (1/2 hour day,
3/4 hour at night or IFR) is for planning purposes only! Ironically, the
reserve must be in the tank at the start of the flight, not at the end.
At landing, if you actually have less, but the engine is still running,
then nobody should question you. (You may want to rethink your planning
numbers, however.)
My personal reserve is 1 hour.
Rob Norris
frank_hinde(at)hp.com wrote:
> By law you have to have an hour of reserve at landing...I always plan on an
> hours worth which is about 2.5 gallons in each tank.
>
> Add that to min fuel gives 3.5 gals in each tank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "barry mayne" <bazmay(at)ozemail.com.au> |
| Subject: | something for nothing |
ZAC must like us down here in the land of OZ. I got 2 free hats and 2 free T
shirts.
Barry Mayne 601 HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Gunn" <ragunn(at)hotmail.com> |
Hey Guys:
I've looked everywhere, but can find no references/guidance regarding the
following points:
1. wheel fork "doublers" - I've seen pictures of a bolt in the side legs
connecting the outer & inner forks. Is this bolt an AN3 or AN4, or does it
matter? Is it mentioned anywhere in the plans, construction manual,
builders sequence manual, etc?
2. brakes - my brake unit only has one (1/2") mounting hole (for the axle).
This allows the unit to swivel around (the axle) and orient itself
anywhere from in front of the wheel fork to behind the fork. I've thought
of drilling another small bolt hole (through fork and brass plate on the
brake unit) so I can position the brake unit frame (preferably behind the
wheel fork). If not done, I feel like I'm depending on the brake lines to
position the unit.
Am I thinking correctly, and what steps did you all take to accomplish the
above?
3. brake pads - when I trial fitted my wheel, brake, axle, etc the three
aluminum pieces which connect the wheel to the brake "ring" rub against the
brake pad frame when the wheel is turned. Since this frame looks to be made
of cast aluminum, can we file it down a little to get some clearance?
4. tire tubes - the tubes I got have the straight valve stems. It seems
there won't be enough room to get an air hose on the stem to inflate the
tube. How did each of you get around this? I've heard there are tire
tubes with an angled stem, but I'd prefer not to have to buy them right now.
I searched the archives, and found 191 gear related posts, but not much luck
in getting these particular questions answered.
Since I only get the daily "summary" of all email traffic, please respond
both to me directly, as well as to the list.
Thanks,
Tony Gunn
Houston
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jbrigman(at)ipass.net |
User-Agent: IMP/PHP3 Imap webMail Program 2.0.11
RE: the subject of fuel slosh in fuel tanks:
I've seen several kitplane plans call for the
installation of a "fence" inside their fuel tanks. This
is one or more vertical walls a couple inches tall, with
slots cut in the bottoms of the walls to allow some fuel
flow. The idea is that they slow down fuel movement in
the tank and retain some of the fuel at the drain longer
than it would stay otherwise.
I'm not positive, but I'll bet GA planes' fuel tanks
have 'em. I learned about them on the website for the
"Vision" kit plane, a fiberglass plane with wet wings.
On their web page, they have a sample page from the
assembly manuals and on that sample page, they talk
about installing the "fuel fence" into the tank area.
It does seem, as a mental experiment, that if you were
low on fuel and the fuel went to the outside of the
tanks that you'd starve the engine. I like that idea of
the "fuel bubble" giving you some reserve fuel for the
engine to draw on. Question: might it help this
situation by using a big fat fuel filter between the
tank and the fuel pump, and also using relatively
large-diameter (1/2" or 3/4"?) fuel line in the system?
Seems that the more fuel you hold in the lines to the
engine, the less likely you would be to starve the
engine from fuel slosh. Maybe it'll sputter when the air
bubble gets to the engine, but if it's a good pump it'll
close off the air bubble quickly when the fuel begins
flowing again.
This sounds like a question that could be answered with
an engine on a test stand.....I know when I get to that
point, I'll want to do some fuel starvation testing just
to understand how things behave, maybe try a few
different fuel line configuations...anybody out there
done such a thing?
JKB
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Re: FW: No fuel gauges ? |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Peter,
While I agree with many of your 'general principles, I find your proposed
solution more complicated than it needs to be.
Think of the operation that the 8 gallon tank requires in flight. You're
burning approx. 4 gph.. You don't want to wait until the fuselage tank is
dry before transerring. So, that means that approx. every hour you have to
remember to turn on a transfer pump. During this time, you will have
something 'going on' that distracts you from flying the aircraft. If you
don't connect your venting system on the small tank back to a wing tank,
you'll end up pumping fuel overboard if you forget to turn off the transfer.
To reduce the possibilities of this happening, you now have to add another
'warning' system (more complexity, no assurance that it will always work or
that you will always 'notice' the warning)...
The header tank doesn't provide a gravity feed backup to most of the engines
that are installed in this aircraft.
