Zenith-Archive.digest.vol-bv
September 04, 2000 - October 02, 2000
flaperon or are they on top? Also, when they are riveted to the
centerline end ribs, won't the rivets that go into the ribs be
touching each other creating a gap & making the splice plates bend
where you rivet them?
Thanks
Rich
801
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Mucker" <mmucker(at)airmail.net> |
For those of you who had trouble finding GAMA's web site (as I did), their
home page is http://www.generalaviation.org/main.shtml. "Publication 10"
sells for $12.00, but as Grant indicated, by clicking on the proper link
(http://www.generalaviation.org/pdfs/GAMAPub10V1-0.pdf) you can get your
very own copy in .pdf format.
(Why don't publishers include Table of Contents in Acrobat documents?)
-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: Monday, September 04, 2000 6:24 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Cockpit design
GAMA Aims To Make Part 23 Cockpits More User Friendly
The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) recently released
"Recommended Practices and Guidelines for Part 23 Cockpit/Flight Deck
Design" (publication 10), which is designed to assist Part 23 manufacturers
in making a better cockpit......
To download your very own free copy visit GAMA's Web site
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust Cracks |
Mike Fothergill
Brent;
Please tell us which engine and which muffler you are using.
Mike
UHS Spinners
Brent Battles wrote:
>
>
> Scanning the Archives I see there have been periodic problems with cracks
> developing where the exhaust tubes enter the transverse mount muffler. I
> had mine crack around the entire circumference of the left tube weld on
> take-off (30 hours total time on engine 27 in flight). The weld material
> at the end of the tube remained intact but left an irregular hole in the
> muffler at the weld outline leading me to think the weld may not have been
> properly quenched/tempered.
>
> I previosly had a fatigue crack develop on the angle brace for the oil
> cooler bracket with about 24 hours on the engine. I fabricated a new brace
> from heavier angle (rather than flat) 2024 T4 stock. No further problems
> there, but only 6 flight hours have passed since then. In this instance I
> had a vibration develop in flight sufficient to cause the card in my
> vertical card compass mounted on the glare shield to shake visibly but felt
> nothing otherwise. I landed about 8 minutes later and saw the break as
> soon as I took the cowl off.
>
> Common to both failures appears to be transverse motion in that both the
> oil cooler and muffler are so mounted. If I just get the muffler rewelded
> I'll have a continuing worry about a repeated failure unless I (A) quantify
> and resolve the vibration problem and/or (B) develop bracing to prevent
> "normal" vibration from affecting this muffler design and/or (C) replace
> the muffler with another design.
>
> Last possibility is that the oil cooler brace failure allowed the oil
> cooler to move laterally enough - even in those 8 minutes of flight - to
> create a sympathetic motion in the muffler thereby stressing the weld
> sufficient to break 5 hours later. (i.e., properly bracing the oil cooler
> has already solved the problem)
>
> I'd sure appreciate any thoughts you folks might have!
>
> Brent Battles
> N16BZ 912 601HD
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Ingram" <jimingerman1(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 801 flaperons |
Hi Rich
I had the same questions and some. Yes, the plates are going to flex when
you rivet them together and this is how mine are. In hindsight though, why
couldn't a person preassemble the splates and end ribs together then install
that assembly when connecting the two halves of the flaperon. Less rivets
and stonger splice but harder to line up the washout and hinge locations. I
dont know if Chris would go for that or not, maybee that flexability is
needed there.
My other problem dealt with drilling the holes that connect the splice
plates together. I didn,t feel comfortable with the hinge hole alignment
after setting the 20mm washout jig in place. Talking with Roger, it turns
out it might be better to wait untill your ready to mount the flaperons
before you mate the splice plates.
hope this helps
Jim Ingram
Yamhill, Oregon
CH801 mazda 13B
I'm assembling 8A2-2A & 8A2-2B. I don't understand the orientation of
the splice plates. Do the edges hang down from the bottom of the
flaperon or are they on top? Also, when they are riveted to the
centerline end ribs, won't the rivets that go into the ribs be
touching each other creating a gap & making the splice plates bend
where you rivet them?
Thanks
Rich
801
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Ingram" <jimingerman1(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 801 flaperons |
oh yeah, splice plates exposed area hang down
Jim Ingram
Yamhill, Oregon
CH801 mazda 13B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: to torroid or not to torrid, that IS the question . . |
.
<004501c01433$fd7402a0$2d11dcd8@montanapc>
<4.3.2.7.0.20000902215147.00b52cf0(at)popd.ix.netcom.com>
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>Hmmm! I have been doing business with RST for over ten years and never
>been treated rudely. I can imagine that he doesn't have a soft spot in his
>heart for Bob Archer, who openly denigrates RST's designs over the internet
>and in print. I have personally tested RST's designs with some antenna
>testing equipment that is about 25% of the price of my kit, and it performs
>quite fabulously. Whether it would perform just as well without the
>toroids, as Bob Archer would lead one to believe, I do not know, because I
>did not test the system that way.
I've tested the coaxial feedline (unbalanced) tied directly
to a dipole (balanced) antenna using a half dozen VHF rated
torroids for the hopeful purpose of reducing the effects
of so poor a match between antenna and feedline.
The net results for having added a few torroids was barely
detectable with some pretty sophisticated test equipment.
Only after we added about two dozen more torroids, did the
sum total of their effects become significant. Bob Archer's
poor customer relations notwithstanding, he is technically
accurate in the assessment that the torroids don't help
enough to make them worthwhile. While they don't help, they
don't hurt either. We've got a stocking order in for foil
tape and we'll be offering materials for embedded antenna
fabrication from our website catalog. We'll NOT be offering
the torroids as part of the kit.
There are coaxial transformers called "baluns" that will
do a nice job of transfering energy from balanced antennas
to unbalance feedlines . . . the net effect of these devices
is so small as to generate the question, "does the increase
in performance warrant the increase in complexity combined
with a potential decrease in reliability?" Based on my
observations of tens of thousands of Cessnas flying around
sans baluns and torroids with VACUUM tube receivers . . .
I'll suggest the answer is no.
Actually, you don't even need the copper foil. If you remove
the outer insulation from a piece of coax for about 30", pull
the center conductor out through the side of the braid as
shown in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/shldwire/shldwire.html
Take shield one direction and center lead the other direction
to make a dipole antenna. Use antenna analyzer to trim each
side of antenna until lowest SWR happens in center of frequency
range of interest. Glass this hummer in and you're done. No
solder joints. Being a fine wire antenna, this technique will
not be as broad-band in its SWR characteristics as an antenna
made from foil . . . but it will still perform quite nicely
for listenting to a VOR station 50 miles away from 5,000 feet
AGL.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | brentbattles(at)pipeline.com (Brent Battles) |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust Cracks |
In response to Mike Fothergill's prompt for missing info in my post:
I'm using the 912 engine and a stainless muffler with 5" stacks and
slip-joint connections to the forward cylinder exhaust tubes. The muffler
was supplied with the firewall-forward kit I picked up in July of 1999.
Don't know who built the muffler although I'll be calling Nick on Tuesday
(after today's holiday).
Sorry for the omission.
Brent Battles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brad d'Entremont" <DENTREBT(at)burridge.nscc.ns.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust Cracks |
"Brad d'Entremont"
Hi Brent,
I've got a 912 with the rotax Stainless steel muffler. It's on a CH701 on floats,
has only 77 hrs airtime and I just discovered this last week 2or 3 cracks around
the front pipes going into the muffler. I wondered if it could be caused
by the cooling effect of water splashing on it when I land.
Brad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust Cracks |
Mike Fothergill
Brent;
My one failure occurred after wrapping the exhaust pipes with pipe wrap
all the way down to the muffler. I believe the temperature difference
created at the weld joint caused the crack. After getting it repaired ,
I stopped the wrap about 3" short of the muffler. No problem since then.
Mike
UHS Spinners
Brent Battles wrote:
>
>
> In response to Mike Fothergill's prompt for missing info in my post:
>
> I'm using the 912 engine and a stainless muffler with 5" stacks and
> slip-joint connections to the forward cylinder exhaust tubes. The muffler
> was supplied with the firewall-forward kit I picked up in July of 1999.
> Don't know who built the muffler although I'll be calling Nick on Tuesday
> (after today's holiday).
>
> Sorry for the omission.
>
> Brent Battles
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | brentbattles(at)pipeline.com (Brent Battles) |
I called Nick this morning (my first opportunity to talk to Zenith since
the failure) and he very promptly asked me to return the muffler and twin
exhaust tubes to him for a one-day turn-around repair/modification! Seems
mine is a not unusual but also not universal problem for which the solution
appears to be a two-piece ball joint tube-to-muffler connection to allow
for slight misalignment and hence tendancy to stress the muffler weld.
Nick commented that it would most likely be vibration from starts and stops
of the engine rather than running vibration that would have the greatest
effect on the welds. In my 27 hours of operation I have an inordinate
number of starts and stops in that my flight time has been divided into 50
individual flights. This might equate to twice the normal flight time in
which these cracks might otherwise have occurred.
Anyhow, I hope to be back in the air by the weekend. Nick was extremely
helpful. Once again I have nothing but praise for that outfit. One could
perhaps gripe about a design defect, but given the apparent relative rarity
of this kind of failure, some manufacturers might have blamed the builder
or claimed a bad weld from a vendor. The fact that a fix has been
developed and offered on a quick turn-around basis shows they're committed
to a quality product and support of their customers.
By the way, close inspection of the other weld showed incipient cracking as
well.
Regards,
Brent Battles N16BZ 601HD 912UL 27 hours and smiling despite a little
down time.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Upper Longeron Splice Area on 601 |
Remember back to the discussion about the upper longeron splice area. The
question arose if the rivets at the splice area through the side skins
should be A4 or A5. Someone (I have forgotten who) had asked Nick and he
stated that they should be A5's and that drawing 6-E-1 was incorrect.
I then did a poll of flying aircraft and found that some had A5 and some had
A4????
This led me to send a fax off to Chris Heintz yesterday evening to get the
answer and he was kind enough to reply by fax within hours.
The fax from Chris which includes a drawing he made of the splice area shows
9 x A4 pitch 15 rivets in two rows for the side skins (6-F-14-2 / 6-F-3-3)
to the longeron in the splice area. Drawing 6-E-1 is CORRECT! He stated that
A4 is correct but A5 is acceptable.
So for all of you guys that have A4's and were waiting for the back to fall
off, it won't.
This brings up another point that the drawings take priority over the
construction manual. The manual is also incorrect in calling for A5 rivets
in this area.
Regards,
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
After finishing my wings and tail section before moving on, I guess I am
reviewing everything ...perhaps too much but...
I have about 150-175 leftover A5 rivets compared to < 20 A4 and I haven't
even attached the elevator to stab or stab fiberglass fairings yet - which
will more than use up the A4. I have drilled out some A4 and a few A5 but am
surprised to see so many extra A5. I put 'em all in the right places, I'm
confident, but thought I'd ask the group if they have ended up with a fairly
large number of rivets, either size, after a construction stage? Doesn't seem
like ZAC to include so many extras. I count that I have received qty870 A5
in reviewing my past ZAC pick lists.
Interested in hearing...
Chris Carey
601 HDS N601BZ
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
"'SEAL2CC(at)aol.com'"
Chris,
I also had quite a few spare A5's, but ended up ordering more A4's from
Zenith. Two and a half years of flying and nothin's fallen off yet. :-)
Jim Weston
McDonough, Ga.
> ----------
> From: SEAL2CC(at)aol.com[SMTP:SEAL2CC(at)aol.com]
> Reply To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com;SEAL2CC(at)aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 9:06 PM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Extra Rivets
>
>
> After finishing my wings and tail section before moving on, I guess I am
> reviewing everything ...perhaps too much but...
>
> I have about 150-175 leftover A5 rivets compared to < 20 A4 and I haven't
> even attached the elevator to stab or stab fiberglass fairings yet - which
>
> will more than use up the A4. I have drilled out some A4 and a few A5 but
> am
> surprised to see so many extra A5. I put 'em all in the right places, I'm
> confident, but thought I'd ask the group if they have ended up with a
> fairly
> large number of rivets, either size, after a construction stage? Doesn't
> seem
> like ZAC to include so many extras. I count that I have received qty870
> A5
> in reviewing my past ZAC pick lists.
>
> Interested in hearing...
>
> Chris Carey
> 601 HDS N601BZ
> Richmond, VA
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Extra Rivets |
Thanks all for the responses to my extra rivet question. I am buying the
components separately and sounds like a benefit to that is getting more
rivets, and also that generally people end up with extra A5 like me. Eases my
mind...
Much appreciated-
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Ferris <ferret(at)forbin.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Extra Rivets |
I was shorted on A4's by a pretty good margin, but Zenith sent me more free of
charge. I think I will have some extra A5's. The hardware supplied with the kit
is a bigger mystery to me. There's been several occaisions that I didn't have
the right hardware and had to buy it; and it appears that some of the hardware
has no place on the plane. As an example, there's some AN6 bolts. I have not
found where those go yet. I even looked through the plans again...still no
clue. All of the wing splice bolts are in a separate bag, so I'm guessing they
must go with the canopy or engine installation, because that's all I have left
to
do. I'm always quick to tell people that I don't know where all these extra
parts are supposed to go! :)
On an unrelated note, I was laying-out the steps last night. On the print
showing the welded steps, there is a view of 2 extrusions bolted together above
the view of the welded tube step. I have these 2 extrusions. I can't make sense
out of that view. Is that an alternate step design?
Greg F.
SEAL2CC(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> After finishing my wings and tail section before moving on, I guess I am
> reviewing everything ...perhaps too much but...
>
> I have about 150-175 leftover A5 rivets compared to < 20 A4 and I haven't
> even attached the elevator to stab or stab fiberglass fairings yet - which
> will more than use up the A4. I have drilled out some A4 and a few A5 but am
> surprised to see so many extra A5. I put 'em all in the right places, I'm
> confident, but thought I'd ask the group if they have ended up with a fairly
> large number of rivets, either size, after a construction stage? Doesn't seem
> like ZAC to include so many extras. I count that I have received qty870 A5
> in reviewing my past ZAC pick lists.
>
> Interested in hearing...
>
> Chris Carey
> 601 HDS N601BZ
> Richmond, VA
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Ferris <ferret(at)forbin.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Upper Longeron Splice Area on 601 |
Thanks Bill! I had marked-up the plane to drill-out the A4's to A5's. I'll
skip that now. I have to admit that when I first read about this I didn't see
how A5's would make that much of a difference in that area, but I was going to
do it anyway.
Greg F.
Bill Morelli wrote:
>
> Remember back to the discussion about the upper longeron splice area. The
> question arose if the rivets at the splice area through the side skins
> should be A4 or A5. Someone (I have forgotten who) had asked Nick and he
> stated that they should be A5's and that drawing 6-E-1 was incorrect.
>
> I then did a poll of flying aircraft and found that some had A5 and some had
> A4????
>
> This led me to send a fax off to Chris Heintz yesterday evening to get the
> answer and he was kind enough to reply by fax within hours.
>
> The fax from Chris which includes a drawing he made of the splice area shows
> 9 x A4 pitch 15 rivets in two rows for the side skins (6-F-14-2 / 6-F-3-3)
> to the longeron in the splice area. Drawing 6-E-1 is CORRECT! He stated that
> A4 is correct but A5 is acceptable.
>
> So for all of you guys that have A4's and were waiting for the back to fall
> off, it won't.
>
> This brings up another point that the drawings take priority over the
> construction manual. The manual is also incorrect in calling for A5 rivets
> in this area.
>
> Regards,
> Bill
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Harvey <aileron51(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Extra Rivets |
Chris,
I am almost finished with wings and tail, also, and I
have many A5's left over, and am short a few A4's. (I
guess I made more mistakes than you!) So, my
experience has been the same.
Doug
601HDS
--- SEAL2CC(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> After finishing my wings and tail section before
> moving on, I guess I am
> reviewing everything ...perhaps too much but...
>
> I have about 150-175 leftover A5 rivets compared to
> < 20 A4 and I haven't
> even attached the elevator to stab or stab
> fiberglass fairings yet - which
> will more than use up the A4. I have drilled out
> some A4 and a few A5 but am
> surprised to see so many extra A5. I put 'em all in
> the right places, I'm
> confident, but thought I'd ask the group if they
> have ended up with a fairly
> large number of rivets, either size, after a
> construction stage? Doesn't seem
> like ZAC to include so many extras. I count that I
> have received qty870 A5
> in reviewing my past ZAC pick lists.
>
> Interested in hearing...
>
> Chris Carey
> 601 HDS N601BZ
> Richmond, VA
>
>
>
> through
>
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
> Matronics!
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Chapman <pchapman(at)ionsys.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust Cracks |
At 05:49 PM 05-09-2000 , Brent Battles wrote about his exhaust system being
at ZAC for repair.
Nick and I had talked about the same things regarding my cracked exhaust
system. It is also at ZAC getting rewelded, and having ball joints
installed for the rear tubes.
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BRIAN HOPE" <BRIAN(at)jodell.freeserve.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Extra Rivets |
"BRIAN HOPE"
>On an unrelated note, I was laying-out the steps last night. On the print
>showing the welded steps, there is a view of 2 extrusions bolted together
above
>the view of the welded tube step. I have these 2 extrusions. I can't make
sense
>out of that view. Is that an alternate step design?
>
>Greg F.
>
Hi Greg,
I looked at that drawing for a while too before the penny dropped. The
extrusions are fitted across the centreline of the bottom of the fuselage
and are set apart 3/4 inch, the dia of the step tubing. The outer ends of
the steps have plates that rivet to the fuselage sides and the inner ends of
the tubes fit between the extrusions and are either riveted or bolted - I
don't have my drawings to hand and can't remember which.
Regards, Brian Hope. Plans building 601UL.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Ferris <ferret(at)forbin.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Extra Rivets |
Well that makes a whole lot of sense Brian. Now I'll probably look at the print
and wonder why I didn't see that. I wondered why those tubes were so long under
the fuselage.
Greg F.
BRIAN HOPE wrote:
>
> >On an unrelated note, I was laying-out the steps last night. On the print
> >showing the welded steps, there is a view of 2 extrusions bolted together
> above
> >the view of the welded tube step. I have these 2 extrusions. I can't make
> sense
> >out of that view. Is that an alternate step design?
> >
> >Greg F.
> >
> Hi Greg,
> I looked at that drawing for a while too before the penny dropped. The
> extrusions are fitted across the centreline of the bottom of the fuselage
> and are set apart 3/4 inch, the dia of the step tubing. The outer ends of
> the steps have plates that rivet to the fuselage sides and the inner ends of
> the tubes fit between the extrusions and are either riveted or bolted - I
> don't have my drawings to hand and can't remember which.
> Regards, Brian Hope. Plans building 601UL.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Photography in Flight" <flyfoto(at)flyfoto.com> |
"Photography in Flight"
I am test flying my 601HD. I built the aircraft using Zenith's "flexing
skin" design on the ailerons, as opposed to piano hinges.
When I have the aileron push rods unattached, the right aileron falls to a
lower position than the left (flexes further down under it's own weight).
Consequently, when I attached the push rods, this results in the right
aileron being deflected slightly downward, and the left aileron being
deflected slightly upward with no external pressure on the control stick.
In flight, this results in a left aileron roll when all pressure is relaxed
on the control stick. Nick suggested a trim tab, which I installed. I
progressively increased the deflection of the trim tab, which is now up to
about 40 degrees. This resulted in less required pressure to the right on
the control stick to maintain level flight, but did not eliminate the
problem.
My questions to all of you are these:
1. Has anyone else experienced the same phenomenon, with one aileron being
more flexible than the other?
2. Did a trim tab correct the problem?
3. Has anyone replaced the flexible skin with a piano hinge, and if so, did
that alone correct the problem?
Thanks.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Pinneo <George.Pinneo(at)trw.com> |
I didn't have the same problem, but you can use the aileron push-rods to 'set'
the angle of the ailerons. You may have to experiment with push-rod length to
do this. I've fussed with mine some. I could fly hands off when I first started
flying 5 years ago.
I do have the trim-tab and can now trim to fly hands off solo or dual.
GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
"John W. Tarabocchia"
Photography in Flight wrote:
>
>
> I am test flying my 601HD. I built the aircraft using Zenith's "flexing
> skin" design on the ailerons, as opposed to piano hinges.
>
> When I have the aileron push rods unattached, the right aileron falls to a
> lower position than the left (flexes further down under it's own weight).
> Consequently, when I attached the push rods, this results in the right
> aileron being deflected slightly downward, and the left aileron being
> deflected slightly upward with no external pressure on the control stick.