To me, either go with the full 16 gallon fuselage tank, with one or two
smaller transfer tanks in the wings. Or go with the full-wing system as
illustrated in the Zenair files on their web page.
I see no reason for the 8 gallon tank in the fuselage, myself. To me it's
just the worst of both systems. IMHO.
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
> From: Peter Dunning <peterd(at)metec.co.nz>
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 13:49:11 +1200
> To: "'zenith-list(at)matronics.com'"
> Subject: Zenith-List: FW: No fuel gauges ?
>
>
> Date: 4 April 2000
>
> Greetings Listers
>
> Communications on this subject has been quite lively
> and perhaps a little controversal in some aspects. I have
> always felt strongly about the issues and as someone
> relatively new to aviation, I would like to comment to the
> group on what I found and what I propose to do on my
> 601HD...for the purpose of learning from you guys out
> there by soliciting your comments:
>
> 1. There should be a primary fuel supply system, about
> which supplementary systems can be incorporated as
> back-up. The primary system sacrosanct.
> 2. All items in the line/s between tank/s and engine are a form
> of potential obstruction, leak or additional work-load
> for the pilot.
> 3. Baffles should be incorporated in the tank/s to avoid
> sudden displacement of fuel (eg on heavy landing) or
> providing supplementary mech. support externally. Metal
> fatigue of tanks is possible.
>
> The system I propose (bearing in mind the above) is as follows:
>
> LE tanks in both wings, with the smaller 8 gal ZAC header
> tank. Both LE tanks have Facet 40105 pumps close to each
> tank for simple gravity-fed priming and each tank has a course
> finger filter on the feed side of each pump. Fuel gauge senders
> in each LE tank.
>
> LE tank pumps feed directly and independently to the TOP
> of the header tank. NO check valves and NO filters.(Besides,
> the very design of Facet pump is one-way but has no relevance
> when feeding to the top of the tank)
>
> The three tanks give me 6.5 hours max endurance plus reserve
> at 75% power, which is heaps. (More than a bladder full)
>
> From the header tank with another course finger filter and stop
> valve, to gascolator, to fine metal filter (NOT paper) and finally to
> the mech fuel pump of the motor. This forms the PRIMARY
> fuel system. Fuel supply tubes sleeved with heat protecting sleeves.
>
> A boost pump is installed from the gascolator then to a non-return
> valve (to protect the primary mech. fuel pump in event of boost pump
> failure) and then to the outlet side of the mech. fuel pump which leads
> to the carburetor/s. ie the boost pump is essentially in parallel to the
> primary system.
> A fuel pressure gauge provides testing of the boost pump (engine
> not running) and usual monitoring of the primary system. NB
> the pressure tube running to the IP gauge is wire reinforced tubing for
> additional safety as a leak or rupture would be serious.
>
> The header tank has the usual sight gauge, but with an optical
> sensor near the top which alerts the pilot to "near full" when pumping
> from either LE tank. This top sensor is wired to operate only when either
> or both LE pumps are operating.
> Another optical sensor is employed at the bottom of the gauge (or
> where a minimum tank level is nominated) to alert the pilot when
> pumping is required to top-up the header. This lower sensor runs
> continuously.
>
> Notes:
> - The optical sensor stradles the vertical column of the fuel gauge.
> - The primary system does not draw fuel up but is partially assisted
> - I am of the opinion that the header tank is very unlikely to be affected
> - I dislike paper filters in fuel lines after one experience of forced
> landing
> - The header tank can provide engine ground tests and initial prop pitch
> adjustment without wings attached etc.
> - the reduced header tank size is a compromise of less fuel in the cabin
> and supplementary restraint of the tank is more effective.
> - No tank transfer switching etc etc.
>
> The above is my approach (IMHO) and I welcome your comments. I tried
> to condense all this but....
>
> Cheers
>
> Peter Dunning
> CH601HD ZK-SPD
>
> Email: peterd(at)metec.co.nz
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
> From: TCotter2(at)cs.com
...
> Incidentally, the Sundowner operates off the engine driven fuel pump
> normally. An electric boost pump provides backup during takeoff and landing
> and for failure of the mechanical pump in flight.
...
> In my
> opinion, the safety hazard of the tank in the cockpit is offset by reducing
> the risk of an engine failure that is much more likely to occur if the fuel
> system is such that an electric pump must be available at all times.
A couple of points:
1/ Certified aircraft systems with low wing-mounted tanks all seem to work
like this - but they are certified to use Aviation Gas only - which is less
prone to vapour lock than auto gas. If we're planning to use auto gas, it
becomes more important that the pumps are placed close to the tank to pump
it under pressure, rather than by suction.
2/ The fuselage tank can only provide a backup gravity feed if the carb is
below the tank level. This is so for aviation engines with the carb on the
bottom. The Rotax 912 and the auto conversions have a top-mounted carb, so
there's not really much hope of gravity feeding as far as I can tell.