>
> In flight, this results in a left aileron roll when all pressure is relaxed
> on the control stick. Nick suggested a trim tab, which I installed. I
> progressively increased the deflection of the trim tab, which is now up to
> about 40 degrees. This resulted in less required pressure to the right on
> the control stick to maintain level flight, but did not eliminate the
> problem.
>
> My questions to all of you are these:
>
> 1. Has anyone else experienced the same phenomenon, with one aileron being
> more flexible than the other?
>
> 2. Did a trim tab correct the problem?
>
> 3. Has anyone replaced the flexible skin with a piano hinge, and if so, did
> that alone correct the problem?
>
> Thanks.
Hey....Didn't get your name
Yes I did change the flex skin to piano hinges. I have flown yet, but I
too notices the same thing in the shop. I also felt they were way too
stiff. I use the drawing in the plans for the piano hinge. The
controls move much easier and they stay were ever you put them. There
were several posts on this about 8 months ago on the list. You might
also benefit from them in the archives.
Good luck,
John W. Tarabocchia
CH601hds #6-4085
Welding and assembling gear...
Scratch building tail feathers...
Web Address:
http://hometown.aol.com/zodiacbuilder/Home.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | MD-RA Inspection |
Hello gang!
As several of you know, I built my flying surfaces
during the last year or so, to the point that they
were ready for a pre-cover inspection (as required in
Canada).
Normally, that pre-cover is done when all the aircraft
is built, but not riveted (on one side). However,
there is an option of dividing that inspection in
several visits.
Question of helping my morale, I decided to have my
wings, ailerons, stabilizer, elevator and rudder
inpected. And this inspection was done this
afternoon.
I was very happy to learn that I have zero snag! And
I can close the surfaces whenever I want (something
I'll probably start this evening :-)
Soon, I will really have something completed on this
airplane :)
Michel
PS: One thing that the inspector did not really like,
but not to the point of making it a snag is the fact
that I installed an aileron trim tab. He feels that
the additional weight can change the balance of the
aileron and possibly create flutter. All I have to do
is to inform the test pilot.... Those of you who
have aileron trim,,,, is his concern valid?
=====
Michel Therrien
http://www.pcperfect.com/mthobby/ch601
-- site has moved!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Trim tab flutter |
He feels that
> the additional weight can change the balance of the
> aileron and possibly create flutter. Those of you who
> have aileron trim,,,, is his concern valid?
+++ I thought the elevator trim tab was really floppy and asked Chis Heintz
if it could be inclined to induce flutter. He responded that it had been
flight tested to 180 mph and no problems found.
Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Austin" <daveaustin2(at)sprint.ca> |
| Subject: | Aeleron trim tab |
I,ve had trim tabs on HD and HDS wings. Would not fly without them. No
suggestion of flutter, ever.
Dave Austin 601HDS 445 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
Mike Fothergill
Sounds like your trim tab might be too small. Mine is about 2.5" x 15"
with a Mac trim servo adjusting it in flight.
Mike
UHS Spinners
Photography in Flight wrote:
>
>
> I am test flying my 601HD. I built the aircraft using Zenith's "flexing
> skin" design on the ailerons, as opposed to piano hinges.
>
> When I have the aileron push rods unattached, the right aileron falls to a
> lower position than the left (flexes further down under it's own weight).
> Consequently, when I attached the push rods, this results in the right
> aileron being deflected slightly downward, and the left aileron being
> deflected slightly upward with no external pressure on the control stick.
>
> In flight, this results in a left aileron roll when all pressure is relaxed
> on the control stick. Nick suggested a trim tab, which I installed. I
> progressively increased the deflection of the trim tab, which is now up to
> about 40 degrees. This resulted in less required pressure to the right on
> the control stick to maintain level flight, but did not eliminate the
> problem.
>
> My questions to all of you are these:
>
> 1. Has anyone else experienced the same phenomenon, with one aileron being
> more flexible than the other?
>
> 2. Did a trim tab correct the problem?
>
> 3. Has anyone replaced the flexible skin with a piano hinge, and if so, did
> that alone correct the problem?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: MD-RA Inspection |
Mike Fothergill
Aileron trim tab has not caused any flutter problem on mine at up to 150
mph dive.
Mike
UHS Spinners
Michel Therrien wrote:
>
>
> Hello gang!
>
> As several of you know, I built my flying surfaces
> during the last year or so, to the point that they
> were ready for a pre-cover inspection (as required in
> Canada).
>
> Normally, that pre-cover is done when all the aircraft
> is built, but not riveted (on one side). However,
> there is an option of dividing that inspection in
> several visits.
>
> Question of helping my morale, I decided to have my
> wings, ailerons, stabilizer, elevator and rudder
> inpected. And this inspection was done this
> afternoon.
>
> I was very happy to learn that I have zero snag! And
> I can close the surfaces whenever I want (something
> I'll probably start this evening :-)
>
> Soon, I will really have something completed on this
> airplane :)
>
> Michel
> PS: One thing that the inspector did not really like,
> but not to the point of making it a snag is the fact
> that I installed an aileron trim tab. He feels that
> the additional weight can change the balance of the
> aileron and possibly create flutter. All I have to do
> is to inform the test pilot.... Those of you who
> have aileron trim,,,, is his concern valid?
>
> =====
> Michel Therrien
> http://www.pcperfect.com/mthobby/ch601
> -- site has moved!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MD-RA Inspection |
"John W. Tarabocchia"
Michel Therrien wrote:
>
> Michel
> PS: One thing that the inspector did not really like,
> but not to the point of making it a snag is the fact
> that I installed an aileron trim tab. He feels that
> the additional weight can change the balance of the
> aileron and possibly create flutter. All I have to do
> is to inform the test pilot.... Those of you who
> have aileron trim,,,, is his concern valid?
>
--
Hey Michel,
You plan on having a test pilot do the first flight or all test
flights? What does a test pilot get as compensation for his services?
John W. Tarabocchia
CH601hds #6-4085
Welding and assembling gear...
Scratch building tail feathers...
Web Address:
http://hometown.aol.com/zodiacbuilder/Home.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AWilson62(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Size of trailer needed to tow CH-701 |
I rented a car trailer. The kind that is a full flat bed. Then i just tied
the airplane down to it. I rented a pickup truck to tow it and the wings
went in the bed of the pickup on a wing rack. But I only had to go 40 miles.
I think it could have gone the distance you need though.
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
Zenith-List Digest Server
| From: | brentbattles(at)pipeline.com (Brent Battles) |
| Subject: | Re: Extra Rivets |
Hi Chris,
I made a number of mods on my airplane requiring more rivets. I ordered
more A4's in small quantities on two occasions and needed more at the very
end of the project. The last ones I got free with the comment from Nick
that they weigh rather than count their rivets for the pick list.
Having said this, I don't want to encourage claims of short weight, but I
think if you're short a few and in clear conscience can say you haven't
drilled out several dozen, then you could ask for a few replacements. This
comment reflects my experience of about 8 months ago and packing methods
may have changed since then. It may well depend on how you ask. . .
Brent Battles N16BZ
Zenith-List message posted by: SEAL2CC(at)aol.com
> (I) am
>surprised to see so many extra A5. I put 'em all in the right places, I'm
>confident, but thought I'd ask the group if they have ended up with a fairly
>large number of rivets, either size, after a construction stage? Doesn't seem
>like ZAC to include so many extras. I count that I have received qty870 A5
>in reviewing my past ZAC pick lists.
>
>Interested in hearing...
>
>Chris Carey
>601 HDS N601BZ
>Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Pinneo <George.Pinneo(at)trw.com> |
| Subject: | MD-RA Inspection |
No, it's not reasonable for him to assume the ailerons will flutter. Mine don't,
didn't and won't, before or after trim-tab installation.
GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net> |
I have a friend who is curious about the Dedalius wing. We have checked
the archives and watched their promo tape on the wing. Is there anyone
out there who has this wing or knows of anyone who does.
phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Error in wig/wag circuit . . . |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
Many thanks to reader Ken Brown for pointing out a fundamental
flaw in the way I wired the wig/wag circuit for Option 3.
A revised drawing has been uploaded for any interested parties
to download at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/aec_ww.pdf
Another reader, George Meketa, had another idea for a wig/wag
with some unique features and fewer switches on the panel.
Option 4 uses one, 3-position switch for OFF-TAXI-BOTH operation
of the landing and taxi lights. While in the BOTH position, pressing
a stick mounted push button produces wig/wag operation. The stick
mounted switch could also be a small toggle or rocker switch (the
current in this switch is 100 milliamperes) so that you don't
have to hold the button to keep the wig/wag functioning. Our
proposed AEC9020-1 flasher module will work with either option.
I've uploaded Option 4 to the website at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/aec_ww2.pdf
Whilst you're peeking at our website, take a look at what is
probably the world's smallest VHF comm transceiver at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/avionics/760vhf.html
We're out shopping for avionics which in my opinion have
a lot of bang for the buck . . . watch for other goodies
to show up there soon.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "vraned1" <vraned1(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Re-installing Hinge Pins |
Phil,
put the pin in a cordless drill. It should spin right in.
Randy Vranish
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Maxson" <pmaxson(at)interactive.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 1:04 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re-installing Hinge Pins
>
> I removed the hinge pins from my 601XL flaps and now I can't get them back
> in!
>
> Half of the hinge was clecoed to the rear channel, the other half is
riveted
> to the flap. I assume they are very slightly out of alignment, but the
d***
> pin wont go back in without bending! I've tried grease and WD40, to no
> avail. The thing just wants to bend when I push the pin back in.
>
> Anyone else run into this? (I couldn't see anything in the archives)
>
> I have some slightly smaller stainless steel hinge pins that slide in with
> very little play. Does anyone know what tolerance is required?
>
> Phil Maxson
> CH601XL, N601MX
> Teaching aluminum to submit to my desires.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Shower-o-sparks magneto wiring . . . |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
Don't know if it's the phase of the moon or el-nino effects
but I've had three requests in the last two days for info on
wiring a "vibrator" enhanced magneto . . . I've published a
wiring diagram on the website at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles.html
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
"'Photography in Flight'"
I've had to solve the same problem. If you built a straight/true wing the
plane will tend to roll left while solo and fly straight when carrying a
passenger. It's a very small/light aircraft and 200lbs of weight (me)
setting off the centerline is noticeable. I installed one trim tab and
found it to be insufficient, unless I wanted to make a very large one. So I
installed a second one on the other wing, bent the opposite direction of
course. I now have it trimmed to fly hands off at normal cruise speed.
However, when I take a passenger with me it wants to roll right just as hard
as it used to want to roll left. I intend to add electric trim to one side
to allow correction for both situations.
Don't worry, it sounds like you built nice straight wings.
The reason it takes two trim tabs is because they have to overcome the
springiness of the sheet metal hinge, as well as the aerodynamic forces.
Good Luck,
Jim Weston
McDonough, Ga.
-----Original Message-----
From: Photography in Flight [mailto:flyfoto(at)flyfoto.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 2:00 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Ailerons
I am test flying my 601HD. I built the aircraft using Zenith's "flexing
skin" design on the ailerons, as opposed to piano hinges.
When I have the aileron push rods unattached, the right aileron falls to a
lower position than the left (flexes further down under it's own weight).
Consequently, when I attached the push rods, this results in the right
aileron being deflected slightly downward, and the left aileron being
deflected slightly upward with no external pressure on the control stick.
In flight, this results in a left aileron roll when all pressure is relaxed
on the control stick. Nick suggested a trim tab, which I installed. I
progressively increased the deflection of the trim tab, which is now up to
about 40 degrees. This resulted in less required pressure to the right on
the control stick to maintain level flight, but did not eliminate the
problem.
My questions to all of you are these:
1. Has anyone else experienced the same phenomenon, with one aileron being
more flexible than the other?
2. Did a trim tab correct the problem?
3. Has anyone replaced the flexible skin with a piano hinge, and if so, did
that alone correct the problem?
Thanks.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Pinneo <George.Pinneo(at)trw.com> |
Sorry to disagree, but one aileron trim-tab, on the right wing, the size ZAC says.
placed where ZAC says to put it, works quite well. Two tabs are not needed.
GGP
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wizard-24(at)juno.com |
Regarding aileron trim tabs, the ZAC drawings (nor the wing kit) mentions
the use of a trim tab. Any XL-builders notice this, and if so, should we
be planning to install one? And what would be the size and position,
based on the new XL wing design? If electric trim is a good idea, now
would be the time to install it (my ailerons are cleco'd, not yet
riveted).
Mike Fortunato
601XL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Graham Kirby <gkirby(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Nose Ribs on 601HD |
I'm just starting on the first outboard wing and I
noticed that the instructions are to mount the first
nose-rib (at 130mm) on top of the spar cap doublers.
This will make it stick out 1/8" further than the
other ribs.
Has anyone tried modifying the nose rib flange so that
it is level with the other ribs? -- I want to do
everything I can to make the nose skin fit snugly!
Cheers
Graham Kirby
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Maxson <pmaxson(at)interactive.net> |
>> Any XL-builders notice this, and if so, should we be planning to install one?
I have been thinking the same thing. If memory serves, there was a trim
tab on the first incarnation of the XL but the current edition doesn't
have one. I believe we will need one, due to the light weight of the
601 and the "unbalanced" condition of a pilot without a passenger.
I believe this is a question for Mr. Nick. I'd hate to design one that
was ineffective or fluttered.
Have you asked Zenith yet?
Phil Maxson
601XL, N601MX
Advocating a diet high in aluminum chips.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nose Ribs on 601HD |
> Has anyone tried modifying the nose rib flange so
> that
> it is level with the other ribs? -- I want to do
> everything I can to make the nose skin fit snugly!
Yes, and this is specified in the plans (part 6V1-2).
6 left and 6 right ribs need to be cut to clear the
spar cap doubler. Those ribs are also attached to a L
angle riveted to the spar cap doublers.
=====
Michel Therrien
http://www.pcperfect.com/mthobby/ch601
-- site has moved!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Weir article on Microair 760 . . . |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
Several folk mentioned a review Jim did on the Microair 760.
I found a copy on Microair's website and reproduced it at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/avionics/760vhf.html
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | brentbattles(at)pipeline.com (Brent Battles) |
I received my modified muffler on Friday - as promised by Nick Heintz, a
one-day turn-around in Mexico! They did a fine job, and I reinstalled the
exhaust system in less than 20 minutes and was off and flying Saturday
morning.
The mod consists of replacing the welds at the muffler with square plates
containing ball sockets and a pair of spring attachment rings - all
beautifully welded into place. The original exhaust tubes were fitted with
"male" ball joint fittings held in place with springs attached to mating
rings welded onto the exhaust tubes. They fit perfectly and certainly
appear to allow joint flexibility although there was no play apparent when
the muffler springs were slipped into place.
Having years ago worked for American Airlines airfreight and having been
very familiar with "AOG" (aircraft on grounnd) shipments which took
priority over everything else, I felt I was getting exactly the same
treatment from Zenith for my little pleasure airplane ("stranded" away from
home 22 miles away as it was). My thanks go to everyone who had a part in
this, from receipt of my parts to crafting the fix, to making sure shipment
was made as promised.
What a far cry from the folks at the old GlasStar outfit who not only
didn't deliver what they promised (at all, let alone on time) but stole
people's money to boot with a straight face just days before fleeing into
bankruptcy. The Heintz family is a class act. I made the right choice!
Regards,
Brent Battles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Lazear <TomLazear(at)netscape.net> |
| Subject: | VDO Tack Fluctuations |
Hello,Pilots & Builders
I,m using the 912 and VDO engine tack supplied with the Zenair insterment
package. When I first started test flying the engine rpm seemed to stay
steady, after about 2 hours I noticed the engine tack fluctuating about 300
rpm at about all speed settings. But the engine sounds good you can not hear
any speed change in the engine it sounds smooth.
Has any one else had this same problem, or have any ideas?
Tom 701
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://home.netscape.com/webmail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Slaughter <mslaughter(at)interhop.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VDO Tack Fluctuations |
>Hi Tom,
That's got electrical problems written all over it. Probably
just a loose wire in the circuit from the engine vibration after a couple
of hours.
Cheers,
Mike S.
>Hello,Pilots & Builders
>
>I,m using the 912 and VDO engine tack supplied with the Zenair insterment
>package. When I first started test flying the engine rpm seemed to stay
>steady, after about 2 hours I noticed the engine tack fluctuating about 300
>rpm at about all speed settings. But the engine sounds good you can not hear
>any speed change in the engine it sounds smooth.
>
>Has any one else had this same problem, or have any ideas?
>
>
>Tom 701
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: nmh batteries |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
At 05:18 AM 9/10/00 GMT, you wrote:
>I saw two brands of nmh AA cells in Wally world. Energizer and Ray-o-vac I
>think. Just wondering if they were any better for GPS & hand held radios
>than ni-cad. Same voltage as ni-cad 1.2. Thanks for your many informative
>posts to the Kolb list. Bill in Lousyana
My pleasure sir . . .
My personal favorites for low voltage (4 cells or less) radios are
alkalines . . . they contain much more total energy than most
ni-cads . . . and about the same as run-of-the-mill NmH cells.
The best part is that they start out at 1.5 volts versus 1.25 for
the "nickels" . . .
Go to Dollar General stores and buy their house brand AA nicads.
I've tested these batteries repeatedly and they're withing a few
percent of best bunnybatteries you can buy. Best yet, unburdened
by VERY expensive television and print advertising, is they cost
25 cents per cell . . . A VERY good value.
The only thing that beats this for dollars/joule of energy
stored are the Ray-o-Vac Renew series rechargable alkalines.
The down side of these are you have to have a charger and a place
to plug it in. I buy the Dollar General batteries about 10 packages
at a time and keep plenty of spares in my flight bag.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: nmh batteries |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>Bob----Dollar General NICADS, or Alkalines? I think you meant alkalines,
>didn't you?
Opps . . . yes. Thanks for the heads up.
Dollar General has a "Powerize" brand
"long lasting Alkaline" cell that sells
in our local stores for $1.50/pkg of 6 cells.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
Is it OK to use fiber lock nuts on bolts for prop to prop extension or are
drilled bolts, castle nuts and cotter pins required?
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
| Subject: | Fiddling with Fip-Flop canopy! |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Hi,
Just an FYI on the canopy construction....
I've been fiddling to get my side-to-side canopy adjusted. I'm finding it a
source of frustration.
My thinking was to just build what I've got to save some time and try to get
flying before winter sets in this year. But now I'm wondering. There are
some time consuming details to attend to.
The 'niggly' things are related to the fact that the sides have to be
straight, to function as a hinge. And the lower edge of the hinge portion
must be arranged to rotate inwards as the othe side lifts up.
Along with that is the fiddling around with the transition zones on the
corners where the canopy is located 'outside' the fuselage, to the hinge
zones where it must now be 'inside' the fuselage to serve as a hinge. (if
you understand my explanation)
It seems that some time would be saved and a nicer finished product achived
with the front-hinge system. Here the sides can be slightly curved to match
the fuselage exactly, and the 'skirt' of the canopy can be kept slightly
overlapped to the outside all around, making fitting and sealing and
rain-protection much simpler - no?
Then of course there are the safety improvements afforded by the front
hinge.
I'll finish it this way for now, but I plan to switch to the 'George Pinneo'
forward hinge version asap once I've taught myself a little about West
fiberglassing.
TTFN
--
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
601 hds/CAM100
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James R Ashford <kimojima(at)juno.com> |
Bill,
I wouldn't use anything but a positive lock like you get with cotter pins
and castle nuts. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a standard somewhere
that requires them.
Jim Ashford
912 601 HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim or Diane Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net> |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
| Subject: | Re: nmh batteries |
Tim or Diane Shankland
Be careful with the RENEWAL batteries I use them in all sorts of devices around
the house
but found they work poorly in a GPS unit or handheld transceiver. It seem they
will work as
well as normal alkaline with a small steady load, like a Walkman etc. but when
used with my
GPS which had a pulsed heavy load they would only last about half as long. I hope
they
improve them but for now I only use them in low current devices.
Tim Shankland
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
> At 05:18 AM 9/10/00 GMT, you wrote:
> >I saw two brands of nmh AA cells in Wally world. Energizer and Ray-o-vac I
> >think. Just wondering if they were any better for GPS & hand held radios
> >than ni-cad. Same voltage as ni-cad 1.2. Thanks for your many informative
> >posts to the Kolb list. Bill in Lousyana
>
> My pleasure sir . . .
>
> My personal favorites for low voltage (4 cells or less) radios are
> alkalines . . . they contain much more total energy than most
> ni-cads . . . and about the same as run-of-the-mill NmH cells.