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frank_hinde(at)hp.com |
Don't put any kind of restriction between the pump and tank....filters plug and
fuel boils when you suck on it...It called vapor lock!
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: jbrigman(at)ipass.net [mailto:jbrigman(at)ipass.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 7:50 AM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Zenith-List: Fuel Tanks
RE: the subject of fuel slosh in fuel tanks:
I've seen several kitplane plans call for the
installation of a "fence" inside their fuel tanks. This
is one or more vertical walls a couple inches tall, with
slots cut in the bottoms of the walls to allow some fuel
flow. The idea is that they slow down fuel movement in
the tank and retain some of the fuel at the drain longer
than it would stay otherwise.
I'm not positive, but I'll bet GA planes' fuel tanks
have 'em. I learned about them on the website for the
"Vision" kit plane, a fiberglass plane with wet wings.
On their web page, they have a sample page from the
assembly manuals and on that sample page, they talk
about installing the "fuel fence" into the tank area.
It does seem, as a mental experiment, that if you were
low on fuel and the fuel went to the outside of the
tanks that you'd starve the engine. I like that idea of
the "fuel bubble" giving you some reserve fuel for the
engine to draw on. Question: might it help this
situation by using a big fat fuel filter between the
tank and the fuel pump, and also using relatively
large-diameter (1/2" or 3/4"?) fuel line in the system?
Seems that the more fuel you hold in the lines to the
engine, the less likely you would be to starve the
engine from fuel slosh. Maybe it'll sputter when the air
bubble gets to the engine, but if it's a good pump it'll
close off the air bubble quickly when the fuel begins
flowing again.
This sounds like a question that could be answered with
an engine on a test stand.....I know when I get to that
point, I'll want to do some fuel starvation testing just
to understand how things behave, maybe try a few
different fuel line configuations...anybody out there
done such a thing?
JKB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frank_hinde(at)hp.com |
Yup I forgot to put the "half" word in there. But like you one hour at the end
of the flight is my personal minimum which gives you the 3.5 gallons in each
tank.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Norris [mailto:rnorris4(at)earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 10:50 PM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: No fuel gauges?
Not true in the US. The required reserve for airplanes (1/2 hour
day,
3/4 hour at night or IFR) is for planning purposes only!
Ironically, the
reserve must be in the tank at the start of the flight, not at
the end.
At landing, if you actually have less, but the engine is still
running,
then nobody should question you. (You may want to rethink your
planning
numbers, however.)
My personal reserve is 1 hour.
Rob Norris
frank_hinde(at)hp.com wrote:
> By law you have to have an hour of reserve at landing...I
always plan on an
> hours worth which is about 2.5 gallons in each tank.
>
> Add that to min fuel gives 3.5 gals in each tank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vanhaeren Jurgen" <vanhieju(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
Tony,
There are beautiful designs on Chris' Heinz website. It are pdf files which
can be read with ACROBAT READER.
I have downloaded them and printed them out, in fact I did download all the
pdf files. They are much clearer than the construction manual I received.
I hope you do know how to enter the builders' pages, if not, take contact
with Chris Heinz.
Cheers
Jurgen
vanhieju(at)hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger Bleier" <tsrwb(at)hotmail.com> |
Glen Worstell wrote:
>I think you might be missing the fact that a fuel gauge is required >for
>each tank, according to the FARs, although in practice you might >be able
>to get away without them.
*momentarily out of lurk mode*
For wing tanks used to refill a fuselage tank, I think the regulatory issue
revolves around the definition of 'fuel tank'. If a tank is not directly
connected to the engine, i.e. if there is fuel in the tank but the engine
cannot run on it until it is transferred somewhere else, then it is not a
'fuel tank' for the purpose of the FAR. The official purpose of the fuel
gauge is not to tell you how much fuel is on board but rather to tell you
that you are out of fuel. To me, a tank that is not directly connected
serves the same legal function as a jerry can.
I'm planning on using Zenair wing tanks without gauges in my 701 for three
reasons: I want to keep wiring out of the wings, I can't find suitable
mechanical gauges, and I'm planning to mostly use the fuselage tank which I
will equip with a carefully calibrated electrical gauge.
*back to lurk mode*
Roger
project stalled again due to moving :-(
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
Hi Tony;
Tony Gunn wrote:
>
>
> Hey Guys:
>
> I've looked everywhere, but can find no references/guidance regarding the
> following points:
>
> 1. wheel fork "doublers" - I've seen pictures of a bolt in the side legs
> connecting the outer & inner forks. Is this bolt an AN3 or AN4, or does it
> matter? Is it mentioned anywhere in the plans, construction manual,
> builders sequence manual, etc?
> A ---I used 2 each AN-4 on each side of doubler (4 per wheel)
> 2. brakes - my brake unit only has one (1/2") mounting hole (for the axle).