> The best part is that they start out at 1.5 volts versus 1.25 for
> the "nickels" . . .
>
> Go to Dollar General stores and buy their house brand AA nicads.
> I've tested these batteries repeatedly and they're withing a few
> percent of best bunnybatteries you can buy. Best yet, unburdened
> by VERY expensive television and print advertising, is they cost
> 25 cents per cell . . . A VERY good value.
>
> The only thing that beats this for dollars/joule of energy
> stored are the Ray-o-Vac Renew series rechargable alkalines.
> The down side of these are you have to have a charger and a place
> to plug it in. I buy the Dollar General batteries about 10 packages
> at a time and keep plenty of spares in my flight bag.
>
> Bob . . .
> --------------------------------------------
> ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
> ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
> ( and still understand nothing. )
> ( C.F. Kettering )
> --------------------------------------------
> http://www.aeroelectric.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
| Subject: | Fiddling with Fip-Flop canopy! |
Hi Grant,
I also went with the side-to-side canopy and know exactly what you talking
about. I decided to go side-by-side after intensively studying the forward
tilting version, which I believe is even worse than the side-by-side. During
a meeting of several builders at Sun'n Fun this year one guy (sorry, forgot
the name) mentioned his idea of a sliding canopy. The idea sounded pretty
good to me (it also must be nice to taxi around with the anopy open on a hot
summer day...).
I decided to go side-by-side (which is now working after a lot of
adjsuting...) for the time being and convert later on to a sliding canopy.
Thilo Kind
transported the bird to the airport yesterday and bolted the wings on -
thanks again to Jim (another buider here in Delaware) for all the help
> -----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, September 10, 2000 7:37 PM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Fiddling with Fip-Flop canopy!
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Just an FYI on the canopy construction....
>
> I've been fiddling to get my side-to-side canopy adjusted.
> I'm finding it a
> source of frustration.
>
> My thinking was to just build what I've got to save some time
> and try to get
> flying before winter sets in this year. But now I'm
> wondering. There are
> some time consuming details to attend to.
>
> The 'niggly' things are related to the fact that the sides have to be
> straight, to function as a hinge. And the lower edge of the
> hinge portion
> must be arranged to rotate inwards as the othe side lifts up.
>
> Along with that is the fiddling around with the transition
> zones on the
> corners where the canopy is located 'outside' the fuselage,
> to the hinge
> zones where it must now be 'inside' the fuselage to serve as
> a hinge. (if
> you understand my explanation)
>
> It seems that some time would be saved and a nicer finished
> product achived
> with the front-hinge system. Here the sides can be slightly
> curved to match
> the fuselage exactly, and the 'skirt' of the canopy can be
> kept slightly
> overlapped to the outside all around, making fitting and sealing and
> rain-protection much simpler - no?
>
> Then of course there are the safety improvements afforded by the front
> hinge.
>
> I'll finish it this way for now, but I plan to switch to the
> 'George Pinneo'
> forward hinge version asap once I've taught myself a little about West
> fiberglassing.
>
> TTFN
>
> --
> Grant Corriveau
> Montreal
> 601 hds/CAM100
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
| Subject: | Questions for 601 HDS |
Hi Nick,
I have a few questions:
- what seize gap is required between the elevator and the fiberglas wing
tips / the aileron and the fuselage wing fairing? I am under the assumption,
that the gap should be as small as possible, but the parts shouldn't touch.
Am I correct?
- Another builder was told to file all 90 degrees corners on sheet metal
round or at 45 degrees because of stress relief. I'm not talking about
inside corners, where a corner relief hole is required, but the outside
corners. Is that really necessary?
- I heard a technical counseler requiring washers under the head of the bolt
AND the nut. Somehow in your manual you state to put washers ONLY under the
nut (which I tend to agree with). Can you please comment on that?
Thanks for your help.
Thilo Kind
Here is a quick update on my project: transported the fusleage and wings to
the airport yesterday and bolted the wings on. Should finish the plane
(minus painting) in a few weeks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: battery trade-offs |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>Also take a look at:
>
>http://www.avionicswest.com/batterylife.html#Life
>
>
> --Duane
Thanks for the heads up on this one. I've captured it
and will include it in a bibliography of information
I'm gatering on people's practical experience with batteries.
It's interesting to note that the most expensive batteries
(nicad and/or nimh) had the lowest operating life even when
they claimed 1600 maH of capacity, some jelly-bean brands
of alkalines performed longer.
The author seems enamored of the 1-cent per battery
cycle for battery cost . . . which is indeed a valid
consideration. For me personally, the long battery life
(radio never needs batteries in flight) and convenience
of throwaway is more important . . . PROVIDED that I don't
pay $5.00/set for batteries.
With my Dollar Generals, it costs me $1 to battery up
the Magellan 2000 and $0.50 for the 300. That's $1.50
per flight for 100% servicability of both radios. When
I burn $85 worth of fuel per flight and pay about $240
in rental, the $1.50 is a pretty tiny part of the total
cost. My personal quest is for maximized flight system
reliability while minimizing cost and inconvenience of dealing
with chargers, etc. away from home base.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Melanie @ Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Questions for 601 HDS |
"Melanie @ Thilo Kind"
Sorry guys,
this e-mail was for Nick - somehow I managed to put the wrong address in.
However, anybody with any comments?
Thilo Kind
----- Original Message -----
From: Thilo Kind <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 9:41 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Questions for 601 HDS
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> I have a few questions:
>
> - what seize gap is required between the elevator and the fiberglas wing
> tips / the aileron and the fuselage wing fairing? I am under the
assumption,
> that the gap should be as small as possible, but the parts shouldn't
touch.
> Am I correct?
>
> - Another builder was told to file all 90 degrees corners on sheet metal
> round or at 45 degrees because of stress relief. I'm not talking about
> inside corners, where a corner relief hole is required, but the outside
> corners. Is that really necessary?
>
> - I heard a technical counseler requiring washers under the head of the
bolt
> AND the nut. Somehow in your manual you state to put washers ONLY under
the
> nut (which I tend to agree with). Can you please comment on that?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Thilo Kind
>
> Here is a quick update on my project: transported the fusleage and wings
to
> the airport yesterday and bolted the wings on. Should finish the plane
> (minus painting) in a few weeks.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brad d'Entremont" <DENTREBT(at)burridge.nscc.ns.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: VDO Tack Fluctuations |
"Brad d'Entremont"
I have the same thing , with about 200rpms in fluctuation. Engine seems to be working
fine though. 205 hrs. Don't think it's a problem.
Brad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Royer, Michel" <RoyerM(at)tc.gc.ca> |
"'Melanie @ Thilo Kind'"
| Subject: | Questions for 601 HDS |
As i'm ready to order the canopy, i'm debating which way i'm going to go
about OPENING, there seem to be a huge difference in price from ZAC for
the side-side and the forward tilting option, but i wish i had details on
the sliding one
as it would be my choice......
Michel Royer
> ----------
> From: Melanie @ Thilo Kind[SMTP:m_tkind(at)sprynet.com]
> Reply To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com;Melanie @ Thilo Kind
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 8:01 AM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com; Thilo Kind
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Questions for 601 HDS
>
>
>
> Sorry guys,
>
> this e-mail was for Nick - somehow I managed to put the wrong address in.
> However, anybody with any comments?
>
> Thilo Kind
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Thilo Kind <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com>
> To: 'Zenith List'
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 9:41 PM
> Subject: Zenith-List: Questions for 601 HDS
>
>
> >
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> > I have a few questions:
> >
> > - what seize gap is required between the elevator and the fiberglas wing
> > tips / the aileron and the fuselage wing fairing? I am under the
> assumption,
> > that the gap should be as small as possible, but the parts shouldn't
> touch.
> > Am I correct?
> >
> > - Another builder was told to file all 90 degrees corners on sheet metal
> > round or at 45 degrees because of stress relief. I'm not talking about
> > inside corners, where a corner relief hole is required, but the outside
> > corners. Is that really necessary?
> >
> > - I heard a technical counseler requiring washers under the head of the
> bolt
> > AND the nut. Somehow in your manual you state to put washers ONLY under
> the
> > nut (which I tend to agree with). Can you please comment on that?
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
> >
> > Thilo Kind
> >
> > Here is a quick update on my project: transported the fusleage and wings
> to
> > the airport yesterday and bolted the wings on. Should finish the plane
> > (minus painting) in a few weeks.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Slaughter <mslaughter(at)interhop.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Questions for 601 HDS |
Hi Thilo,
> On the aileron fairing question..I made the gap as small a
> possible while ensuring there was no interference between the parts-as I
> recall about 4-5mm.
I rounded the corners on every piece of metal on the
aircraft-inside and out. It takes very little time, and in my opinion gives
the plane a much nicer finished look. After 6 years of mods and rooting
around inside the aircraft (you never are finished), I can't tell you the
number of times my hands, fingers,arms, and other body bits have smacked
against a piece of metal. Had I not rounded of all those corners, I' d be
dead from blood loss by now.
Cheers,
Mike S.
> >
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> > I have a few questions:
> >
> > - what seize gap is required between the elevator and the fiberglas wing
> > tips / the aileron and the fuselage wing fairing? I am under the
>assumption,
> > that the gap should be as small as possible, but the parts shouldn't
>touch.
> > Am I correct?
> >
> > - Another builder was told to file all 90 degrees corners on sheet metal
> > round or at 45 degrees because of stress relief. I'm not talking about
> > inside corners, where a corner relief hole is required, but the outside
> > corners. Is that really necessary?
> >
> > - I heard a technical counseler requiring washers under the head of the
>bolt
> > AND the nut. Somehow in your manual you state to put washers ONLY under
>the
> > nut (which I tend to agree with). Can you please comment on that?
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
> >
> > Thilo Kind
> >
> > Here is a quick update on my project: transported the fusleage and wings
>to
> > the airport yesterday and bolted the wings on. Should finish the plane
> > (minus painting) in a few weeks.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ivan Rosales" <ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx> |
"Ivan Rosales"
Hi Guys:
Help me please. Someone is offering me an engine but I don't know if this is
a good deal. I tried to post this message in the Subaru list but I couldn't
do it. Can anyone post it for me or comment on it please. This is his
description and price:
"The engine is an EA-81 (Asian
version) which means it originally was a dual carb. unit with the different
heads and camshaft and puts out about 20 more h.p. than the stock EA-81. I
removed the dual carbs and had RFI make me a manifold from an EA-82 engine
that would support a single carb. I was planning on running an Ellison
Throttlebody for a carb. I would give the
engine to anyone if they would pay for the accessories that I had bought for
the engine. Here is a breakdown on the accessories
Engine................................................N/C
RFI belt redrive ( includes starter)...........$1780.00
Intake manifold.....................................$ 85.00
Alternator.............................................$ 65.00
Subaru conversion video........................$ 25.00
Total....................................................$1955.00 (plus
freight)
Thank You.
Ivan Rosales
Building 601HD
Mexico City.
ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
Dick,
I have a Soob / Prop bolt question.
My Stratus came with a prop extension and six 3/8" bolts and nylon lock nuts
to bolt the extension to the redrive.
My FWF package also came with six 3/8" drilled bolts and castle nuts to
attach the Warp Drive prop to the prop extension. These bolts are too short
so I need to order longer ones.
Question is, can you use nylon lock nuts on the prop bolts instead of
drilled bolts and castle nuts. If the castle nuts are the way to go, then
shouldn't the bolts and nylon lock nuts that came for the prop extension to
redrive be replaced with drilled bolts and castle nuts also?
What are you using in both places?
Thanks,
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LEO CORBALIS" <l.corbalis(at)worldnet.att.net> |
"LEO CORBALIS"
Jack Callison Milpitas CA flew his 601HDS, trike with a Jabiaru 3300 first
time for 30 min on 9/9/00. Everything OK. He woke up on Sunday with an awful
headache from grinning so much in his sleep! He doesn't have a computer to
defend himself.
Leo J .Corbalis
don not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Ivers" <jivers(at)microtech.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Questions for 601 HDS |
HI michel,
I didn't know there was a sliding canopy option; do you know any more about
it?
Ji Mivers, 601 HD (plans)
-----Original Message-----
From: Royer, Michel <RoyerM(at)tc.gc.ca>
Thilo Kind'
Date: Tuesday, 12 September 2000 12:29
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Questions for 601 HDS
>
>As i'm ready to order the canopy, i'm debating which way i'm going to go
>about OPENING, there seem to be a huge difference in price from ZAC for
>the side-side and the forward tilting option, but i wish i had details on
>the sliding one
>as it would be my choice......
>Michel Royer
>
>> ----------
>> From: Melanie @ Thilo Kind[SMTP:m_tkind(at)sprynet.com]
>> Reply To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com;Melanie @ Thilo Kind
>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 8:01 AM
>> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com; Thilo Kind
>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Questions for 601 HDS
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry guys,
>>
>> this e-mail was for Nick - somehow I managed to put the wrong address in.
>> However, anybody with any comments?
>>
>> Thilo Kind
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Thilo Kind <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com>
>> To: 'Zenith List'
>> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 9:41 PM
>> Subject: Zenith-List: Questions for 601 HDS
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Hi Nick,
>> >
>> > I have a few questions:
>> >
>> > - what seize gap is required between the elevator and the fiberglas
wing
>> > tips / the aileron and the fuselage wing fairing? I am under the
>> assumption,
>> > that the gap should be as small as possible, but the parts shouldn't
>> touch.
>> > Am I correct?
>> >
>> > - Another builder was told to file all 90 degrees corners on sheet
metal
>> > round or at 45 degrees because of stress relief. I'm not talking about
>> > inside corners, where a corner relief hole is required, but the outside
>> > corners. Is that really necessary?
>> >
>> > - I heard a technical counseler requiring washers under the head of the
>> bolt
>> > AND the nut. Somehow in your manual you state to put washers ONLY under
>> the
>> > nut (which I tend to agree with). Can you please comment on that?
>> >
>> > Thanks for your help.
>> >
>> > Thilo Kind
>> >
>> > Here is a quick update on my project: transported the fusleage and
wings
>> to
>> > the airport yesterday and bolted the wings on. Should finish the plane
>> > (minus painting) in a few weeks.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Sa <wings1(at)videotron.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Fiddling with Fip-Flop canopy! |
> I decided to go side-by-side (which is now working after a lot of
> adjsuting...) for the time being and convert later on to a sliding canopy.
>
> Thilo Kind
>
You may remember the "Honey Express", pictured in Steve Freeman's site :
http://www.tempe-embroidery.com/zodiac/Marshal.htm
One thing I can't figure is how you would have a sliding canopy if the
cockpit side walls aren't parallel. It is narrower at the front and wide
at the rear.
(see the 601's top view here:
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-design.html )
In other words, can you imagine how a drawer on tracks would slide if
the tracks aren't parallel?
Maybe Marshall Allan just allows the canopy to flex as it slides back.
Steve, can you shed some light on this?
Thanks
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kent Brown" <kbplanner(at)email.msn.com> |
"Royer, Michel"
| Subject: | Re: Questions for 601 HDS |
There is no option for a sliding canopy, it would have to be your own
modification.
Kent
A long way from the canopy problem, rudder done and one wing about finished.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Ivers <jivers(at)microtech.com.au>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Questions for 601 HDS
>
> HI michel,
>
> I didn't know there was a sliding canopy option; do you know any more
about
> it?
>
> Ji Mivers, 601 HD (plans)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
| Subject: | Questions for 601 HDS |
Since I started that: there is no sliding canopy option from Zenithair that
I'm aware of. however, a guy in Phoenix, AZ built a sliding canopy using one
rail on top of the fuselage. As far as I understood, that and some other
modifications he did caused the plane to be very heavy. Steve Freeman can
probably add some comments.
Also, during last Sun'n Fun several builders meet during the show. One guy
had an idea about a sliding canop, that sounded really good. Sorry, I forgot
his name, maybe some of the other folks can add some information. The basic
idea was to cut the canopy in two pieces. The front piece is permanently
attached to the fuselage. The rear piece slides back on two rails.
Thilo Kind
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Ivers
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 4:23 AM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com; Royer, Michel
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Questions for 601 HDS
>
>
>
>
> HI michel,
>
> I didn't know there was a sliding canopy option; do you know
> any more about
> it?
>
> Ji Mivers, 601 HD (plans)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Royer, Michel <RoyerM(at)tc.gc.ca>
> To: 'zenith-list(at)matronics.com' ;
> 'Melanie @
> Thilo Kind'
> Date: Tuesday, 12 September 2000 12:29
> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Questions for 601 HDS
>
>
> >
> >As i'm ready to order the canopy, i'm debating which way i'm
> going to go
> >about OPENING, there seem to be a huge difference in price
> from ZAC for
> >the side-side and the forward tilting option, but i wish i
> had details on
> >the sliding one
> >as it would be my choice......
> >Michel Royer
> >
> >> ----------
> >> From: Melanie @ Thilo Kind[SMTP:m_tkind(at)sprynet.com]
> >> Reply To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com;Melanie @ Thilo Kind
> >> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 8:01 AM
> >> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com; Thilo Kind
> >> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Questions for 601 HDS
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry guys,
> >>
> >> this e-mail was for Nick - somehow I managed to put the
> wrong address in.
> >> However, anybody with any comments?
> >>
> >> Thilo Kind
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Thilo Kind <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com>
> >> To: 'Zenith List'
> >> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 9:41 PM
> >> Subject: Zenith-List: Questions for 601 HDS
> >>
> >>
>
> >> >
> >> > Hi Nick,
> >> >
> >> > I have a few questions:
> >> >
> >> > - what seize gap is required between the elevator and
> the fiberglas
> wing
> >> > tips / the aileron and the fuselage wing fairing? I am under the
> >> assumption,
> >> > that the gap should be as small as possible, but the
> parts shouldn't
> >> touch.
> >> > Am I correct?
> >> >
> >> > - Another builder was told to file all 90 degrees
> corners on sheet
> metal
> >> > round or at 45 degrees because of stress relief. I'm not
> talking about
> >> > inside corners, where a corner relief hole is required,
> but the outside
> >> > corners. Is that really necessary?
> >> >
> >> > - I heard a technical counseler requiring washers under
> the head of the
> >> bolt
> >> > AND the nut. Somehow in your manual you state to put
> washers ONLY under
> >> the
> >> > nut (which I tend to agree with). Can you please comment on that?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for your help.
> >> >
> >> > Thilo Kind
> >> >
> >> > Here is a quick update on my project: transported the
> fusleage and
> wings
> >> to
> >> > the airport yesterday and bolted the wings on. Should
> finish the plane
> >> > (minus painting) in a few weeks.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fiddling with Fip-Flop canopy! |
"John W. Tarabocchia"
Carlos Sa wrote:
>
>
> > I decided to go side-by-side (which is now working after a lot of
> > adjsuting...) for the time being and convert later on to a sliding canopy.
> >
> > Thilo Kind
> >
>
> You may remember the "Honey Express", pictured in Steve Freeman's site :
> http://www.tempe-embroidery.com/zodiac/Marshal.htm
>
> One thing I can't figure is how you would have a sliding canopy if the
> cockpit side walls aren't parallel. It is narrower at the front and wide
> at the rear.
> (see the 601's top view here:
> http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-design.html )
> In other words, can you imagine how a drawer on tracks would slide if
> the tracks aren't parallel?
>
> Maybe Marshall Allan just allows the canopy to flex as it slides back.
> Steve, can you shed some light on this?
>
> Thanks
>
> Carlos
>
Actually, If you study the pics on Steve site you will notice one
thing. The inside of the fuselage where the Sliding track attaches, has
a build up assembly that is parallel. The trade off with this is that
you lose a lot of shoulder room. Tough if your a 200 pounder and want
to take a passenger.
--
John W. Tarabocchia
601hds(#6-4085) Web Site:http://hometown.aol.com/zodiacbuilder/Home.html
Airframe 95% Complete...
Scratch building Rudder...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Questions for 601 HDS |
"John W. Tarabocchia"
Cliffsuss(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 9/11/00 3:23:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jivers(at)microtech.com.au writes:
>
> << I didn't know there was a sliding canopy option; do you know any more about
> it? >>
> Jim,
>
> There is no option that I know of at this time. That thread was in response
> to something John T. said in a recent message where he and I were talking at
> Sun n Fun this year and I said I was determined to build a sliding canopy for
> my 601HDS. We talked about the pros and cons, but the details are still in my
> head and not on paper! Sorry for the confusion.