> This allows the unit to swivel around (the axle) and orient itself
> anywhere from in front of the wheel fork to behind the fork. I've thought
> of drilling another small bolt hole (through fork and brass plate on the
> brake unit) so I can position the brake unit frame (preferably behind the
> wheel fork). If not done, I feel like I'm depending on the brake lines to
> position the unit.
> A--- Add an AN-4 to stop rotation.
> Am I thinking correctly, and what steps did you all take to accomplish the
> above?
>
> 3. brake pads - when I trial fitted my wheel, brake, axle, etc the three
> aluminum pieces which connect the wheel to the brake "ring" rub against the
> brake pad frame when the wheel is turned. Since this frame looks to be made
> of cast aluminum, can we file it down a little to get some clearance?
> A---- Trim it.
> 4. tire tubes - the tubes I got have the straight valve stems. It seems
> there won't be enough room to get an air hose on the stem to inflate the
> tube. How did each of you get around this? I've heard there are tire
> tubes with an angled stem, but I'd prefer not to have to buy them right now.
> A--- Get tubes with right angle stem.
> I searched the archives, and found 191 gear related posts, but not much luck
> in getting these particular questions answered.
>
> Since I only get the daily "summary" of all email traffic, please respond
> both to me directly, as well as to the list.
>
> Thanks,
> Tony Gunn
> Houston
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
Hi Tony;
Tony Gunn wrote:
>
>
> Hey Guys:
>
> I've looked everywhere, but can find no references/guidance regarding the
> following points:
>
> 1. wheel fork "doublers" - I've seen pictures of a bolt in the side legs
> connecting the outer & inner forks. Is this bolt an AN3 or AN4, or does it
> matter? Is it mentioned anywhere in the plans, construction manual,
> builders sequence manual, etc?
> A ---I used 2 each AN-4 on each side of doubler (4 per wheel)
> 2. brakes - my brake unit only has one (1/2") mounting hole (for the axle).
> This allows the unit to swivel around (the axle) and orient itself
> anywhere from in front of the wheel fork to behind the fork. I've thought
> of drilling another small bolt hole (through fork and brass plate on the
> brake unit) so I can position the brake unit frame (preferably behind the
> wheel fork). If not done, I feel like I'm depending on the brake lines to
> position the unit.
> A--- Add an AN-4 to stop rotation.
> Am I thinking correctly, and what steps did you all take to accomplish the
> above?
>
> 3. brake pads - when I trial fitted my wheel, brake, axle, etc the three
> aluminum pieces which connect the wheel to the brake "ring" rub against the
> brake pad frame when the wheel is turned. Since this frame looks to be made
> of cast aluminum, can we file it down a little to get some clearance?
> A---- Trim it.
> 4. tire tubes - the tubes I got have the straight valve stems. It seems
> there won't be enough room to get an air hose on the stem to inflate the
> tube. How did each of you get around this? I've heard there are tire
> tubes with an angled stem, but I'd prefer not to have to buy them right now.
> A--- Get tubes with right angle stem.
> I searched the archives, and found 191 gear related posts, but not much luck
> in getting these particular questions answered.
>
> Since I only get the daily "summary" of all email traffic, please respond
> both to me directly, as well as to the list.
>
> Thanks,
> Tony Gunn
> Houston
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
Hi Tony;
Tony Gunn wrote:
>
>
> Hey Guys:
>
> I've looked everywhere, but can find no references/guidance regarding the
> following points:
>
> 1. wheel fork "doublers" - I've seen pictures of a bolt in the side legs
> connecting the outer & inner forks. Is this bolt an AN3 or AN4, or does it
> matter? Is it mentioned anywhere in the plans, construction manual,
> builders sequence manual, etc?
> A ---I used 2 each AN-4 on each side of doubler (4 per wheel)
> 2. brakes - my brake unit only has one (1/2") mounting hole (for the axle).
> This allows the unit to swivel around (the axle) and orient itself
> anywhere from in front of the wheel fork to behind the fork. I've thought
> of drilling another small bolt hole (through fork and brass plate on the
> brake unit) so I can position the brake unit frame (preferably behind the
> wheel fork). If not done, I feel like I'm depending on the brake lines to
> position the unit.
> A--- Add an AN-4 to stop rotation.
> Am I thinking correctly, and what steps did you all take to accomplish the
> above?
>
> 3. brake pads - when I trial fitted my wheel, brake, axle, etc the three
> aluminum pieces which connect the wheel to the brake "ring" rub against the
> brake pad frame when the wheel is turned. Since this frame looks to be made
> of cast aluminum, can we file it down a little to get some clearance?
> A---- Trim it.
> 4. tire tubes - the tubes I got have the straight valve stems. It seems
> there won't be enough room to get an air hose on the stem to inflate the
> tube. How did each of you get around this? I've heard there are tire
> tubes with an angled stem, but I'd prefer not to have to buy them right now.
> A--- Get tubes with right angle stem.
> I searched the archives, and found 191 gear related posts, but not much luck
> in getting these particular questions answered.
>
> Since I only get the daily "summary" of all email traffic, please respond
> both to me directly, as well as to the list.
>
> Thanks,
> Tony Gunn
> Houston
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
Hi Tony;
Tony Gunn wrote:
>
>
> Hey Guys:
>
> I've looked everywhere, but can find no references/guidance regarding the
> following points:
>
> 1. wheel fork "doublers" - I've seen pictures of a bolt in the side legs
> connecting the outer & inner forks. Is this bolt an AN3 or AN4, or does it
> matter? Is it mentioned anywhere in the plans, construction manual,
> builders sequence manual, etc?
> A ---I used 2 each AN-4 on each side of doubler (4 per wheel)
> 2. brakes - my brake unit only has one (1/2") mounting hole (for the axle).
> This allows the unit to swivel around (the axle) and orient itself
> anywhere from in front of the wheel fork to behind the fork. I've thought
> of drilling another small bolt hole (through fork and brass plate on the
> brake unit) so I can position the brake unit frame (preferably behind the
> wheel fork). If not done, I feel like I'm depending on the brake lines to
> position the unit.
> A--- Add an AN-4 to stop rotation.
> Am I thinking correctly, and what steps did you all take to accomplish the
> above?
>
> 3. brake pads - when I trial fitted my wheel, brake, axle, etc the three
> aluminum pieces which connect the wheel to the brake "ring" rub against the
> brake pad frame when the wheel is turned. Since this frame looks to be made
> of cast aluminum, can we file it down a little to get some clearance?
> A---- Trim it.
> 4. tire tubes - the tubes I got have the straight valve stems. It seems
> there won't be enough room to get an air hose on the stem to inflate the
> tube. How did each of you get around this? I've heard there are tire
> tubes with an angled stem, but I'd prefer not to have to buy them right now.
> A--- Get tubes with right angle stem.
> I searched the archives, and found 191 gear related posts, but not much luck
> in getting these particular questions answered.
>
> Since I only get the daily "summary" of all email traffic, please respond
> both to me directly, as well as to the list.
>
> Thanks,
> Tony Gunn
> Houston
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
Hi Tony;
Tony Gunn wrote:
>
>
> Hey Guys:
>
> I've looked everywhere, but can find no references/guidance regarding the
> following points:
>
> 1. wheel fork "doublers" - I've seen pictures of a bolt in the side legs
> connecting the outer & inner forks. Is this bolt an AN3 or AN4, or does it
> matter? Is it mentioned anywhere in the plans, construction manual,
> builders sequence manual, etc?
> A ---I used 2 each AN-4 on each side of doubler (4 per wheel)
> 2. brakes - my brake unit only has one (1/2") mounting hole (for the axle).
> This allows the unit to swivel around (the axle) and orient itself
> anywhere from in front of the wheel fork to behind the fork. I've thought
> of drilling another small bolt hole (through fork and brass plate on the
> brake unit) so I can position the brake unit frame (preferably behind the
> wheel fork). If not done, I feel like I'm depending on the brake lines to
> position the unit.
> A--- Add an AN-4 to stop rotation.
> Am I thinking correctly, and what steps did you all take to accomplish the
> above?
>
> 3. brake pads - when I trial fitted my wheel, brake, axle, etc the three
> aluminum pieces which connect the wheel to the brake "ring" rub against the
> brake pad frame when the wheel is turned. Since this frame looks to be made
> of cast aluminum, can we file it down a little to get some clearance?
> A---- Trim it.
> 4. tire tubes - the tubes I got have the straight valve stems. It seems
> there won't be enough room to get an air hose on the stem to inflate the
> tube. How did each of you get around this? I've heard there are tire
> tubes with an angled stem, but I'd prefer not to have to buy them right now.
> A--- Get tubes with right angle stem.
> I searched the archives, and found 191 gear related posts, but not much luck
> in getting these particular questions answered.
>
> Since I only get the daily "summary" of all email traffic, please respond
> both to me directly, as well as to the list.
>
> Thanks,
> Tony Gunn
> Houston
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
Hi Tony;
Tony Gunn wrote:
>
>
> Hey Guys:
>
> I've looked everywhere, but can find no references/guidance regarding the
> following points:
>
> 1. wheel fork "doublers" - I've seen pictures of a bolt in the side legs
> connecting the outer & inner forks. Is this bolt an AN3 or AN4, or does it
> matter? Is it mentioned anywhere in the plans, construction manual,
> builders sequence manual, etc?
> A ---I used 2 each AN-4 on each side of doubler (4 per wheel)
> 2. brakes - my brake unit only has one (1/2") mounting hole (for the axle).