>
> Cliff
>
Hey Cliff,
How are you doing. Actually I gave it a lot of thought and there is a
way to install a sliding canopy. There is a trade off though. You lose
about 4 " of shoulder room. I have to be honest with you I couldn't
live with it. But if your still interested I can put my ideas into a
drawing for you to analyze. Actually for any one that might be serious
about a sliding canopy.
--
John W. Tarabocchia
601hds(#6-4085) Web Site:http://hometown.aol.com/zodiacbuilder/Home.html
Airframe 95% Complete...
Scratch building Rudder...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fiddling with Fip-Flop canopy! |
| From: | Peter K Ferguson <pflyer601(at)juno.com> |
Hum.... Who says the canopy has to slide forward? I thinking back a few
years and remembering a design that nature.
Pete Feguson
Still out there building 46%
601HDS TD with Corvair engine
writes:
>
>
> Carlos Sa wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I decided to go side-by-side (which is now working after a lot
> of
> > > adjsuting...) for the time being and convert later on to a
> sliding canopy.
> > >
> > > Thilo Kind
> > >
> >
> > You may remember the "Honey Express", pictured in Steve Freeman's
> site :
> > http://www.tempe-embroidery.com/zodiac/Marshal.htm
> >
> > One thing I can't figure is how you would have a sliding canopy if
> the
> > cockpit side walls aren't parallel. It is narrower at the front
> and wide
> > at the rear.
> > (see the 601's top view here:
> > http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-design.html )
> > In other words, can you imagine how a drawer on tracks would slide
> if
> > the tracks aren't parallel?
> >
> > Maybe Marshall Allan just allows the canopy to flex as it slides
> back.
> > Steve, can you shed some light on this?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> Actually, If you study the pics on Steve site you will notice one
> thing. The inside of the fuselage where the Sliding track attaches,
> has
> a build up assembly that is parallel. The trade off with this is
> that
> you lose a lot of shoulder room. Tough if your a 200 pounder and
> want
> to take a passenger.
>
>
> --
>
> John W. Tarabocchia
>
> 601hds(#6-4085) Web
> Site:http://hometown.aol.com/zodiacbuilder/Home.html
> Airframe 95% Complete...
> Scratch building Rudder...
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Canopy for the 601 |
| From: | Peter K Ferguson <pflyer601(at)juno.com> |
Gosh folks, sorry for the pigeon english reply on this subject. I hit
the send button a little to fast. But here's what I was trying to say.
Why does the canopy have to move backwards? How about a 1/4 screen on the
back half. Have that permanently fastened to the fuselage and a roll-bar.
Then the front half would slide forward in tracks ( like a Pitts ). I
will have to think on this.. I do remember a production aircraft having
this same setup. Robin ? No, I think it was a German Zlin Oh well I'll
find it and post latter..
Pete Feguson
Still out there building 46%
601HDS TD with Corvair engine
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Canopy for the 601 |
| From: | Peter K Ferguson <pflyer601(at)juno.com> |
Gosh folks, sorry for the pigeon english reply on this subject. I hit
the send button a little to fast. But here's what I was trying to say.
Why does the canopy have to move backwards? How about a 1/4 screen on the
back half. Have that permanently fastened to the fuselage and a roll-bar.
Then the front half would slide forward in tracks ( like a Pitts ). I
will have to think on this.. I do remember a production aircraft having
this same setup. Robin ? No, I think it was a German Zlin Oh well I'll
find it and post later..
Pete Feguson
Still out there building 46%
601HDS TD with Corvair engine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Dunning" <peterd(at)metec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Aviation in NZ - Microlights |
Date: 12 September 2000
Greetings from down under....
After some 900 hours on my 601HD and heaps more to do,
I thought I would surface on the subject of Zodiacs in the more
Southerly locations. So here is some general info, given in the
expectation that someday any of you may venture down this
way and want to make personal contacts:
We dont use the term ultralights here....its microlights. CAA
(our FAA) recognises Canadian Transport Regs (TP10104E)
so the CH601HD is a microlight. The general rule is up to
1200lbs MAUW and minimum 45Knots stall. Microlights are
a growth recreational pursuit here, due to lower operating costs
and the TP10104E acceptance for the most part. It appears that
the distinction between GA and microlights is becoming perhaps
a little blurred....considering the performance of some of the more
recent microlight model introductions.
We have 6 operational CH601 UL's and 2x 701's, with 1x 601HD and
1 x 601HDS (experimental, GA) under construction. There may be
others just started that I have yet to hear about.
There are two Part 103 organisations handling microlights. RAANZ -
the largest and voluntary, and SAC being commercial.
To give you some insight to local activities, the following is our local
club website....and remember to convert from $NZ to $US, you DIVIDE the $NZ
by 2 to get $US approx. !! (Yes, I said divide)
www.pinepark.wellington.net.nz
We welcome your comments on the webpages, and if you ever venture down
this way (perhaps on holiday) we hope this information will be useful.
Safe Flying !
Cheers
Peter Dunning
CH601HD/ZK-SPD/6-3884
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | UHM & Gear Slides |
Hi folks..getting into the gear slide area. I've seen in the past of folks
installing lubricating strips on the slides but not much lately...maybe
everyone current is ahead of this step. Last comment I saw was George Pinneo
and other guys with some hours on their planes wondering if it was really
necessary having seen little/no wear with the stock/no slide ZAC gear
instructions. Any comments or further thoughts?
Chris Carey
601 HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: battery trade-offs |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>Bob,
>
>Since you're doing a bibliography, I'll throw in my experience. I've messed
>with nicads in the past and don't think much of them as replacements for
>Alkaline AA cells. They just don't last long enough. But my Garmin handheld
>GPS 90 will go through a set of AA Duracells on the way to OSH and another
>on the way back. So at OSH I decided to try some NmH. Got eight of these
>little green generic deals for $2.50 ea from Batteries America booth. So far
>I like them -- they seem to last as long as the Duracells but are
>rechargable. Being environmentally conscious I try to avoid disposable
>anyhing, including batteries.
>
>As for the quality and longevity, time will tell.
>
The Nimh are generally much higher capacity than their
Nicad cousins and we should expect them to outperform
the Nicads. I use Nimh in my amateur radio hand-helds
and have also noticed improved longevity . . . at least
with respect to usage. Nicad and Nimh have much higher
self-discharge rates than alkalines and therefore have
very poor shelf life by comparison . . . but for gizmos
that are used regularly, the Nimh is an excellent
alternative. I think service life of the Nimh should
be on a par with Nicad.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Aviation in NZ - Microlights |
Mike Fothergill
Peter;
Good update on the NZ regs for ML/UL airplanes. What are the pilot
licensing requirements. In Canada the UL is 10 hours (usually closer to
20)and the Rec Pilot is 25 (again usually more). With the Rec, I can fly
single engine, non hi-performance, day VFR, up to 4 seats but only one
passeger. No passengers with UL.
Mike
UHS Spinners
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: UHM & Gear Slides |
Mike Fothergill
Chris;
I did not install wear strips originally but have had to add 1/4" thick
plastic strips on a couple of places where the gear was getting a little
sloppy. I guess that I would install them when building if doing it all
over again. I do operate off a rather rough grass strip. 900 hours in 6
years.
Mike
UHS Spinners
SEAL2CC(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Hi folks..getting into the gear slide area. I've seen in the past of folks
> installing lubricating strips on the slides but not much lately...maybe
> everyone current is ahead of this step. Last comment I saw was George Pinneo
> and other guys with some hours on their planes wondering if it was really
> necessary having seen little/no wear with the stock/no slide ZAC gear
> instructions. Any comments or further thoughts?
>
> Chris Carey
> 601 HDS
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Melanie @ Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
| Subject: | Questions for 601 HDS |
"Melanie @ Thilo Kind"
Okay, folks,
below are Nick's answers to my questions about sharp corners, washers and
gaps for control surfaces...
Happy building
Thilo Kind
----- Original Message -----
From: Zenith Aircraft Company <info(at)zenithair.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Zenith-List: Questions for 601 HDS
> - what seize gap is required between the elevator and the fiberglas
> wing tips / the aileron and the fuselage wing fairing? I am under
> the
> assumption,
> that the gap should be as small as possible, but the parts shouldn't
> touch. Am I correct?
>
> The gap is approximately 5mm
>
> - Another builder was told to file all 90 degrees corners on sheet
> metal round or at 45 degrees because of stress relief. I'm not
> talking about inside corners, where a corner relief hole is
> required,
> but the outside corners. Is that really necessary?
>
> It is a good idea to file sharp corner, especially where the parts
> overlap on top of a skin. I'm not aware of any radius requirement for
> exposed corners.
>
> - I heard a technical counseler requiring washers under the head of
> the
> bolt
> AND the nut. Somehow in your manual you state to put washers ONLY
> under he nut (which I tend to agree with). Can you please comment on
> that?
>
> By design the bolts already have a shoulder under the head, a washer
> under the head is not required.
> When two washers are required, the it is common to place the
> second washer under the head. Always place a washer under the
> nut. Tighten the bolts by turning the nut only, with a wrench hold the
> bolt head from turning.
>
>
> Nick Heintz
> Zenith Aircraft Company
> support(at)zenithair.com
> http://www.zenithair.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Dunning" <peterd(at)metec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Aviation in NZ - Microlights |
Date: 13 Sept. 2000
Hi Mike
Firstly, my posting on the list had two errors..... The Canadian Reg should
read TP10141E and the other was a MAX of 45 knots.
Pilot licensing in NZ.
1.Novice level - generally 10 to 15 hours under direct instructor
supervision till solo
for circuits only. (Instructor responsability for solo status)
2. Intermediate only after 25 hours min. and passes in written exams (4
papers) no passengers.
After 35 hours and test by instructor, elligible for passenger(1) rating,
but with intermediate
limited to short distance only from the field.
3. Advanced (50hours ?) comes after completion of 5 specific cross-country
excercises and
test by instructor.
4. Instructor.
5. Senior Instructor
Medicals reqd of course and check flights by instructors. Must do 3 t/o and
landings per
6 months to maintain currency.
More details on the RAANZ web site which is linked from our Pinepark webpage
"links".
ONLY VFR for microlights.
Regards
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca>
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 03:50
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Aviation in NZ - Microlights
>Peter;
>Good update on the NZ regs for ML/UL airplanes. What are the pilot
>licensing requirements. In Canada the UL is 10 hours (usually closer to
>20)and the Rec Pilot is 25 (again usually more). With the Rec, I can fly
>single engine, non hi-performance, day VFR, up to 4 seats but only one
>passeger. No passengers with UL.
>Mike
>UHS Spinners
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tom tiedman" <ttiedman(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UHM & Gear Slides |
I haven't reached the gear slide wear strip stage yet, but I do plan on
installing them. If you go to www.sbnair.com/jeff you can see photos of
the wear strips on his gear slides that he fashioned from a high density
polyethylene cutting board purchased at a department store (clever). So far,
the only wear device I have installed is a 1/4" thick nylon plate identical
to
6-V-4-9 and installed between 6-V-4-9 and its support brackets 6-V-4-4 for
the forward stick bearing. Tom
>From: SEAL2CC(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com, SEAL2CC(at)aol.com
>To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: UHM & Gear Slides
>Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 07:47:13 EDT
>
>
>Hi folks..getting into the gear slide area. I've seen in the past of folks
>installing lubricating strips on the slides but not much lately...maybe
>everyone current is ahead of this step. Last comment I saw was George
>Pinneo
>and other guys with some hours on their planes wondering if it was really
>necessary having seen little/no wear with the stock/no slide ZAC gear
>instructions. Any comments or further thoughts?
>
>Chris Carey
>601 HDS
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff & Marcia Davidson" <jdavidso(at)fcc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy for the 601 |
"Jeff & Marcia Davidson"
While we are throwing it around, how about fixed front and read quarter
screens with side "windows" that slide down laterally into the fuselage like
an Ercoupe? I always envy those guys taxing around with their arms resting
on the 'coupe's "window" sill!
Jeff Davidson, CH 601 HD
Why does the canopy have to move backwards? How about a 1/4 screen on the
back half. Have that permanently fastened to the fuselage and a roll-bar.
Then the front half would slide forward in tracks ( like a Pitts ).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger & Mary" <rkmk(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | 912 Electrical Question |
I conducted my first taxi test yesterday. When I turned on the nav/strobe
lights, the
voltage dropped so low tha the engine insturments gave false readings. (This
is a
standard Rotax 912 and the ZAC insturment & light package.)
I didn't even have the comm or transponder on, though when I did turn them
on they did not seem
to make much of a difference.
Is this normal? Should I consider the alternator upgrade / other
suggestions?
Thanks!
Roger Kilby - N98RK - 601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912 Electrical Question |
| From: | James R Ashford <kimojima(at)juno.com> |
Roger,
I have the same package except I didn't wire in the wing lights and I
have not had any experience equal to yours. Looks like you have a wiring
problem somewhere as the battery/alternator should carry this load
without the symptoms you describe. It may also be a stobe power supply
problem. Hopefully Robert Nuckolls will have a suggestion
Jim Ashford
912 601 HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James R Ashford <kimojima(at)juno.com> |
With all of the discussion about canopies, I would like to share my
experience.
First of all, I'm not a craftsman such as George Pinneo or Fred Hulen, so
anything I did had to be simple which in my book ruled out the forward
tilting canopy. I probably could have done it but was reluctant to
commit to the extra build time for what I considered questionable
advantage. I considered the improved locking mechanism as outlined in one
of the Newsletters (Bruce Bockious used this), but decided to stick with
the inelegant but very simple Chris H. design in the plans. Mine works
like a charm and I have no qualms about inadvertent opening in flight
unless a deliberate attempt is made to pull back on the canopy latches.
Admittedly, two openings/closing of the canopy is required when carrying
a passenger, but I have gotten into this routine so don't consider it a
bother.
So, for those of you who are in the early stages of building and might
feel confused with the current canopy thread, take heart, as the plans
design for the canopy entrance mechanism works fine.
Jim Ashford
912 601 hds tri,
90 hours and enjoying a delightful plane to fly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 Electrical Question |
Mike Fothergill
Sounds like your alternator/generator isn't working or a short
somewhere.
My 912 easily handles strobe lites, VHF, Transponder and GPS.
Mike
Roger & Mary wrote:
>
>
> I conducted my first taxi test yesterday. When I turned on the nav/strobe
> lights, the
> voltage dropped so low tha the engine insturments gave false readings. (This
> is a
> standard Rotax 912 and the ZAC insturment & light package.)
>
> I didn't even have the comm or transponder on, though when I did turn them
> on they did not seem
> to make much of a difference.
>
> Is this normal? Should I consider the alternator upgrade / other
> suggestions?
> Thanks!
>
> Roger Kilby - N98RK - 601HDS
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Soldering station for sale |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
I've got a really nice temperature controlled solder station
up on Ebay . . .
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=434477668
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Wiley <wileyr(at)uamont.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Got my ticket! |
Matthew Mucker wrote:
> I'm very pleased to announce that I got my PPL ticket yesterday.
+++ Congratulations Matthew; the view is great. Remember, pointed end
forward, dirty side down.
do not archieve
Bob.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Mayne" <bazmay(at)ozemail.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy for the 601 |
G'day
My 20 cents worth.
I'm sure there are ways of splitting the canopy and using something like the
drop down window, or gull wing doors, BUT, do you really want to destroy
the fantastic panoramic view that comes from an uninterupted expanse of
clear canopy ?
Like I said, my 20 cents worth.
Barry Mayne HDS Jabiru 3300, currently converting to forward tilting canopy.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff & Marcia Davidson <jdavidso(at)fcc.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Canopy for the 601
>
> While we are throwing it around, how about fixed front and read quarter
> screens with side "windows" that slide down laterally into the fuselage
like
> an Ercoupe? I always envy those guys taxing around with their arms
resting
> on the 'coupe's "window" sill!
>
> Jeff Davidson, CH 601 HD
>
> Why does the canopy have to move backwards? How about a 1/4 screen on the
> back half. Have that permanently fastened to the fuselage and a roll-bar.
> Then the front half would slide forward in tracks ( like a Pitts ).
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Mayne" <bazmay(at)ozemail.com.au> |
G'day Jim,
Ditto from me in regards to the hooks system of latching the canopy. Very
positive and very secure, if you remember to close it. After a long day of
testing air flows to the airbox of the Jabiru 3300 engine, due to tiredness
and a million things going through the mind a little thing like a change of
duty runway was enough to cause me to miss closing the canopy properly, the
result, at 500ft the plane and canopy part company taking part of the
horizontal stabilizer with it. I was fortunate to survive and at present I
am rebuilding the canopy as a forward tilting type, this is time consuming
but really no special skill required and is a much safer arrangement.
Barry (crash dummy) Mayne HDS
----- Original Message -----
From: James R Ashford <kimojima(at)juno.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 3:20 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Canopies
>
> With all of the discussion about canopies, I would like to share my
> experience.
>
> First of all, I'm not a craftsman such as George Pinneo or Fred Hulen, so
> anything I did had to be simple which in my book ruled out the forward
> tilting canopy. I probably could have done it but was reluctant to
> commit to the extra build time for what I considered questionable
> advantage. I considered the improved locking mechanism as outlined in one
> of the Newsletters (Bruce Bockious used this), but decided to stick with
> the inelegant but very simple Chris H. design in the plans. Mine works
> like a charm and I have no qualms about inadvertent opening in flight
> unless a deliberate attempt is made to pull back on the canopy latches.
> Admittedly, two openings/closing of the canopy is required when carrying
> a passenger, but I have gotten into this routine so don't consider it a
> bother.
>
> So, for those of you who are in the early stages of building and might
> feel confused with the current canopy thread, take heart, as the plans
> design for the canopy entrance mechanism works fine.
>
> Jim Ashford
> 912 601 hds tri,
> 90 hours and enjoying a delightful plane to fly
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
> So, for those of you who are in the early stages of building and might
> feel confused with the current canopy thread, take heart, as the plans
> design for the canopy entrance mechanism works fine.
> Jim Ashford
++ Indeed it does Jim. I have chosen to build the forward tilting canopy
for my own 601, but let me offer some input on "both versions"... Even
though I chose the forward version strictly because I like the look when
it's open, I'd like to point some advantages and disadvantages that I see to
both versions. First off, if you'd like to save some hours, you can
certainly trim off a bunch of time by choosing the side tilting version.
The forward one will require more of your time in construction, and in
fitting the cover plates that close over the slots in the forward nose skin
for the side rods to decend into. An advantage in favor of the forward
tilting design is that it "shouldn't" be able to blow off in flight, and is
the reason why Barry Mayne is now retrofitting his new 601 with the forward
version after accidentally loosing his side tilting canopy on one his early
flights. However.... if a two-stage release is incorporated into the side
tilting latch design, requiring TWO very deliberate functions to be done
before it will unlatch, it "should" keep canopy departures from happening.
(now Murphy is thinking really hard how to unlatch TWO things) Normally you
would see that the forward tilting version can be built to to have a much
closer metal to metal gap and seal along the sides, UNLESS you use a
modified version of the side tilting hinge system as originally re-designed
by Mike Fothergill, and lately refined and further updated by Jeff Small.
It's the slickest looking and smoothest hinge systems I have seen. From the
pictures I have seen of Jeff's canopy, it closes so nicely that there's
hardly a gap in the paint between the canopy and the side skins! Now that I
have seen this new hinge and latch system, if I were building my plane all
over again, I would have a much tougher time deciding between the two canopy
versions. And if my decision were to be the side tilting version, I would
use Jeff's new hinge design without any changes at all. I hope these
observations will help some of you that are considering "canopy versions."
Fred N-601LX 85 1/2% done.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Steer" <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy for the 601 |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Mayne" <bazmay(at)ozemail.com.au>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Canopy for the 601
>
> G'day
> My 20 cents worth.
> I'm sure there are ways of splitting the canopy and using something like
the
> drop down window, or gull wing doors, BUT, do you really want to destroy
> the fantastic panoramic view that comes from an uninterupted expanse of
> clear canopy ?
> Like I said, my 20 cents worth.
> Barry Mayne HDS Jabiru 3300, currently converting to forward tilting
canopy.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeff & Marcia Davidson <jdavidso(at)fcc.net>
> To: ; Peter K Ferguson
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Canopy for the 601
>
>
>
> >
> > While we are throwing it around, how about fixed front and read quarter
> > screens with side "windows" that slide down laterally into the fuselage
> like
> > an Ercoupe? I always envy those guys taxing around with their arms
> resting
> > on the 'coupe's "window" sill!
> >
> > Jeff Davidson, CH 601 HD
> >
> > Why does the canopy have to move backwards? How about a 1/4 screen on
the
> > back half. Have that permanently fastened to the fuselage and a
roll-bar.