> This allows the unit to swivel around (the axle) and orient itself
> anywhere from in front of the wheel fork to behind the fork. I've thought
> of drilling another small bolt hole (through fork and brass plate on the
> brake unit) so I can position the brake unit frame (preferably behind the
> wheel fork). If not done, I feel like I'm depending on the brake lines to
> position the unit.
> A--- Add an AN-4 to stop rotation.
> Am I thinking correctly, and what steps did you all take to accomplish the
> above?
>
> 3. brake pads - when I trial fitted my wheel, brake, axle, etc the three
> aluminum pieces which connect the wheel to the brake "ring" rub against the
> brake pad frame when the wheel is turned. Since this frame looks to be made
> of cast aluminum, can we file it down a little to get some clearance?
> A---- Trim it.
> 4. tire tubes - the tubes I got have the straight valve stems. It seems
> there won't be enough room to get an air hose on the stem to inflate the
> tube. How did each of you get around this? I've heard there are tire
> tubes with an angled stem, but I'd prefer not to have to buy them right now.
> A--- Get tubes with right angle stem.
> I searched the archives, and found 191 gear related posts, but not much luck
> in getting these particular questions answered.
>
> Since I only get the daily "summary" of all email traffic, please respond
> both to me directly, as well as to the list.
>
> Thanks,
> Tony Gunn
> Houston
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Davidson" <jdavidso(at)doubled.com> |
| Subject: | Re: something for nothing |
Grant,
Hold on to that shirt. They aren't making them anymore! I have one
that Marcia wears a lot, but after years of washing, it's getting "washed
out". I asked Nick at SUN-n-FUN 2 years ago but they are gone.
Jeff Davidson
CH 601 HD/ LE Fuel Tanks only
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 04/04/2000 12:30:04 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
mhodges(at)sprintmail.com writes:
<< I'll have to buy a new one,
assuming they have gray >>
I jsut made 144 of them, so I know they got them. And they turned out
nice.....
Steve Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
Point 1. My Grumman with the low mounted wing tanks is certified by STC to burn
auto fuel.
Tim Shankland
Grant Corriveau wrote:
>
> > From: TCotter2(at)cs.com
> ...
> > Incidentally, the Sundowner operates off the engine driven fuel pump
> > normally. An electric boost pump provides backup during takeoff and landing
> > and for failure of the mechanical pump in flight.
> ...
> > In my
> > opinion, the safety hazard of the tank in the cockpit is offset by reducing
> > the risk of an engine failure that is much more likely to occur if the fuel
> > system is such that an electric pump must be available at all times.
>
> A couple of points:
>
> 1/ Certified aircraft systems with low wing-mounted tanks all seem to work
> like this - but they are certified to use Aviation Gas only - which is less
> prone to vapour lock than auto gas. If we're planning to use auto gas, it
> becomes more important that the pumps are placed close to the tank to pump
> it under pressure, rather than by suction.
>
> 2/ The fuselage tank can only provide a backup gravity feed if the carb is
> below the tank level. This is so for aviation engines with the carb on the
> bottom. The Rotax 912 and the auto conversions have a top-mounted carb, so
> there's not really much hope of gravity feeding as far as I can tell.
>
> Grant Corriveau
> Montreal, Canada
> gfcorriv(at)total.net
> Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
In a message dated 04/03/2000 8:20:41 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
don(at)pcperfect.com writes:
<< I'm seriously worried that I could have an engine failure during
landing or take off. Also, >>
Just as a side issue...I can;t think of a worse place to be in an
uncoordinated turn than take off or landing....the real issue here is to
remain coordinated during such critical flight manuevers!!
Take That Don!!!!
Talk to you soon, I scheduled my Bi-annual soi I can keep my butt current.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Dunning <peterd(at)metec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | FW: No fuel gauges ? |
Date: 5 April 2000
Hi Grant
Many thanks for responding to my posting.
I am in 120 percent agreement on keeping complication
out of the cockpit !!
A little background to my project:
1. I am fitting a BRS chute in the baggage area at the rear
of the cockpit (approx. 30lbs) and the use of a header tank
was to help off-set this. (The HD has been reported as
having a W/B complication in this regard) Motor is 912S, not
the significantly heavier stratus etc. and I did not want the
battery in the cabin with the need for heavy current cabling
through the firewall.
2. I regard the header tank as a supplementary gascolator
by default.
3. The header tank does have partial gravity feed when over
two-thirds full with fuselage level, in my case. This serves
as a primer for both boost pump and the mech. fuel pump
of the motor.
4. Every hour the "system-low" sensor should warn of
approx. 1 hour remaining, as well as providing general
level indication from the vertical sight gauge of the header
tank.
Your posting....
Fuel transfer: The upper sensor provides a visual flashing
warning on the IP in the event that transfer is not terminated.
Alternatively, the upper sensor can shut off the power supply
to the LE tank pumps automatically....