> > Then the front half would slide forward in tracks ( like a Pitts ).
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terminaltown(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: Magneto P-lead Connector |
In a message dated 9/14/00 7:38:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Terminaltown(at)AOL.COM writes:
There are 2 How To's for grounding shielded cable on the old AMR site that
might be of interest to you. The URLs are AAMR/AirCore/ P Mag
Leads or http://members.aol.com/aamrelectr/Page93.html and
http://members.aol.com/aamreelectr/index6.html Try this one too...sorry fat
fingers this morning...put the same URL Link in twice AAMR/AirCore/ Ground
Shields
Captn' Jack Crawford @ Terminal Town
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: experimental battery box |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>That is why there was a gap between putting the new battery in and putting
>the battery in a box. I didn't think there was a problem but then an A&P
>came to look over my plane for possible buying, he said that it was
>dangerous not to have a box. A&P, IA's are the experts.
>>Batteries have been known to explode so I would recommend some kind of
>>secondary containment for safety regardless if it is an RG, flooded cell or
>>whatever.
Battery boxes have NEVER been designed to contain an exploding
battery . . . in fact, battery boxes have been DEMONSTRATED
to make an explosion more likely if not more violent.
Real life case in point:
Amateur built airplane, all composite, very nice composite
battery box glassed right into the passenger seat back.
Alternator goes into OV. No annunciation of OV condition
and battery begins to outgas. In the course of "troublshooting"
the system, a few switches get thrown, one of which is
the battery master contactor control switch. Battery contactor
INSIDE the box with the battery ignites ideal mixture and
blows up battery box.
No flight-safety damage to aircraft but the pilot's underwear
was seriously compromised.
What's the physics of this event? To have an explosion you
must have three conditions. (1) A source of FUEL that's mixed
in proportions to produce rapid combustion. Too much fuel/
oxygen, no explosion; too little fuel/oxygen, no explosion.
Cook a battery and you disassociate water H20 into H2 and
O2 in ratios ideal for recombination in spectacular manner.
(2) CONTAINMENT in this case was the nicely crafted battery
box. Without containment, gunpowder simply burns. Wrap it
up in rolls of newspaper and you have a firecracker. Finally,
(3) IGNITION provided by the battery contactor located inside
the battery box.
LOTS of things could be done to break the chain of events
that could have been much more serious . . .
(1) Proper ov protection on the airplane's electrical system.
(2) No battery box . . . let the vented gasses waft away
in the breeze.
(3) Don't mount electrical equipment inside the battery box
along with the battery.
(4) Adequate instrumentation on the electrical system to
KNOW what's happening when stuff starts to misbehave and
adequate UDERSTANDING of the system to do the right things
about it.
By the way, the BIG guys don't have battery boxes either.
The battery on a bizjet comes with a nice connector on the
side. You drop the critter into a tray, strap it down
and plug it in. None the less, there are documented cases
of an RG battery blowing up when a poorly welded inter-cell
connector burned off . . . needless to say, a redesign and
modification to the assembly process was accomplished in
a hurry.
Not one government-approved airplane-banger in ten
understands or can explain what you've just read.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Ferris <ferret(at)forbin.com> |
| Subject: | CAD Files on Zenith Website |
Does anyone know how to open the CAD files on Zenith's website? They
say they are Autocad, but Autocad's file format is .DWG; the files are
.DWF. I've never heard of that format, and Autocad (or anything else
that I have) doesn't recognize it.
Greg F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim and Lucy <jpollard(at)mnsi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CAD Files on Zenith Website |
>Does anyone know how to open the CAD files on Zenith's website? They
>say they are Autocad, but Autocad's file format is .DWG; the files are
>.DWF. I've never heard of that format, and Autocad (or anything else
>that I have) doesn't recognize it.
>
>Greg F.
Click on this link and a program will download and install.
This will make your browser the tool for viewing these files.
http://www.autodesk.com/prods/whip/iedl.htm
Jim Pollard
ch601
ea 81
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Karnes" <karnesj(at)harbornet.com> |
When installing the elevator trim tab, is it wired to operate like a
"mini-elevator", i.e., the tab goes up, tail goes down, and nose goes up? Or
does it go up, force the elevator down, and make the nose go down? How does
the roll trim work. I'm hoping it is the former, 'cause my plane is done and
I'm waiting for the FAA...
John Karnes
601 HDS
Yippee!! I taxied around the hangars a few times!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Swinford" <grs-pms(at)mindspring.com> |
"George Swinford"
John:
The trim tab moves opposite the direction you want the surface to move. The
elevator tab moves up for nose-down trim.
Glad to hear you're ready to go. Good luck!
George Swinford
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Danielson" <ddanielson(at)nc.rr.com> |
When the trim tab deflects up, it makes the elevator deflect down because of
air rushing over the elevator and deflecting against the trim tab, it is the
same as if you pushed forward on the stick and the nose goes down.
If your elevator ever got jammed into position, by frozen mud or anything
like that, then it would have the effect you first describe, which is the
opposite of how it works when the elevator moves freely.
If the trim doesn't work like you expect, it seems like it would be an easy
matter to reverse a mechanical trim, and even easier to change an electric
trim.
Good luck with your FAA inspection and be sure to let us all know how it
goes.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Karnes" <karnesj(at)harbornet.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 7:49 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: trim tabs
>
> When installing the elevator trim tab, is it wired to operate like a
> "mini-elevator", i.e., the tab goes up, tail goes down, and nose goes up?
Or
> does it go up, force the elevator down, and make the nose go down? How
does
> the roll trim work. I'm hoping it is the former, 'cause my plane is done
and
> I'm waiting for the FAA...
>
> John Karnes
>
> 601 HDS
>
> Yippee!! I taxied around the hangars a few times!!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Latimer" <ljm10587(at)uswest.net> |
John
The trim tab works just like a mini elevator. Trim tab up, tail down, nose
up.
Jerry Latimer
CH601HDS
I'm jealous of your taxing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Karnes" <karnesj(at)harbornet.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 4:49 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: trim tabs
>
> When installing the elevator trim tab, is it wired to operate like a
> "mini-elevator", i.e., the tab goes up, tail goes down, and nose goes up?
Or
> does it go up, force the elevator down, and make the nose go down? How
does
> the roll trim work. I'm hoping it is the former, 'cause my plane is done
and
> I'm waiting for the FAA...
>
> John Karnes
>
> 601 HDS
>
> Yippee!! I taxied around the hangars a few times!!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Gear Slides & UWHM |
Thanks everyone for the UWHM / slide input. Today I found a huge..far bigger
than I need...piece of 1/4" UWHM. It is a 3'x4' piece that had been sitting
in a rack and developed some mild warping...hence a large % off price. Figure
I'll need some down the road..canopy stuff etc. Flattens out fine for (most
of) our purposes. If anyone needs some I'm happy to share. I've cut it down
some.
Anyway, last question. I have yet to actually get the main gear but have the
slides clecoed etc. I would like to install the UWHM on the outside of the
slides. I have fabricated eight 1 1/4" x 6" strips for this purpose and would
like to know where the best spot to put'em is. ie. what is the gear travel? I
know it is small but where does it occur? Say, measuring down from the TOP of
the gear slide, where should I have the top of the 6" strip positioned to
best be sure I have coverage where the 3/4" gear rod will move? Will then cut
the pieces for the upper and lower bearing "sandwiches."
Thanks all, again
Chris Carey
601 HDS
Richmond, VA
Took #1 son up for 1:45 last Sunday and #2 son going up this Saturday. First
flying since BFR completed ...after 29 years!
________________________________________________________________________________
Zenith-List Digest Server
| From: | brentbattles(at)pipeline.com (Brent Battles) |
Renewed discussion on canopy integrity prompts me to offer my simple fix
for positive latching - probably shared by others as well. I installed a
spring-loaded bolt lock from Home Depot on each side of the cockpit to
engage drilled holes in one of each pair of hooks. They are A5 riveted to
the sloped face of the longeron. In my case with a forward tilting canopy,
I installed the port side at the front hook and, as the rear of the
starboard side tended to be a bit loose, I installed the other latch at the
aft hook on that side. Great peace of mind and definitely an item on the
pre-take-off checklist.
Regards,
Brent Battles N16BZ 55 flights, 31 hours, 104 landings 5 passengers, LOTS
of smiles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Danielson" <steved(at)nc.rr.com> |
Maybe we are not thinking about the same thing. A trim tab mounted on the
elevator will make the nose of the plane go down when it is up, because when
it(the trim tab) is up the elevator will go down. When the elevator goes
down, the tail goes up and the nose goes down. The trim tab moves opposite
of the way that the elevator will go. So it is like a reverse mini-elevator.
I have had a few sessions of trying to get the proper vision in my head,
drawing it on a piece would help me to visualize it. Or go look at a plane
and let your hand be the air that flows over the elevator. When it hits the
trim tab, it pushes it out of the way, making the elevator move.
Steve Danielson
http://stevedanielson.home.mindspring.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry Latimer <ljm10587(at)uswest.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: trim tabs
>
> John
> The trim tab works just like a mini elevator. Trim tab up, tail down,
nose
> up.
> Jerry Latimer
> CH601HDS
> I'm jealous of your taxing.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Karnes" <karnesj(at)harbornet.com>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 4:49 PM
> Subject: Zenith-List: trim tabs
>
>
> >
> > When installing the elevator trim tab, is it wired to operate like a
> > "mini-elevator", i.e., the tab goes up, tail goes down, and nose goes
up?
> Or
> > does it go up, force the elevator down, and make the nose go down? How
> does
> > the roll trim work. I'm hoping it is the former, 'cause my plane is done
> and
> > I'm waiting for the FAA...
> >
> > John Karnes
> >
> > 601 HDS
> >
> > Yippee!! I taxied around the hangars a few times!!
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Karnes" <karnesj(at)harbornet.com> |
Thanks, guys. I think the easiest way to correct my problem is to take the
rocker switch and indicator and turn them both 180 degrees. That way, the
switch and indicator will agree, yet be moving the tab the opposite way that
I now have it configured.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Danielson <steved(at)nc.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: trim tabs
>
> Maybe we are not thinking about the same thing. A trim tab mounted on the
> elevator will make the nose of the plane go down when it is up, because
when
> it(the trim tab) is up the elevator will go down. When the elevator goes
> down, the tail goes up and the nose goes down. The trim tab moves opposite
> of the way that the elevator will go. So it is like a reverse
mini-elevator.
>
> I have had a few sessions of trying to get the proper vision in my head,
> drawing it on a piece would help me to visualize it. Or go look at a plane
> and let your hand be the air that flows over the elevator. When it hits
the
> trim tab, it pushes it out of the way, making the elevator move.
>
> Steve Danielson
> http://stevedanielson.home.mindspring.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jerry Latimer <ljm10587(at)uswest.net>
> To: ; John Karnes
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 8:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: trim tabs
>
>
> >
> > John
> > The trim tab works just like a mini elevator. Trim tab up, tail down,
> nose
> > up.
> > Jerry Latimer
> > CH601HDS
> > I'm jealous of your taxing.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Karnes" <karnesj(at)harbornet.com>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 4:49 PM
> > Subject: Zenith-List: trim tabs
> >
> >
> > >
> > > When installing the elevator trim tab, is it wired to operate like a
> > > "mini-elevator", i.e., the tab goes up, tail goes down, and nose goes
> up?
> > Or
> > > does it go up, force the elevator down, and make the nose go down? How
> > does
> > > the roll trim work. I'm hoping it is the former, 'cause my plane is
done
> > and
> > > I'm waiting for the FAA...
> > >
> > > John Karnes
> > >
> > > 601 HDS
> > >
> > > Yippee!! I taxied around the hangars a few times!!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
May I suggest that regardless of how strongly you may feel one way or the
other regarding the discussion about the trim tabs, PLEASE.... each of you,
simply demonstrate the function of your adjustable trim tabs for your EAA
technical advisor, and the FAA inspector or Designated Airworthiness
Representative. Then, you will have piece of mind and no surprises. Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
| Subject: | How many lost canopies? |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Hi,
After reading about Barry Mayne's canopy blowing off, I'd like to get a
count of how many we know of. It seems that in the last 5 or 6 years that
I've been building this aircraft, I've heard of at least a half dozen or so
(but maybe I'm over-counting because I haven't kept a record of names, etc.)
Anyways, if the count is this high, then I have to assume that although the
side-to-side canopy is structurally sound, it is still missing something in
terms of 'human factors' design. As some have mentioned - a two-stage
unlatching system is one possibility - or the forward hinge which should
render an opened latch in flight, a minor event.
BTW - has anyone with a forward latching canopy tested it in flight? How
high off the fuselage does it float? Effect on lift? Technique for
reclosing?
--
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
601 hds/CAM100
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Wood <mawood(at)zoo.uvm.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy Latches |
>Renewed discussion on canopy integrity prompts me to offer my simple fix
>for positive latching - probably shared by others as well. I installed a
>spring-loaded bolt lock from Home Depot on each side of the cockpit to
>engage drilled holes in one of each pair of hooks.
>Regards,
>
>Brent Battles N16BZ
I think Brent's idea is good.
Another idea for the human factor of forgetfulness is to have a blinking
LED on the dashboard if the canopy is not latched. I was planing on
installing a normally closed switch to a blinking LED. The switch would
only be turned off when the canopy is in place and latched down.
In this, let us not forget the best defense in any of this,
Develop and use a good check list.
Build well and be happy
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Gear Slides & UWHM |
Mike Fothergill
Chris;
My UWHM strips are 7/8"x 5" installed on the inside of the rails with
3/16" countersunk screws. This length is enough to protect the full
travel of the gear. Check to make sure that 3/4" rod will reach far
enough to contact the slides if installed on the outside. Mine would not
get full contact that way.
Mike
UHS Spinners
SEAL2CC(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Thanks everyone for the UWHM / slide input. Today I found a huge..far bigger
> than I need...piece of 1/4" UWHM. It is a 3'x4' piece that had been sitting
> in a rack and developed some mild warping...hence a large % off price. Figure
> I'll need some down the road..canopy stuff etc. Flattens out fine for (most
> of) our purposes. If anyone needs some I'm happy to share. I've cut it down
> some.
>
> Anyway, last question. I have yet to actually get the main gear but have the
> slides clecoed etc. I would like to install the UWHM on the outside of the
> slides. I have fabricated eight 1 1/4" x 6" strips for this purpose and would
> like to know where the best spot to put'em is. ie. what is the gear travel? I
> know it is small but where does it occur? Say, measuring down from the TOP of
> the gear slide, where should I have the top of the 6" strip positioned to
> best be sure I have coverage where the 3/4" gear rod will move? Will then cut
> the pieces for the upper and lower bearing "sandwiches."
>
> Thanks all, again
>
> Chris Carey
> 601 HDS
> Richmond, VA
> Took #1 son up for 1:45 last Sunday and #2 son going up this Saturday. First
> flying since BFR completed ...after 29 years!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Pinneo <George.Pinneo(at)trw.com> |
| Subject: | How many lost canopies? |
Have you tested your plane to see how it lands in trees? I don't plan to unlatch
my canopy in flight either; hope this is OK with you, Grant!
GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Mucker" <mmucker(at)airmail.net> |
"John Karnes"
Nope.
trim tab goes up, elevator goes down, tail goes up, nose goes down.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jerry
Latimer
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: trim tabs
John
The trim tab works just like a mini elevator. Trim tab up, tail down, nose
up.
Jerry Latimer
CH601HDS
I'm jealous of your taxing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Karnes" <karnesj(at)harbornet.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 4:49 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: trim tabs
>
> When installing the elevator trim tab, is it wired to operate like a
> "mini-elevator", i.e., the tab goes up, tail goes down, and nose goes up?
Or
> does it go up, force the elevator down, and make the nose go down? How
does
> the roll trim work. I'm hoping it is the former, 'cause my plane is done
and
> I'm waiting for the FAA...
>
> John Karnes
>
> 601 HDS
>
> Yippee!! I taxied around the hangars a few times!!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darryl West" <rdwest(at)cadvision.com> |
This is not correct. The trim tab (of this common type) causes the main
elevator surface to move the opposite direction. So: Trim tab up, elevator
down, nose down.
Darryl
>
> John
> The trim tab works just like a mini elevator. Trim tab up, tail down,
nose
> up.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
> Are there pictures or diagrams of this canopy mod available ? I've been
> agonizing over which canopy mount to use since starting construction, and
> I'll soon have to make a decision. Thanks.
+++ My enthusiasm about Jeff Small's canopy hinge and latch system was not
intended to create work on Jeff's part by responding with photos and
instructions to each builder that would like to have information on it. So,
what I would suggest is that one of you that has a Webb site and is willing
to post these photos and information for the group, to contact Jeff at
zodiacjeff(at)email.msn.com and see about the possibilities of doing this.
Knowing Jeff, he will be most happy to share this with you guys. PS I
didn't mention his latch and release mechanism in my earlier message....
Really Nice, and a whole lot less weight than the original. Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Karnes" <karnesj(at)harbornet.com> |
| Subject: | Weight and balance |
Thought builders might be interested in my W & B calculations:
601 HDS with Stratus Subaru engine and Warp Drive prop. I installed the
"two battery" system per Bob Nuckolls behind the seats and in front of the
rear zee. After looking at the figures, I'm glad I chose the location for
the batteries:
Total empty weight: 675 lbs.
Empty c of g: .17" behind the forward limit.
Forward extreme check: 1.86" behind the forward limit.
Rearward extreme check: 2.5" forward of the rear limit.
I guess I'm looking at a pretty stable airplane, though I may have to use
some elevator to keep the nose up. After reading Jim Weston's comments, I
was hoping to have the c of g further aft, but all in all, I'm pretty happy
with the outcome.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rwilbers1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Weight and balance |
Dear John.....Would you be so kind as to advise me about the two battery
system. I am finishing a 601HDS with Stratus and Warp prop and I was
wondering about the battery location, but two batteries?
Thanks,
Dick Wilbers, St.Louis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Karnes" <karnesj(at)harbornet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Weight and balance |
The two battery system was installed per Bob Nuckoll's recommendation to
have two 17 ah batteries and install a new one every annual. That way, you
always have a battery less than a year old in your plane. A switch is
thrown and it closes the battery contactor to the second battery and voila!
you have more juice at your disposal in case your alternator goes belly up.
I'm an electrical klutz, so I followed the drawings in The Aerolectric
Connection.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rwilbers1(at)aol.com>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Weight and balance
>
> Dear John.....Would you be so kind as to advise me about the two battery
> system. I am finishing a 601HDS with Stratus and Warp prop and I was
> wondering about the battery location, but two batteries?
> Thanks,
> Dick Wilbers, St.Louis
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
| Subject: | Trim Tab Question...! |
"John W. Tarabocchia"
Wow......!
It's not rocket science to figure out the tab direction. If your not
sure get the advice from an A&P or your DAR.
--
John W. Tarabocchia
601hds(#6-4085) Web Site:http://hometown.aol.com/zodiacbuilder/Home.html
Airframe 95% Complete...
Scratch building Rudder...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Torque value for AN lock nuts |
Hi all..does anyone have / does their exist / has anyone calculated torque
values for AN lock nuts? ie..with a plain AN3 at suggested torque of 20
inch/lbs, how much do you add for the resistance of a nylon lock nut? AN4,
AN5, etc. W/ AN3, I'd guess it'd be a total of 30 + -...they are so light.
Any rule of thumb you are using?
Thanks for any input,
Chris Carey
601 HDS
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Torque value for AN lock nuts |
"John W. Tarabocchia"
SEAL2CC(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi all..does anyone have / does their exist / has anyone calculated torque
> values for AN lock nuts? ie..with a plain AN3 at suggested torque of 20
> inch/lbs, how much do you add for the resistance of a nylon lock nut? AN4,
> AN5, etc. W/ AN3, I'd guess it'd be a total of 30 + -...they are so light.
> Any rule of thumb you are using?
>
> Thanks for any input,
>
> Chris Carey
> 601 HDS
> Richmond, VA
>
In the Wicks catalogue, on page 112, there is a torque value chart. The
chart give you a lower and higher limit for tightening the bolts. I
would use the higher end of the range for lock nuts. In direct answer
to your question for the toque value for a AN3 bolt , 25 in/lbs.
--
John W. Tarabocchia
601hds(#6-4085) Web Site:http://hometown.aol.com/zodiacbuilder/Home.html
Airframe 95% Complete...
Scratch building Rudder...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rwilbers1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Torque value for AN lock nuts |
The Aviation Mechanics Handbook has a complete torque section on pages V-1
thru V-4. It states the following concerning self locking nuts..."when
torquing a self locking nut on a bolt, first determine the amount of torque
needed to run the nut down on the bolt before it contacts the surface (this
is called prevailing torque). The final torque on the nut must be the
prevailing torque plus the desired torque.
This will be in the neighborhood of 35 inch-lbs. Different manufacturers of
nylon insert nuts may have different inherent torque values. If you decide to
use an all meta lock nut such as the type manufactured by SPS, the inherent
torque value may be higher.
The inherent torque value may be difficult to read on beam type torque
wrenches.
Good luck Dick Wilbers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Torque value for AN lock nuts |
"John W. Tarabocchia"
Rwilbers1(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> The Aviation Mechanics Handbook has a complete torque section on pages V-1
> thru V-4. It states the following concerning self locking nuts..."when
> torquing a self locking nut on a bolt, first determine the amount of torque
> needed to run the nut down on the bolt before it contacts the surface (this
> is called prevailing torque). The final torque on the nut must be the
> prevailing torque plus the desired torque.
> This will be in the neighborhood of 35 inch-lbs. Different manufacturers of
> nylon insert nuts may have different inherent torque values. If you decide to
> use an all meta lock nut such as the type manufactured by SPS, the inherent
> torque value may be higher.
> The inherent torque value may be difficult to read on beam type torque
> wrenches.
> Good luck Dick Wilbers
>
I think that 35 in/lbs is way too high. I have broken AN3 bolts at 40
in/lbs.
--
John W. Tarabocchia
601hds(#6-4085) Web Site:http://hometown.aol.com/zodiacbuilder/Home.html
Airframe 95% Complete...
Scratch building Rudder...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Instrument Markings |
Anyone have any insight on how instruments are supposed to be marked?
The Tony B. books do not address this?
Thanks,
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Torque value for AN lock nuts |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>> The Aviation Mechanics Handbook has a complete torque section on pages V-1
>> thru V-4. It states the following concerning self locking nuts..."when
>> torquing a self locking nut on a bolt, first determine the amount of torque
>> needed to run the nut down on the bolt before it contacts the surface (this
>> is called prevailing torque). The final torque on the nut must be the
>> prevailing torque plus the desired torque.
>> This will be in the neighborhood of 35 inch-lbs. Different manufacturers of
>> nylon insert nuts may have different inherent torque values. If you
decide to
>> use an all meta lock nut such as the type manufactured by SPS, the inherent
>> torque value may be higher.
>I think that 35 in/lbs is way too high. I have broken AN3 bolts at 40
>in/lbs.
See www.aeroelectric.com/articles/2v-ch7_3.pdf for the section out
of AC43-13b speaking about recommended torque values on bolts. The
AN3 is a 10-32 thread and according to the chart quoted has a MAX
tightening torque of 40 in-lb if the bolt is high tensile steel
and 25 in-lb if low tensile steel. If you take the quote from the
handbook at face value and if you read say 5 in-lb or drag on the
nut before it bottoms out then a final tightening torque of 35 in-lb
doesn't seem out of whack for a high tensile steel bolt.
I might point out the left-most columns where torques are given for
bolts loaded in shear only. They are much smaller values. Given
that most critical bolts in the airplane's structure SHOULD NOT
be loaded in tension, then the nut's primary task is to keep the
bolt from slipping around in the hole under load . . . it's not
necessary or wise to tighten it up to limits. Note also the
extra margin afforded by finer thread hardware where torque
limits are greater for finer threads and greater still if the
nut is "tension" rated meaning that it's thicker for greater
thread engagement.
When in doubt and when you've not been provided specific instructions
from the designer to the contrary, torque values in column 1 of
the chart (+ drag of the locking method) are the most
conservative.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
Tito , Saul Betancourt ,
Noida Allen , Paul DeBonis ,
Mom Wirth , Mom Silliman ,
Keith Guarino ,
Jelena Tarabocchia
| Subject: | Web Site update.... |
"John W. Tarabocchia"
Hey guys....
Check out the new sections in my homepage..
--
John W. Tarabocchia
601hds(#6-4085) Web Site:http://hometown.aol.com/zodiacbuilder/Home.html
Airframe 95% Complete...
Finishing up loose ends in fuselage before moving on...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com |
| Subject: | Re: dual batteries |
...The two battery system was installed per Bob Nuckoll's recommendation to
have two 17 ah batteries and install a new one every annual...
The alternator of a Rotax 912 is a bit wimpy, so I installed a 2nd
alternator along with the 2nd
battery. Given all that, it made sense to have a complete dual electrical
system, each totally
independent of the other.
I am very happy with the results. I normally run the DG and AH and COM1
from one system,
and the TC and COM2 from the other, allthough any particular equipment can
be switched to
run from either system.
BTW, I did purchase Bob's book, and I recommend it highly.
glen, 601HD, 912, trike, IFR, 400 Hrs on airframe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rwilbers1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Zodie Rockets |
Ken: Could you give me some info regarding the flying and handling
characteristics of the 601HDS? I am getting close to bolting the whole thing
together, and before that first flight I would appreciate some info on the
way it flies. I have owned Cessna 172's and a Bonanza (nothing flies as well
as a Bonanza) and have flown Cherokees, Katanas, Eagles Cardinals and a few
others and they all have their own distinct characters. Thanks in advance.
Dick Wilbers in St. Louis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Ferris <ferret(at)forbin.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Zodie Rockets |
I would strongly advise going up with someone familiar with the Zodiac for a
couple of hours. Its very easy to fly, but I found that its light weight made
it have very little inertia, so things happen quicker than what one might be
used to (which is why we are building these things). An example is that speed
departs quickly in the flare...the first time you land you aren't exactly sure
when to flare. I also learned a couple of things that were helpful in
construction. One was that it was difficult to push the rudder without hitting
the brakes as well. To solve that, I moved the pedals up a little, and attached
a rubber pad to the top of the rudder pedal which should make it more difficult
to inadvertantly press on the brake while flying. The other thing was the
friction block for the throttle didn't work very well, so I'm going to use
friction lock throttle controls. Btw...when I was up there, I met Mike
Fothergill and saw his plane. He had done both modifications.
Greg F.
Airframe basically complete, starting canopy
Rwilbers1(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Ken: Could you give me some info regarding the flying and handling
> characteristics of the 601HDS? I am getting close to bolting the whole thing
> together, and before that first flight I would appreciate some info on the
> way it flies. I have owned Cessna 172's and a Bonanza (nothing flies as well
> as a Bonanza) and have flown Cherokees, Katanas, Eagles Cardinals and a few
> others and they all have their own distinct characters. Thanks in advance.
> Dick Wilbers in St. Louis
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rwilbers1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Zodie Rockets |
Dear Greg: Thanks for your advice on the flying characteristics of the
Zodiac. I expected it to be light. I did have one demo ride, but that was a
nonentity as all I did was guide it around the patch.
Your comments on the throttle friction confirms a conclusion that I had
almost come to. Did you get standard friction throttle controls from Aircraft
Spruce or Wicks? I believe I may do the same thing before I rivet the top
front skin.
Are you making the front hinged canopy?
Look forward to hearing from you.
Dick Wilbers St. Louis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Lighting |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> RV-List message posted by: Tdiede(at)aol.com
>
>Am currently designing instrument panel for RV-8. Question:
>
>Is the internal lighting available with instruments adequete ?
>Why would one use "light posts" around the instruments ?
>
Internal lighting has always be quite adequate . . . so
adequate in fact that we've charge a whole lot of extra
dollars to fit a certified aircraft with all internally
lighted instruments. Post lights are also adquate but
a fully illuminated set of instruments can require a dozen
or more of the rather pricey little light fixtures.
Flood lighting (a-la Cessna 172) takes one or two lamps,
minimal wiring, draws very little current and installs
in a fraction of the time it takes to wire up a forest
of post lights.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Zodie Rockets |
Mike Fothergill
Dick;
I modified a friction lock obtained from an aircraft salvage company.
Did not change right side control.
Mike
UHS Spinners
Rwilbers1(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Dear Greg: Thanks for your advice on the flying characteristics of the
> Zodiac. I expected it to be light. I did have one demo ride, but that was a
> nonentity as all I did was guide it around the patch.
> Your comments on the throttle friction confirms a conclusion that I had
> almost come to. Did you get standard friction throttle controls from Aircraft
> Spruce or Wicks? I believe I may do the same thing before I rivet the top
> front skin.
> Are you making the front hinged canopy?
> Look forward to hearing from you.
> Dick Wilbers St. Louis
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Mucker" <mmucker(at)airmail.net> |
Pat Walsh had a solution to the throttle friction locks that I really liked.
Pat mounted a torque tube across the front of the firewall, horizontally,
between the throttles on either side of the cockpit. On each end of the
torque tube is an arm. The throttle control on each side of the cockpit
attaches to its arm via a pushrod. So pushing or pulling the throttle
rotates the torque tube (and therefore moves the throttle on the other side
of the cockpit via its arm and pushrod). The torque tube rests in a bearing
made of two blocks of what appeared to be Teflon. I'm sure that by
adjusting the clamping force of the Teflon, the friction can be adjusted.
A third arm from the torque tube attached to the carbs.
Although I didn't get the opportunity to fly in Pat's plane, it was quite
evident that his throttles had a much smoother movement and consistent
friction than the throttles in the factory plane.
I found the solution simple, elegant, and effective. If and when I ever get
that far in my building, I don't know that I'll be able to find a better
solution to the problem than Pat did.
I was very impressed.
-Matt
Side view:
|
+--+---| throttle control
| |
| |
O torque tube
|
|firewall
Front view (mounted to front of firewall):
|arm to throttle control | arm to throttle control
| |
-+---X-------------+---------X-------+- torque tube
Teflon block | Teflon block
|arm to carbs
I hope my ASCIIart is readable. Not a perfect representation, but I think
you can get the idea.
________________________________________________________________________________
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
| From: | "Pleasant Precision, Inc." <billn(at)ppiteam.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Lighting |
"Pleasant Precision, Inc."
An option I chose for lighting my instruments and switch labels was
FiberLites.
http://www.fiberlites.com/index.html
It uses a single bulb, fiber optics and a ring around each instrument and
back lighted labels. With an inline dimmer, works very well. There is some
labor involved, but not as much as wiring post lights and it is very
affordable.
Bill Nichelson
Bellefontaine, Ohio USA
601HDS
S/N 6-3556 - N132BN
Ready for paint, interior and prop.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr Ed.Holland" <cybershrink(at)tinet.ie> |
"Zenith-List Digest Server"
| Subject: | Re: Zenith-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 09/14/00 |
delete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darryl West" <rdwest(at)cadvision.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Zodie Rockets |
That is the standard Zenair-supplied throttle setup (at least for the
601/912).
Darryl
>
> Pat Walsh had a solution to the throttle friction locks that I really
liked.
>
> Pat mounted a torque tube across the front of the firewall, horizontally,
> between the throttles on either side of the cockpit. On each end of the
> torque tube is an arm. The throttle control on each side of the cockpit
> attaches to its arm via a pushrod. So pushing or pulling the throttle
> rotates the torque tube (and therefore moves the throttle on the other
side
> of the cockpit via its arm and pushrod). The torque tube rests in a
bearing
> made of two blocks of what appeared to be Teflon. I'm sure that by
> adjusting the clamping force of the Teflon, the friction can be adjusted.
>
> A third arm from the torque tube attached to the carbs.
>
> Although I didn't get the opportunity to fly in Pat's plane, it was quite
> evident that his throttles had a much smoother movement and consistent
> friction than the throttles in the factory plane.
>
> I found the solution simple, elegant, and effective. If and when I ever
get
> that far in my building, I don't know that I'll be able to find a better
> solution to the problem than Pat did.
>
> I was very impressed.
>
> -Matt
>
> Side view:
>
> |
> +--+---| throttle control
> | |
> | |
> O torque tube
> |
> |firewall
>
>
> Front view (mounted to front of firewall):
>
> |arm to throttle control | arm to throttle control
> | |
> -+---X-------------+---------X-------+- torque tube
> Teflon block | Teflon block
> |arm to carbs
>
>
> I hope my ASCIIart is readable. Not a perfect representation, but I think
> you can get the idea.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Mucker" <mmucker(at)airmail.net> |
Whoops. Guess you can tell I'm not there yet, huh? (Building from
scratch.)
Well, whatever Pat did, his throttles sure are a lot easier to manipulate
than the factory plane.
(Man, am I ever embarrassed!)
-Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Darryl West [mailto:rdwest(at)cadvision.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Zodie Rockets
That is the standard Zenair-supplied throttle setup (at least for the
601/912).
Darryl
>
> Pat Walsh had a solution to the throttle friction locks that I really
liked.
>
> Pat mounted a torque tube across the front of the firewall, horizontally,
> between the throttles on either side of the cockpit. On each end of the
> torque tube is an arm. The throttle control on each side of the cockpit
> attaches to its arm via a pushrod. So pushing or pulling the throttle
> rotates the torque tube (and therefore moves the throttle on the other
side
> of the cockpit via its arm and pushrod). The torque tube rests in a
bearing
> made of two blocks of what appeared to be Teflon. I'm sure that by
> adjusting the clamping force of the Teflon, the friction can be adjusted.
>
> A third arm from the torque tube attached to the carbs.
>
> Although I didn't get the opportunity to fly in Pat's plane, it was quite
> evident that his throttles had a much smoother movement and consistent
> friction than the throttles in the factory plane.
>
> I found the solution simple, elegant, and effective. If and when I ever
get
> that far in my building, I don't know that I'll be able to find a better
> solution to the problem than Pat did.
>
> I was very impressed.
>
> -Matt
>
> Side view:
>
> |
> +--+---| throttle control
> | |
> | |
> O torque tube
> |
> |firewall
>
>
> Front view (mounted to front of firewall):
>
> |arm to throttle control | arm to throttle control
> | |
> -+---X-------------+---------X-------+- torque tube
> Teflon block | Teflon block
> |arm to carbs
>
>
> I hope my ASCIIart is readable. Not a perfect representation, but I think
> you can get the idea.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 601 Main Gear Extrusion Misalignment |
Hi fellow listers..
Encountered a problem when I mounted my right main gear ribs to the center
wing main spar (601 HD/HDS). The bottom skin fits over the extrusions on both
port and starboard sides of the plane and aligns with the spar. However, the
two extrusions on the starboard inboard gear rib are more "vertical" compared
to the outboard extrusions. The error is about 4 to 5mm max between the
extrusions at the top of the rib (bottom end extending from the skin looks
relatively OK.) I don't think this would affect alignment because my guess is
the gear would move up and down ok still but not sure. If I kept it as is, I
would need to enlarge the opening in the bottom skin a bit to maintain some
clearance. However it is not right...
My options as I see 'em are:
1) I'd like to save the inboard rib..(at $176.50!)..if possible. Doing that,
I could get 2 new extrusions and try to make them as close a match as
possible given edge distance issues. I think this might be a stretch..getting
uncomfortably close to the limits at the top of the extrusions - actually
risking going into the 1 1/2" flange.
2) Get 4 new extrusions, 2 for each rib and adjust the outboard extrusions a
bit more vertical and the inboard extrusions a bit flatter..hoping to reach a
happy medium.
3) Get the new rib and 2 extrusions and start the rib over.
Is it a critical problem if the stbd and port extrusions differ slightly in
angle?
Personal favorite option is #2 but has anyone run into the same problem or
have any other ideas?
Thanks for any ideas..
Chris Carey
601 HDS
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Frisby" <marslander(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | CH801 Wing skins |
Does anyone have a clear understanding of the final "stacking" order of the
bottom wing skins (at rib station #6). Richard Bauer's site
(http://www.millennium-interactive.com/CH801/21.htm) shows it as:
Outboard rear skin inside (touching spar at rib)
Outboard leading edge skin next
inboard rear skin next
inboard leading edge skin outside
I have asked ZAC, but no reply yet.
Thanks
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Meiste Family <meiste(at)essex1.com> |
Hi List,
After searching the archives for tire info I have noticed many of you
are not at all pleased with the standard Zenith 601 supplied tire when
flying off paved surfaces (wears out fast) as I will be doing.
I'm now ready to install my tires on the wheels of my 601 HD and was
curious if ZAC has changed their tires since the stories that turned up
in the archives. The tires supplied with my kit are a Nanco brand, and
are size 4.80-8, load rating is C, & states on the side wall "2 plies
nylon cord".
Is this the same tire every one else is having the problem with?
Also the load rating C seems to indicate it's a 6 ply tire, but the side
wall seems to indicate it's only a 2 ply tire.
If you guy's are dumping this tire for something better, where in the US
are you finding it? So far locally I haven't found anything better.
Any suggestion greatly appreciated!
Kelly Meiste
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joecool601hds(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: dual batteries |
Glen, how do you switch between the two batteries? Did you duplicate the
bus, feeders, etc?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 601 Main Gear Extrusion Misalignment |
In a message dated 9/19/00 9:11:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, SEAL2CC(at)aol.com
writes:
<< However, the
two extrusions on the starboard inboard gear rib are more "vertical"
compared
to the outboard extrusions. The error is about 4 to 5mm max between the
extrusions at the top of the rib (bottom end extending from the skin looks
relatively OK.) >>
Another possibility but need to check the repair standards pub.
- Fabricate a strip of .032 for the web side of the rib to cover the holes
and extend out from the extrusion dimensions and redrill and rivet the
extrusion mount holes through it...essentially a shim for the extrustions??
Thanks,
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TOMGILES(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith Tires |
I found the 601 tires and tubes at a local Tire King dealer. They mounted
them properly after several others had botched the job.
|
__!__
/ \
===== {______ }=====
_______ | o |______ _______________________
_|______ \_____ /______|_______________________/*
][ ][ ][
(_) (_) (_)
TomGiles(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Zenith Tires |
Found mine at a local Trailer manufacturer/retailer. Amazing what you
find there.
Michel Royer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith Tires |
"John W. Tarabocchia"
royerm(at)juno.com wrote:
>
>
> Found mine at a local Trailer manufacturer/retailer. Amazing what you
> find there.
>
> Michel Royer
>
Try this place called Tracy O'Brien that is linked at the bottom of my
web site. They have a terrific line of Azusa Tires that might be of
help at ridiculously low prices.
--
John W. Tarabocchia
601hds(#6-4085) Web Site:http://hometown.aol.com/zodiacbuilder/Home.html
Airframe 95% Complete...
Finishing up loose ends in fuselage before moving on...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Zenith Tires |
| From: | zoe johnson <zoejohnson(at)juno.com> |
Kelly,
Forget those tires..Go to Northern Hydraulics and get real 6- ply, High
speed trailer tires and forget tire problems..wore originals ( I think
they were wheelbarrow tires) out in 40 hrs...new ones already have 100
hrs and still look new!! Cost $20 +/- 2 bucks and well worth it!
Jackie N5JZ
writes:
>
> Hi List,
> After searching the archives for tire info I have noticed many of
> you
> are not at all pleased with the standard Zenith 601 supplied tire
> when
> flying off paved surfaces (wears out fast) as I will be doing.
> I'm now ready to install my tires on the wheels of my 601 HD and was
> curious if ZAC has changed their tires since the stories that turned
> up
> in the archives. The tires supplied with my kit are a Nanco brand,
> and
> are size 4.80-8, load rating is C, & states on the side wall "2
> plies
> nylon cord".
> Is this the same tire every one else is having the problem with?
> Also the load rating C seems to indicate it's a 6 ply tire, but the
> side
> wall seems to indicate it's only a 2 ply tire.
> If you guy's are dumping this tire for something better, where in
> the US
> are you finding it? So far locally I haven't found anything better.
> Any suggestion greatly appreciated!
>
> Kelly Meiste
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Wood <mawood(at)zoo.uvm.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: 601 Main Gear Extrusion Misalignment |
>Hi fellow listers..
>
>Encountered a problem when I mounted my right main gear ribs to the center
>wing main spar (601 HD/HDS). The bottom skin fits over the extrusions on both
>port and starboard sides of the plane and aligns with the spar. However, the
>two extrusions on the starboard inboard gear rib are more "vertical" compared
>to the outboard extrusions. The error is about 4 to 5mm max.......
>Chris Carey
>601 HDS
>Richmond, VA
Chris
I will be very interested to hear what ZAC has to say about this, as I did
the same thing. After a number of sleepless nights, and many hours of
looking at the plans, this is what I went with.
The extrusions are to guide the pins on the gear slides and hold the bunge
cords. As long as we have 3/4in between them we are in good shape. The
section which holds the bunge cord at the bottom needs to connect to the
extrusions. As long as this section can connect we should be OK. I feel I
will be able to make the connection so I am going on with my building. The
4 or 5mm (I was off about the same as you.) should be no problem to
clearance of the bunge cord or the gear slide and should allow connection
to the lower guide. As ZAC says we are not building a space shuttle.