Automation tends to add complication and with visual warning
lights flashing at you, I am not sure that you are that likely to
forget to turn off the pump/s that easily...maybe an additional
audio alert as well ?
How about this......use spring-loaded switches that require
continuous pressure by the pilot to keep the pumps operating
so that when released (for whatever reason) the LE tank pumps
stop operating ? This focusses the pilot on the job, with any
distraction not creating a problem ? also, with two pumps
operating together, "top-up" would be relatively quick and RSI
should not be a problem on an hourly basis !
Venting ... should be easy, even overboard, because you should
have 2 hours flying to get down anyway if you exhausted
both LE tanks through inattention in the cockpit.
System "low" warning: What device informs the pilot of "fuel low"
in these aircraft when no header tank is used ?
I cant see that adding back up over and above the (1) visual gauge
and (2) the sensor/Visual warning is achieving much more than
adding complexity.
Grant, again thanks for your comments and I would like to bat this
around a little more.
Best regards
Peter Dunning
CH601HD ZK-SPD
Email: peterd(at)metec.co.nz
-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Corriveau [SMTP:gfcorriv(at)total.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: FW: No fuel gauges ?
Peter,
While I agree with many of your 'general principles, I find your proposed
solution more complicated than it needs to be.
Think of the operation that the 8 gallon tank requires in flight. You're
burning approx. 4 gph.. You don't want to wait until the fuselage tank is
dry before transerring. So, that means that approx. every hour you have to
remember to turn on a transfer pump. During this time, you will have
something 'going on' that distracts you from flying the aircraft. If you
don't connect your venting system on the small tank back to a wing tank,
you'll end up pumping fuel overboard if you forget to turn off the transfer.
To reduce the possibilities of this happening, you now have to add another
'warning' system (more complexity, no assurance that it will always work or
that you will always 'notice' the warning)...
The header tank doesn't provide a gravity feed backup to most of the engines
that are installed in this aircraft.
To me, either go with the full 16 gallon fuselage tank, with one or two
smaller transfer tanks in the wings. Or go with the full-wing system as
illustrated in the Zenair files on their web page.
I see no reason for the 8 gallon tank in the fuselage, myself. To me it's
just the worst of both systems. IMHO.
Grant Corriveau
Montreal, Canada
gfcorriv(at)total.net
Zenair Zodiac 601-HDS/CAM100
>
> Cheers
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: something for nothing |
In a message dated 04/04/2000 4:37:22 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
jdavidso(at)doubled.com writes:
<< I asked Nick at SUN-n-FUN 2 years ago but they are gone. >>
If everyone likes them so much you should telkl Nick to have us make some.
We weren;t the original printers but we could certainly duplicate the design!
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen Chapple <sims(at)recorder.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
I only have the answer to your first question Tony. Use AN3 bolts. I have
the doubler on the nose of my amphib 701 but its the same part.Locate so
that it (nut) doesn't interfere with valve stem.
>
>Hey Guys:
>
>I've looked everywhere, but can find no references/guidance regarding the
>following points:
>
>1. wheel fork "doublers" - I've seen pictures of a bolt in the side legs
>connecting the outer & inner forks. Is this bolt an AN3 or AN4, or does it
>matter? Is it mentioned anywhere in the plans, construction manual,
>builders sequence manual, etc?
>
>2. brakes - my brake unit only has one (1/2") mounting hole (for the axle).
> This allows the unit to swivel around (the axle) and orient itself
>anywhere from in front of the wheel fork to behind the fork. I've thought
>of drilling another small bolt hole (through fork and brass plate on the
>brake unit) so I can position the brake unit frame (preferably behind the
>wheel fork). If not done, I feel like I'm depending on the brake lines to
>position the unit.
>
>Am I thinking correctly, and what steps did you all take to accomplish the
>above?
>
>3. brake pads - when I trial fitted my wheel, brake, axle, etc the three
>aluminum pieces which connect the wheel to the brake "ring" rub against the
>brake pad frame when the wheel is turned. Since this frame looks to be made
>of cast aluminum, can we file it down a little to get some clearance?
>
>4. tire tubes - the tubes I got have the straight valve stems. It seems
>there won't be enough room to get an air hose on the stem to inflate the
>tube. How did each of you get around this? I've heard there are tire
>tubes with an angled stem, but I'd prefer not to have to buy them right now.
>
>I searched the archives, and found 191 gear related posts, but not much luck
>in getting these particular questions answered.
>
>Since I only get the daily "summary" of all email traffic, please respond
>both to me directly, as well as to the list.
>
>Thanks,
>Tony Gunn
>Houston
>
>
Glen
RAA #1114
CH-701 & Subaru EA-81 with Ross redrive
(Both under construction)
Amphibs ready to fly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Karnes" <karnesj(at)visnetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: No fuel gauges ? |
I have a LED hooked up to light up when I switch on the transfer pump.