Build well and be happy
Mark Wood
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darryl West" <rdwest(at)cadvision.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith Tires |
mine from wallmart
Darryl
----- Original Message -----
From: <royerm(at)juno.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Zenith Tires
>
> Found mine at a local Trailer manufacturer/retailer. Amazing what you
> find there.
>
> Michel Royer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 601 Main Gear Extrusion Misalignment |
This AM I did what I mentioned on my 2nd post after referring to "Acceptable
Methods"...fabricated 2x 40mm wide strips of .040 for mounting on the .032
rib flange other side of the extrusions on the inboard rib. Then (after a
good remeasurement) re-drilled the holes to match the OK outboard rib. Two of
them on each extrusion didn't even need re-drilling. Riveted the strips to
the rib w/ A5 and clecoed the extrusions back on. Everything looks to be
fine. Don't know how the mis-measurement came about since I was pretty
careful. That was an awkward measurement to make though. Finished the gear
rib and doubler attachment and nose rib and L angles today as well.
Chris Carey
601 HDS
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Walker" <dwalker3dw(at)dellnet.com> |
| Subject: | tires and batteries. |
I am glad there is room for different experiences, and here is mine. My HDS
taildragger is light. I use one small motorcycle battery (14AH) that is now
18 months old and cranking my Stratus easily. I have 97 hours now on the
light little wheelbarrow tires and expect to get another 100. (My home base
is grass but I landed at 3 hard surfaced strips just this weekend). With a
cruise setting on my prop in cool weather I climb out at 1700' a minute solo
and 1300 fpm with a 190 lb. passenger. I have taken 21 different pilots
flying in the past year and I enjoy hearing the unsolicited remark, "This
is impressive". I'm glad I have the HDS Light. I wouldn't go so far as to
label it a Rocket, but it feels good accelerating and climbing out the way
it does. Don Walker N103DW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Ivers" <jivers(at)microtech.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith-List:Rivetting wing skins. |
Hi Everyone,
does anyone know why, in the 601HD manual, we are asked to drill through the
ribs and wing skins from the inside, rather than pre-drilling the holes and
lining them up with lines drawn down the centre of each rib (avoiding the
crimps)? It seems that it would be difficult (impossible?) to drill straight
through due to interferance from the opposite flange on the rib. Any
thoughts?
Jim Ivers.
============================================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rwilbers1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith-List:Rivetting wing skins. |
Jim: You can buy 12" aircraft extension drills that "bend" to get around
opposite side flanges. This will eliminate the need to get the drill motor
close to the flange and skin you are drilling.--------Dick W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jason Zwyers" <jzwyers(at)concentric.net> |
| Subject: | Zenith-List:Rivetting wing skins. |
Jim,
I assume your are scratch building. The kit I got for the HD comes with
predrilled wing skins. The process to install the wing skins is just as you
thought it should be; line up the center line of the rib flange and drill
the hole. The skins were pre-drilled undersize and just the rib lines were
drilled, not the spar or rear Z. I would NOT try to drill from the
underneath. I would suspect your rivet line would not end up very straight.
All the ribs should have their crimps in the same locations so it would be a
simple process to pre-drill the skin without hitting the crimps. Have you
looked at the builders sequence manual, it covers the steps for the kit. I
am sure you would get some good building tips from it.
Personally, the few pages of notes that come with the plans are not real
good. (I am being nice here) The builders sequence manual is the
replacement. It is written for the kit builder so you will need to fill in
some of the gaps. Last I looked it was in the builders area of the
zenithair web site.
Good luck!
Jason
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Ivers
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List:Rivetting wing skins.
Hi Everyone,
does anyone know why, in the 601HD manual, we are asked to drill through the
ribs and wing skins from the inside, rather than pre-drilling the holes and
lining them up with lines drawn down the centre of each rib (avoiding the
crimps)? It seems that it would be difficult (impossible?) to drill straight
through due to interferance from the opposite flange on the rib. Any
thoughts?
Jim Ivers.
============================================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Grant Schemmel <gschemmel(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Brake observation and canopy question |
Hi All
Thought I would share an observation I just discovered
about the Matco brake calipers - after 3 yrs. of
building, (7 total for the kit itself) I finally
filled my brake system. Lo and behold, the calipers
leaked! Thought initially that it was leaking around
the elbow fittings going into the calipers, so drained
everything, and re-did how the fitting went into the
calipers with teflon paste instead of tape, then
re-filled. Still leaked!
This time tho, the area around the fittings was dry,
so I assumed it was the caliper itself that was the
problem, and called ZAC, then Matco about it. Matco
said send it back, so last night I pulled everything
off. On examining them, it looks like the area
leaking was actually around the bleed fitting on the
other end. Removed one of them, and found that no
thread sealant had ever been applied. I guess I had
made the assumption that since it came from the
factory that way, and was tight that it was good to
go. Lesson learned I guess, so will be redoing these
tonight.
Also, continuing the canopy thread, I'm looking at
doing the forward canopy, but was wondering about
general sealing around the ZAC design. Anybody have
this mod done and flying, that can comment on how the
ZAC system seals for wind? I already assume that it's
pretty lame for water tightness.
Grant Schemmel
601hds/o-200 in Colorado
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Pinneo <George.Pinneo(at)trw.com> |
Imagine buying airplane tires from Aircraft Spruce! ACS sells Shin tires and tubes;
they list 6 combinations of tires and tubes. I don't remember which one is
our Zodiac set; I believe it's #06-10870; cost in their 99-00 catalog is $29.95
for the set.
GGP
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith-List:Rivetting wing skins. |
I made a drilling template with a strip of aluminium
by recording the location of the crimps of all of my
ribs on that strip. I found it was particularily
difficult to come with a drilling pattern which is
constant and respect the rivet pattern dictated in the
plans.... I ended up with a closer pattern (more
rivets).
Then, I predrilled the skins using rib position
measurements and my drilling template.
After the skin have been pre-drilled, I installed them
and drilled through the rib flanges (I marked the
rivet line on the rib flanges prior to that). I
clecoed the skins with #40 clecoes.
Then, I final drilled those skins.
I did nothing so far from inside (as mentioned in the
manual).
--- Jim Ivers wrote:
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> does anyone know why, in the 601HD manual, we are
> asked to drill through the
> ribs and wing skins from the inside, rather than
> pre-drilling the holes and
> lining them up with lines drawn down the centre of
> each rib (avoiding the
> crimps)? It seems that it would be difficult
> (impossible?) to drill straight
> through due to interferance from the opposite flange
> on the rib. Any
> thoughts?
>
> Jim Ivers.
=====
Michel Therrien
http://www.pcperfect.com/mthobby/ch601
-- site has moved!
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darryl West" <rdwest(at)cadvision.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith Tires |
I bought a tire & tube from them a year ago and it is already cracking on
the sidewall (I assume it is old rubber that sat on AS&S shelf forever). The
tires I bought 3 years ago from Wallmart are doing fine. You may do better
to source it from a trailer/tire store with higher turnover. Also: the tube
does not have the correct "bent" stem.
Darryl
>
> Imagine buying airplane tires from Aircraft Spruce! ACS sells Shin tires
and tubes; they list 6 combinations of tires and tubes. I don't remember
which one is our Zodiac set; I believe it's #06-10870; cost in their 99-00
catalog is $29.95 for the set.
>
> GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: dual batteries |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>Glen, how do you switch between the two batteries? Did you duplicate the
>bus, feeders, etc?
>
There is a ton of data on dual battery installations downloadable
from our website . . . both in the form of articles and wiring
diagrams.
What is the combination of electrical demands that's prompting
you to consider dual batteries?
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)oregonfast.net> |
I'm in the middle of a 912 instalation on my 701.
Everything I have thought of or figured out seems to be going well.
I do not have a clue how to connect one choke cable to two in the middle of
the bracket I just made. Anyone out there with a Clever Idea? Is there a
gizmo in the kit I missed?
Thanks
Richard
701
Florence, Oregon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
Hi Richard,
connet the two cables coming from the carburetors with nicopress sleeves to
the cable coming from the choke knob. One word of caution: when I installed
the choke assembly on my plane (601 HDS), it was impossible to pull the
choke (too much force required). Other builders had the same issue. Problem
was resolved by re-routing the cables to reduce friction. Again, that
applies for the 601, don't knoe about the 701.
Thilo Kind
hope to finish the plane tomorrow (minus painting)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of HOLCOMBE
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 9:03 PM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: 912 choke cable
>
>
>
>
> I'm in the middle of a 912 instalation on my 701.
> Everything I have thought of or figured out seems to be going well.
> I do not have a clue how to connect one choke cable to two in
> the middle of
> the bracket I just made. Anyone out there with a Clever Idea?
> Is there a
> gizmo in the kit I missed?
> Thanks
> Richard
> 701
> Florence, Oregon
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Wilcoxson <warrenw(at)eaznet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 choke cable |
Yes, a cable spliter, one in, two out. its about the the size of a
marker pin and about 1 1/2 inches long. Warren
HOLCOMBE wrote:
>
>
> I'm in the middle of a 912 instalation on my 701.
> Everything I have thought of or figured out seems to be going well.
> I do not have a clue how to connect one choke cable to two in the middle of
> the bracket I just made. Anyone out there with a Clever Idea? Is there a
> gizmo in the kit I missed?
> Thanks
> Richard
> 701
> Florence, Oregon
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Danielson" <steved(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 choke cable |
CPS sells junction blocks that do this; I've seen them in their catalogs and
I've got one on my 701 for the chokes as well. I looked on their online
catalog and couldn't seem to find it though... Their site is
www.800-airwolf.com, then look under Throttle and Choke linkages. I am not
sure if that is supposed to come with the kit or not though.
Steve Danielson
http://stevedanielson.home.mindspring.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)oregonfast.net>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 9:02 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: 912 choke cable
>
> I'm in the middle of a 912 instalation on my 701.
> Everything I have thought of or figured out seems to be going well.
> I do not have a clue how to connect one choke cable to two in the middle
of
> the bracket I just made. Anyone out there with a Clever Idea? Is there a
> gizmo in the kit I missed?
> Thanks
> Richard
> 701
> Florence, Oregon
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joecool601hds(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: dual batteries |
It's not an issue of electrical demand its the reliability and redundancy
that concerns me. I have the Stratus Subaru engine and I'm getting the dual
ignition but obviously don't have mags. So the second battery would be
primarily backup power for the ignition, but potentially you could use two
batteries of the same size and provide complete redundancy. Of course on the
other hand adding that reduncy could also increase the complexity and reduce
the reliability of the system. I'm just interested if there is some
experience out there with some real simple redundant electrical systems. My
experience is in large aircraft electrical power systems, principally AC and
I appreciate a combination of simplicity and some redundancy when that
combination is possible.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Walker" <dwalker3dw(at)dellnet.com> |
| Subject: | Why dual batteries? |
This topic is outside my area of knowledge, so educate me. I have an HDS
with Stratus Soob. I have a small motorcycle battery (14AH) which has
cranked me up without hesitation for 18 months and 98 hours of flight time.
If my alternator light comes on and my instruments haven't indicated a
problem, I think I can turn off my master and fly a long time on battery. If
something is wrong with the battery, shouldn't there be early indications.
For thirty-one bucks I can get a new one. I have dual ignition but never
thought I needed dual batteries. What are the odds of loosing all electrical
if you are maintaining your airplane and monitoring your instruments? My
empty weight is 602 and I like that. Don Walker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dick Baner <db8(at)mtco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 choke cable |
Richard, I am not sure why it would not have been in the kit you got but the
two to one throttle and choke setups are sold by California Power Supply
"CPS" If you need a phone number or address let me know. Dick Baner
HOLCOMBE wrote:
>
> I'm in the middle of a 912 instalation on my 701.
> Everything I have thought of or figured out seems to be going well.
> I do not have a clue how to connect one choke cable to two in the middle of
> the bracket I just made. Anyone out there with a Clever Idea? Is there a
> gizmo in the kit I missed?
> Thanks
> Richard
> 701
> Florence, Oregon
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rwilbers1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 912 choke cable |
Dick: I would like the phone number of CPS or their web site ID.
Thanks',
Dick Wilbers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russ and Brenda" <rbee797(at)mnsi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dual batteries |
----- Original Message -----
From: <Joecool601hds(at)aol.com>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: dual batteries
I have experiance with marine electrical systems. Their are some very
light, vapor sealed rotary battery switches. They would need to be modified
for aviation use. But they are very reliable and are capable of high current
loads. For two battery systems, the rotary switch is labeled left, right,
both.
The draw back I see to using this switch is, its operation has to be
considererd during the preflight check list. When being used in boats it
was used as a prevention to draining your battery. For example, the switch
is normally left in the both position, when operating your boat, If you were
stopping your boat in a remote area to party, one of the first things you
would do after setting the anchor, is switch the battery to the right or
left position, This way you could run your cooler and your stereo and
lights with out worry of draining your battery to the point of not being
able to crank the engine , after the party was over. Realy embarasing, been
there done that. I think this switch would be very adaptable for aircraft
auto engine use.
>
> It's not an issue of electrical demand its the reliability and redundancy
> that concerns me. I have the Stratus Subaru engine and I'm getting the
dual
> ignition but obviously don't have mags. So the second battery would be
> primarily backup power for the ignition, but potentially you could use two
> batteries of the same size and provide complete redundancy. Of course on
the
> other hand adding that reduncy could also increase the complexity and
reduce
> the reliability of the system. I'm just interested if there is some
> experience out there with some real simple redundant electrical systems.
My
> experience is in large aircraft electrical power systems, principally AC
and
> I appreciate a combination of simplicity and some redundancy when that
> combination is possible.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russ and Brenda" <rbee797(at)mnsi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Why dual batteries? |
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Walker <dwalker3dw(at)dellnet.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2000 6:41 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Why dual batteries?
The concern you have for flying with your soob electrical system is
legitimate. If auto systems are going to be used in aircraft, then you must
build in redundant systems to match typical aircraft systems. If a battery
fails in most aircraft, the engine will continue to run, In your auto set up
if the battery fails so does your engine. A two battery system duplicates
the two magneto system pretty close as far as redundantcy is concerned.
Batteries can and do fail with out warning. To reduce the weight penalty
two smaller bateries can be used, but they must be sized with absolute
precision.
>
> This topic is outside my area of knowledge, so educate me. I have an HDS
> with Stratus Soob. I have a small motorcycle battery (14AH) which has
> cranked me up without hesitation for 18 months and 98 hours of flight
time.
> If my alternator light comes on and my instruments haven't indicated a
> problem, I think I can turn off my master and fly a long time on battery.
If
> something is wrong with the battery, shouldn't there be early indications.
> For thirty-one bucks I can get a new one. I have dual ignition but never
> thought I needed dual batteries. What are the odds of loosing all
electrical
> if you are maintaining your airplane and monitoring your instruments? My
> empty weight is 602 and I like that. Don Walker
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)oregonfast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 choke cable |
http://www.leadingedge-airfoils.com/
http://www.aircraft-spruce.com/main.html
http://www.chiefaircraft.com/Aircraft/Menu/AirSiteIndex.html
http://www.wicksaircraft.com/catalogIndex.phtml
http://www.aeroelectric.com/
http://www.800-airwolf.com/
I looked at all the factory gizmos for my choke cable connection one into
two and then made my own improved model to fit the Zenith bracket as per
plans.
Thanks for the help all.
For those still looking, try the above.
Richard
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912 choke cable |
| From: | James R Ashford <kimojima(at)juno.com> |
Richard,
Thilo already gave you the process for connecting so I'll not comment on
that.
Pulling against the springs on two carburetors makes for a pretty good
pull so you want to take every precaution to minimize any friction in the
system.
a. Remove the cable from it's cover and do all you can to straighten the
coil developed when packaged. Do the same for the exterior cover. Fill
the cover with LPS #2 or similar lubricant(I think WD 40 is too light for
this) before reinserting the cable.
b. Make sure the cable has large radius curves when installed. Bend choke
bracket if necessary.
This process was recommended to me when I was at FlyPass. My choke works
reasonably easy considering the spring tension on the chokes.
Good luck,
Jim Ashford
912 601 HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Why dual batteries? |
<<
The concern you have for flying with your soob electrical system is
legitimate. If auto systems are going to be used in aircraft, then you must
build in redundant systems to match typical aircraft systems. If a battery
fails in most aircraft, the engine will continue to run, In your auto set up
if the battery fails so does your engine. A two battery system duplicates
the two magneto system pretty close as far as redundantcy is concerned.
Batteries can and do fail with out warning. To reduce the weight penalty
two smaller bateries can be used, but they must be sized with absolute
precision.
>>
So, how and when do batteries just fail without warning? I feel that a
two-battery system makes the system complicated and cumbersome. Also, I plan
to replace my 25ah tractor battery every two years and thus I shouldn't have
to worry about battery failures. I have practiced this replacement policy
for years on other aircraft and never experienced battery failures. The only
time I experienced a battery failure is when I left a battery in my car for
more than 5 years and all of a sudden the car won't start. Hence, replace
your battery - preventive maintenance.
Dick (601-HDS, N601KL, now flying again - yippee!!).
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Why dual batteries? |
Dick:
5 years ago I was on a 300mile cross country in a Cessna 150. 30 miles from
my destination the voltage regulator apparently failed wide open. Sparks and
smoke started spewing our of the instrument panel as my first indication. In
the short time I took to turn everything off, it was too late, basically
everthing that was "on" failed including the electric clock. I was also
amazed that in that short time, the battery was completely discharged. Once
the smoke cleared and I calmed down. I continued to my destination with a
completely inoperative electrical system and made a normal no flap landing.
With one battery and an electronic ignition system, I would have had a dead
engine as well.
Tim Cotter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Karnes" <karnesj(at)harbornet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why dual batteries? |
I fear the following scenario:
1. Flight over hostile territory (I fly in the Pacific Northwest w/o a lot
of "emergency landing fields").
2. Alternator craps out.
3. The above fact is discovered by the voltage dropping alarmingly low on
the voltmeter.
4. Shedding the electrical load still leaves too little juice to power
things like radio, fuel pump, and CD player.
Hence, I installed a second 17 ah battery with a switch on the panel that
kicks in the second battery and provides extra time to make a safe landing
with needed equipment.
John Karnes
Port Orchard, WA
601 HDS with Stratus Subaru
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | NOLIES4US(at)aol.com |
Had a total failure of nose bungee, but luck was with me was 20 ft from
hanger taxing back. next bit of luck was that one I had installed a 1''
spacer between strut an fork to give me more prop to ground clearance and had
taped a foam airo dynamic form to rear of strut. This plus the stearing rods
kept the prop off of the ground.
This was the third bungee in 5 yrs.
am going to fiberglass the form on strut and attach it permanantly.
Bill J.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Sharpe" <fly601(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why dual batteries? |
----- Original Message -----
From: <TCotter2(at)cs.com>
> With one battery and an electronic ignition system, I would have had a
dead
> engine as well.
>
> Tim Cotter
Does the Rotax 912 have electronic ignition, and should I have dual
batteries installed with the 912?
Paul Sharpe
601HD (no engine or electrical system yet)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Slaughter <mslaughter(at)interhop.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Why dual batteries? |
Hi again Paul,
The 912 does have dual electronic ignition, and you
only need one battery for engine startup.
Cheers,
Mike S.
>Does the Rotax 912 have electronic ignition, and should I have dual
>batteries installed with the 912?
>
>Paul Sharpe
>601HD (no engine or electrical system yet)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Why dual batteries? |
| From: | James R Ashford <kimojima(at)juno.com> |
Paul,
The 912 is self sustaining once started. If the alternator fails, you
will only have the battery to power your electrical requirements. For a
day VFR airplane this is not a problem unless your setup REQUIRES
continous electrical fuel/boost pump operation. In this event, a landing
at the nearest suitable airport would be necessary.
To answer your question, KISS, you don't need an additional battery.
Jim Ashford
912 601 HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jason Zwyers" <jzwyers(at)concentric.net> |
Leo,
I am also a 601 builder and am in San Jose this week. Am staying in
Milpitas! Anyway was wondering if there will be anyone out at the airport
this week. Would love to see Jack's plane.
Hope you guys don't mind me inviting myself! Also, was out here several
months ago and met a guy at an EAA chapter meeting. He was building the HD
wing and for medical reasons was thinking of selling some or all of his
project. Do you know who I am talking about? I lost his number several
months ago.
Thanks!