I have a boost pump which is powered from my "essential bus". The switch
for the boost pump is a double pole spring-loaded switch which opens an
electrical switch on the firewall. This switch sends fuel into the throat
of the carburator for starting. Bob Nuckells recommended this setup in the
chance that should the top of the carburator get clogged, you could keep the
engine running by "teasing" the switch to send fuel into the throat.
I also used 3/8" fuel lines from the header tank to the carburator.
Wanted to make my system as "bulletproof" as possible.
John Karnes
N601JK
Port Orchard, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Sa <wings1(at)videotron.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
Folks, you can find the wheels and brakes PDF file here:
http://www.zenithair.com/bldr/bldr.htm
or, to be more specific, here:
http://www.zenithair.com/pdf-doc/6-gear.pdf
Carlos
Montreal, Canada
> >Hey Guys:
> >
> >I've looked everywhere, but can find no references/guidance regarding the
> >following points:
> >
>
> Tony,
>
> I have a file I will send you directly that is a ZIP file that contains five
> drawings from ZAC on how to put the wheels and brakes together.
>
> Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | New Instrument... |
Hey guys,
Just came across this in Sport Aviation. Don't know pricing or any real
details, but this instrument is COOL. Have a look
http://www.aircraftinstruments.com/adcspec.html
Don Honabach
Tempe, AZ - 601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Instrument... |
Nice instument....Looks like it could be expensive. I wonder what it
cost?
John
Don Honabach wrote:
>
>
> Hey guys,
>
> Just came across this in Sport Aviation. Don't know pricing or any real
> details, but this instrument is COOL. Have a look
> http://www.aircraftinstruments.com/adcspec.html
>
> Don Honabach
> Tempe, AZ - 601HDS
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Norris <rnorris4(at)earthlink.net> |
A possible solution to this problem is to use a small (< 1 gal) header
tank that the engine feeds from. A quart bottle would do. You would have
to vent it back to the main tanks, so the plumbing might get
complicated, but it will solve the problem. One of these with a flop
tube is how many aerobatic AC get a little inverted flying time in.
jbrigman(at)ipass.net wrote:
> It does seem, as a mental experiment, that if you were
> low on fuel and the fuel went to the outside of the
> tanks that you'd starve the engine. I like that idea of
> the "fuel bubble" giving you some reserve fuel for the
> engine to draw on. Question: might it help this
> situation by using a big fat fuel filter between the
> tank and the fuel pump, and also using relatively
> large-diameter (1/2" or 3/4"?) fuel line in the system?
> Seems that the more fuel you hold in the lines to the
> engine, the less likely you would be to starve the
> engine from fuel slosh. Maybe it'll sputter when the air
> bubble gets to the engine, but if it's a good pump it'll
> close off the air bubble quickly when the fuel begins
> flowing again.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SkyKingN(at)aol.com |
Randy, I started with plans but got talked into buying a kit., I saved some
money but I think I still paid for those hats. After all the new peices I
have had to make I should be considered a plans builder. Is it true that you
got your plans in 94? I got mine in Dec of 94 and I don't understand the
problem with the wings ?? I noticed that it helps being french when reading
the prints!!!! Have fun rivetng.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Norris <rnorris4(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: No fuel gauges? |
Come to think of it there are several certificated AC flying with no
gauges on aux tank(s). In all cases, fuel must be transferred to another
tank (with a gauge) before going to the engine.
Neither "fuel tank" nor "aux tank" are defined in FAR 1.1.
Rob Norris
601HDS fuselage filling up the garage.
I will be at SnF starting wednesday. See some of you at 1500, ZAC booth.
How about a roll call for those flying in, in a Zenith? I'd sure like to
see more than 2 this time.
Roger Bleier wrote:
> >I think you might be missing the fact that a fuel gauge is required >for
> >each tank, according to the FARs, although in practice you might >be able
> >to get away without them.
>
> *momentarily out of lurk mode*
>
> For wing tanks used to refill a fuselage tank, I think the regulatory issue
> revolves around the definition of 'fuel tank'. If a tank is not directly
> connected to the engine, i.e. if there is fuel in the tank but the engine
> cannot run on it until it is transferred somewhere else, then it is not a
> 'fuel tank' for the purpose of the FAR. The official purpose of the fuel
> gauge is not to tell you how much fuel is on board but rather to tell you
> that you are out of fuel. To me, a tank that is not directly connected
> serves the same legal function as a jerry can.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Frisby" <marslander(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Any other CH801 Lurkers out there |
Hi,
I just received my ch801 kit, any other ch801 builders out there?
Jim Frisby
marslander(at)hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven J. Devine" <steve(at)tzogon.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Any other CH801 Lurkers out there |
March 23, 2000 - April 05, 2000
Zenith-Archive.digest.vol-bo