Jason Zwyers
888-513-1084 pager
636-448-2608 cell
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of LEO CORBALIS
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 12:27 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: First Flight
Jack Callison Milpitas CA flew his 601HDS, trike with a Jabiaru 3300 first
time for 30 min on 9/9/00. Everything OK. He woke up on Sunday with an awful
headache from grinning so much in his sleep! He doesn't have a computer to
defend himself.
Leo J .Corbalis
don not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Why dual batteries? |
<< I fear the following scenario:
1. Flight over hostile territory (I fly in the Pacific Northwest w/o a lot
of "emergency landing fields").
2. Alternator craps out.
3. The above fact is discovered by the voltage dropping alarmingly low on
the voltmeter.
4. Shedding the electrical load still leaves too little juice to power
things like radio, fuel pump, and CD player.
Hence, I installed a second 17 ah battery with a switch on the panel that
kicks in the second battery and provides extra time to make a safe landing
with needed equipment.
>>
John:
You might like to know that the following items that must stay on don't sink
too much current:
1) Soob primary ignition module - 3 amps
2) Main Facet fuel pump - less than 2 amps
3) Basic instruments - less than 2 amps
That alone is 7 amps. If you have a 25 amp-hour battery in fully recharged
condition, it should last you 3 hours. The voltage will remain at about 12
amps. More than enough time to find an airport (assuming enough fuel on
board). Just remember to turn off the strobe (mine is 7 amps), position
lights, CD player) , etc., and use a handheld radio such as the ICOM A22. A
fully-recharged 17 amp-hour battery should last more than 2 hours.
Yes, the scenario of plenty of "off-airport" landing sites is scary, so plan
on flying high.
Enjoy...
Dick (N601KL)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Why Dual Batteries? |
<<
5 years ago I was on a 300mile cross country in a Cessna 150. 30 miles from
my destination the voltage regulator apparently failed wide open. Sparks and
smoke started spewing our of the instrument panel as my first indication. In
the short time I took to turn everything off, it was too late, basically
everthing that was "on" failed including the electric clock. I was also
amazed that in that short time, the battery was completely discharged. Once
the smoke cleared and I calmed down. I continued to my destination with a
completely inoperative electrical system and made a normal no flap landing.
With one battery and an electronic ignition system, I would have had a dead
engine as well.
>>
Tim:
A very interesting story. Thank you for taking the time to write. Your
story leads to some conclusions and questions:
If the regulator failed by not regulating (i.e., the voltage swung way up by
the free-whheling alternator), that explains the resultant failures on your
instruments.
If you found the battery completely discharged, it may have found a
high-current path to ground that was caused by the regulator failure, hence
the sparks and smoke (you were very lucky the affected wiring didn't overheat
and burn!).
The only way a second battery would be effective is if you can:
a) turn off the alternator (remove high voltage because of failed
regulator)
b) turn off first battery (already discharged)
c) turn everything else off (they are already destroyed)
d) turn off primary ignition and turn on secondary ignition
e) turn on second battery.
Instead of all the above, it may be more effective to install an over-voltage
protection system or a way to automatically disconnect the alternator if the
voltage exceeds a certain value. Something worth considering...
Dick (N601KL, checked engine after return to flight and am now waiting for
good weather...)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ivan Rosales" <ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx> |
| Subject: | Elevator trim tab |
"Ivan Rosales"
Hi guys:
Here's a question for those of you who are flying or have something to say:
I'm about to install the elevator trim tab supplied by zenith and the
instructions say that you have to cut a portion of the trailing edge of the
elevator so the trim tab will replace that area, in other words, the
elevator keeps the same area dimensions. Visiting other builders sites I've
noticed that some of them didn't cut the elevator and they actually riveted
the piano hinge to the trailing edge so the trim tab is protruding from the
elevator. Is there a reason for this? Will it change its effectivenes?.
Thank You.
Ivan Rosales
Building 601 HD
Mexico City
ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joecool601hds(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Why Dual Batteries? |
The only problem with overvoltage protection is it won't help with a short
since that will cause the voltage to drop. Overvoltage protection that
disconnects the alternator would only help if the regulator went.
Your right about swiching off one source and switching the other on as this
is the only way to insure the bad source won't drain the backup. But it
could be a good idea if you can provide a realiable means of switching the
sources.
Also the main bus is not protected for a reason. The results of the
protective device would be worse than the short since it would disconnect the
primary source of power. If your main bus is designed right a short will
likely open the fault path leaving your bus usable and a backup sorce viable.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Mayne" <bazmay(at)ozemail.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator trim tab |
The protuding elevator trim is the earlier version and was altered last
century.
Barry Mayne HDS Jabiru 3300
----- Original Message -----
From: Ivan Rosales <ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 12:36 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Elevator trim tab
>
> Hi guys:
> Here's a question for those of you who are flying or have something to
say:
> I'm about to install the elevator trim tab supplied by zenith and the
> instructions say that you have to cut a portion of the trailing edge of
the
> elevator so the trim tab will replace that area, in other words, the
> elevator keeps the same area dimensions. Visiting other builders sites
I've
> noticed that some of them didn't cut the elevator and they actually
riveted
> the piano hinge to the trailing edge so the trim tab is protruding from
the
> elevator. Is there a reason for this? Will it change its effectivenes?.
> Thank You.
> Ivan Rosales
> Building 601 HD
> Mexico City
> ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joecool601hds(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Why dual batteries? |
You may be right. Perhaps the probability of a main bus fault is too low.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Walker" <dwalker3dw(at)dellnet.com> |
| Subject: | Why dual batteries? |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe W" <Joe_Wise(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Why dual batteries?
> Maybe this guy needs a King Air,
>
> it even has two engines!! ( and two of lots of other stuff)
>
> He probably had a Alternator conversion w/o an over-voltage relay.
> A generator wouldn't do this, it must have been a alternator.
>
> In aviation folks like to have the external regulator alternator (this is
> where the field wire is in the open, exposed) one more thing to go wrong.
> Use the automotive type with the internal regulator and over voltage
> controlled relay if you are worried about it. Fusing your main alternator
> wire with a 60A fuse would work almost as good.
>
>
> Later. . . . . . .
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Walker" <dwalker3dw(at)dellnet.com>
> To: "Joe Wise"
> Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2000 6:02 PM
> Subject: Fw: Zenith-List: Why dual batteries?
>
>
> Whataya think? Is this an issue? Don
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <TCotter2(at)cs.com>
> To: ;
> Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2000 8:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Why dual batteries?
>
>
> >
> > Dick:
> >
> > 5 years ago I was on a 300mile cross country in a Cessna 150. 30 miles
> from
> > my destination the voltage regulator apparently failed wide open.
Sparks
> and
> > smoke started spewing our of the instrument panel as my first
indication.
> In
> > the short time I took to turn everything off, it was too late, basically
> > everthing that was "on" failed including the electric clock. I was also
> > amazed that in that short time, the battery was completely discharged.
> Once
> > the smoke cleared and I calmed down. I continued to my destination with
a
> > completely inoperative electrical system and made a normal no flap
> landing.
> > With one battery and an electronic ignition system, I would have had a
> dead
> > engine as well.
> >
> > Tim Cotter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joecool601hds(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Why dual batteries? |
A friend of mine gave me an article which I can't find right now that
recommends a backup battery for homebuilts with automotive engines. I
expected to find some reliable redundant systems out there but haven't.
Whithout multiple redundancy which would be weight prohibitive for this
airplane it may not be possibility to add a backup system without
compromizing the electrical system reliability. The only thing that would
cause the battery to fail quickly is a fault on the main feeder or main bus
which are unprotected. Unless, I find something really neat and simple, I'm
with you. Just turn off the master and pull out the handheld (and perhaps
the flashlight)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Norris <rnorris4(at)earthlink.net> |
I am making the nose gear steering rods for the 601, and the length
called out in the plans on 6F17 is no where near the length that I ended
up with. The plans call for approx. 402 mm and 429 mm and I ended up
with approx. 290 mm. I've checked all other items around the pedals and
they are in the right places per plans. What's wrong? It's like the
plans numbers are for a different plane. The plans call out this too
long length in at least two places on 6F17.
Rob Norris
601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator trim tab |
Both work. The cut-out version is probably much
nicer. After debating this for a while and seeing
planes with both versions, I decided to go with the
easier to build one (the trailing tab version).
--- Barry Mayne wrote:
>
>
> The protuding elevator trim is the earlier version
> and was altered last
> century.
>
> Barry Mayne HDS Jabiru 3300
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ivan Rosales <ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx>
> To: zenith list
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 12:36 PM
> Subject: Zenith-List: Elevator trim tab
>
>
>
> >
> > Hi guys:
> > Here's a question for those of you who are flying
> or have something to
> say:
> > I'm about to install the elevator trim tab
> supplied by zenith and the
> > instructions say that you have to cut a portion of
> the trailing edge of
> the
> > elevator so the trim tab will replace that area,
> in other words, the
> > elevator keeps the same area dimensions. Visiting
> other builders sites
> I've
> > noticed that some of them didn't cut the elevator
> and they actually
> riveted
> > the piano hinge to the trailing edge so the trim
> tab is protruding from
> the
> > elevator. Is there a reason for this? Will it
> change its effectivenes?.
> > Thank You.
> > Ivan Rosales
> > Building 601 HD
> > Mexico City
> > ingenieros(at)netservice.com.mx
> >
> >
>
>
>
> through
>
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
> Matronics!
>
>
>
>
>
=====
Michel Therrien
http://www.pcperfect.com/mthobby/ch601
-- site has moved!
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rwilbers1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator trim tab |
Believe you should look at the instructions again. To be effective, the trim
should be independent, in a fashion, from the elevator. The piano hinge
attachment is the correct procedure. Good luck.
Dick W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rwilbers1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Steering Rods |
Dear Rob:
Make sure your rudder pedals are vertical when you measure. I had a different
measurement as the drawing as well, and I can't remember the exact dimension,
but it was different from the drawing.
There are a lot of mistakes on the drawings. It annoys me that they won't
upgrade the drawings to have a CORRECTED set for each individual model. I
will check my notations and mail you a dimension for each rod.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Steering Rods |
"John W. Tarabocchia"
Norris wrote:
>
>
> I am making the nose gear steering rods for the 601, and the length
> called out in the plans on 6F17 is no where near the length that I ended
> up with. The plans call for approx. 402 mm and 429 mm and I ended up
> with approx. 290 mm. I've checked all other items around the pedals and
> they are in the right places per plans. What's wrong? It's like the
> plans numbers are for a different plane. The plans call out this too
> long length in at least two places on 6F17.
>
> Rob Norris
> 601HDS
Hey Rob,
Your correct in your measurements. My rod also measured out to be about
115 mm less than what the plans called for.
Good Luck,
John W. Tarabocchia
601hds(#6-4085) Web Site:
http://hometown.aol.com/zodiacbuilder/Home.html
Airframe 95% Complete...
Finishing up loose ends in fuselage before moving on...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)oregonfast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Steering Rods |
Before you get too wound up in the right measurements as per the plans for
the rudder pedals and steering rods you might want to sit in the plane and
make sure your legs are the right length. It would be pretty silly to build
right for the wrong person.
Richard
701
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual batteries |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> I have experiance with marine electrical systems. Their are some very
>light, vapor sealed rotary battery switches. They would need to be modified
>for aviation use. But they are very reliable and are capable of high current
>loads. For two battery systems, the rotary switch is labeled left, right,
>both.
It's very easy and in fact recommended that multiple batteries
each have their own contactor for connection to the system. Furhter,
there are connections to each battery that do not go through the
contactor for running components of an electrically dependent
engine. I.e., your electrically dependent engine should operate
whether or not the DC master switch(es) are ON or OFF . . .
>> It's not an issue of electrical demand its the reliability and redundancy
>> that concerns me. I have the Stratus Subaru engine and I'm getting the
>> dual ignition but obviously don't have mags. So the second battery
would be
>> primarily backup power for the ignition, but potentially you could use two
>> batteries of the same size and provide complete redundancy. Of course on
>> the other hand adding that reduncy could also increase the complexity and
>> reduce the reliability of the system. I'm just interested if there is some
>> experience out there with some real simple redundant electrical systems.
This topic has been discussed at length on the lists, in our book,
in articles downloadable from our website and illustrated in numerous
wiring diagrams downloadable from the website. Two-battery installations
are no big deal . . .
>The concern you have for flying with your soob electrical system is
>legitimate. If auto systems are going to be used in aircraft, then you must
>build in redundant systems to match typical aircraft systems.
I'll suggest the LAST thing we want to do is match "typical" aircraft
systems . . . the architecture, components and pilot's understanding
of those systems have not changed in 50 years.
>If a battery fails in most aircraft, the engine will continue to run,
>In your auto set up if the battery fails so does your engine. A
>two battery system duplicates the two magneto system pretty close
>as far as redundantcy is concerned. Batteries can and do fail with
>out warning.
Batteries do NOT fail without warning. It's just that most of us
don't pay any attention to what the battery is trying to tell us.
We replace tires when the tread is gone, overhaul cylinders when
the compression gets low, file nicks out of propellers when noticed,
etc . . . . but we beat a battery until it fails to crank the engine
. . . and replace it after we've propped the airplane for the third
time.
Very rudimentary preventative maintenance techiques will insure
that nobody reading these words will EVER experience battery failure.
>To reduce the weight penalty two smaller bateries can be used,
>but they must be sized with absolute precision.
Don't know about "precision" but some consideration must be given
to what a battery's task is. Batteries have three duties: (1) crank
the engine, (2) stabilize alternator(s) and (3) provide power for
essential goodies should alternator output be lost. The BEST
hedge against alternator failure is two alternators . . . dump
the sucky vacuum pump and install a second alternator. THEN the
batteries on board no longer have to be sized for standby power.
Total system weight can be much reduced.
>This topic is outside my area of knowledge, so educate me. I have an HDS
>with Stratus Soob. I have a small motorcycle battery (14AH) which has
>cranked me up without hesitation for 18 months and 98 hours of flight
>time. If my alternator light comes on and my instruments haven't indicated a
>problem, I think I can turn off my master and fly a long time on battery.
I'd encourage this builder to replace THINKING with KNOWING how long
his airplane will stay aloft battery only. Your battery should be
no smaller than your fuel tank. If you do not KNOW that the battery
capacity on board will allow you to use up fuel on board, then I'll
suggest further investigation, personal education and perhaps
some changes to your system are indicated . .
> something is wrong with the battery, shouldn't there be early indications.
> For thirty-one bucks I can get a new one. I have dual ignition but never
> thought I needed dual batteries. What are the odds of loosing all
> electrical if you are maintaining your airplane and monitoring your
> instruments? My empty weight is 602 and I like that.
There's no pat answer to this . . . a number of options exist for
insuring your flight system reliability. My personal goal for
system reliability is, "From the time I break ground to the time
I land, I don't want to break a sweat." This doesn't have to mean
nothing ever fails. It means that I have to architecture a system
for failure tolerance and educate myself in its operation and
maintenance to sustain that level of reliability. Dual batteries
and indeed dual alternators can often make for a LIGHTER airplane.
>1. Flight over hostile territory (I fly in the Pacific Northwest w/o a lot
>of "emergency landing fields").
>2. Alternator craps out.
This happens a LOT on certified aircraft . . . just check the
service difficulty reports at faa.gov . . . the REASON alternators
crap a lot is because the overwhelming majority of the TC
fleet are fitted with crappy alternators . . . holy-watered and
configuration managed right into antiquity. TC alternators fail
routinely in obscene ways every month . . . through bolts broke,
cases cracked, bearings seized, windings burned . . . you name
it . . . it happens. By LAW, that alternator will be returned to
ORIGINAL configuration and bolted back on some poor pilot's airplane.
B&C and similar alternators (Nipon-Dienso) have DEMONSTRATED
operational reliability suggesting that most will run the lifetime
of engine with nothing more than a belt change. B&C's return rate
in thousands of sales over the past 10 years has been under 1% for
the total fleet!
>3. The above fact is discovered by the voltage dropping alarmingly low on
>the voltmeter.
Why not some form of ACTIVE notification of alternator failure?
Most pilots don't look at the voltmeter until the panel starts to
go black or the radios begin to mis-behave . . . with no ACTIVE
notification, one tootles along with everything operating and
lights blazing thus squandering a limited energy resource. By the
time you know anything is wrong, your options are all gone.
>4. Shedding the electrical load still leaves too little juice to power
>things like radio, fuel pump, and CD player.
See articles on website and chapter in book on system reliability.
>Hence, I installed a second 17 ah battery with a switch on the panel that
>kicks in the second battery and provides extra time to make a safe landing
>with needed equipment.
Dual 17 a.h. batteries is 34 pounds total. Add to this about 8-10 pounds
of vacuum system for 44 pounds. Now consider taking out two batteries,
one vacuum system and putting one 4 to 7 pound alternator and one
10 pound battery for a weight REDUCTION of 27 pounds and a net
increase in flight system reliability unequaled in ANY certified
aircraft.
>5 years ago I was on a 300 mile cross country in a Cessna 150. 30 miles from
>my destination the voltage regulator apparently failed wide open. Sparks
and
>smoke started spewing our of the instrument panel as my first indication.
In
>the short time I took to turn everything off, it was too late, basically
>everthing that was "on" failed including the electric clock. I was also
>amazed that in that short time, the battery was completely discharged. Once
>the smoke cleared and I calmed down. I continued to my destination with a
>completely inoperative electrical system and made a normal no flap landing.
>With one battery and an electronic ignition system, I would have had a dead
>engine as well.
Forgive me, I am in no way trying to demean this writer's experience
but this is typical of the "dark and stormy night" stories that
drive our design, maintenance and operating decisions on homebuilts.
I'll suggest that TC aircraft can be used only as examples of
how NOT to architecture, maintain and operate an electrical system. I've
often written that my personal mind-set climbing into a rental TC
ship is that I don't care if ANY of that stuff is working 5 minutes
after take-off. I intend to get where I need to go without breaking
a sweat. That means UNDERSTANDING the limitations of a machine designed
mechanics and procedures . . . and outfitting myself to deal with the
worst. $30 worth of parts and a weekend's effort could elevate the
average TC aircraft into 21st century . . . but it ain't gonna happen.
This is why we need to look past our experience with TC ships to
design and operate our airplanes.
Virtually EVERY concern voiced above can be addressed with simple
choices in architecture and knowledge of how the system and its
components operate. Education and decisions based on understanding
will make it so . . .
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>I use the Garmin GPS III pilot on the dash of a Kitfox lite and it works
>great. My antenna is left on the GPS. The altitude feature is very helpful
>as I can watch rate of climb/decent. Do the cheap GPS's have altitude? I
>think this is a feature of the number of satellites they pick up.
I wrote an article for Sport Aviation about three years
ago that you can download at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/nailgun.pdf
The radios have changed but the basic facts have not. I've
not turned on a VOR receiver in 3 years. I fly dual GPS with
a total investment of about $200. I give these things away
at my weekend seminars. Given the signup rate for the Santa
Rosa program next weekend, I'll probably give away two of them.
There's no better return on investment than a low-end
Magellan hand held GPS receiver. The AOPA airport directly
makes entry of a new airport location about a 2 minute
trivial task. Since selective access was turned off, my
GPS300 gives altitude in 1 foot increments.
WARNING! Altitud displays can lag considerably behind
true altitude . . . it's harder to calculate and can be
off by several hundred feed after a rapid/large change.
Give it a few minutes to settle down and/or make altitude
changes more sedately and you'll find the readings track
your altimeter very closely.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Sa <wings1(at)videotron.ca> |
> There's no better return on investment than a low-end
> Magellan hand held GPS receiver. The AOPA airport directly
> makes entry of a new airport location about a 2 minute
> trivial task. Since selective access was turned off, my
> GPS300 gives altitude in 1 foot increments.
FYI, I just went around the 'net to see what is the present price range
for GPSAs, and found this note on the Hart Aviation site (
http://www.hartaviation.com ):
"What happened to Magellan? Orbital Sciences (parent of Magellan) has
discontinued the aviation line of Magellan GPS products. No official
statement is available from Magellan."
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MSandidg(at)peabodygroup.com (Mark Sandidge) |
| Subject: | Gates Polychain Recall |
Date: 9/26/00
Name: mark Sandidge (msandidg(at)peabodygroup.com)
Subject: Gates Polychain recall
I was made aware of something today that could effect some builders
using the Gates Polychain belts. I believe some builders with the
Subaru are using this brand.
I work as a Warehouse Manager for a coal mine in Western Kentucky and
found out today that all distributors had to send stock back that was
manfactured on certain dates. Finally found one a different width and
slit to make work on conveyor drive.
Might want to check if you recently purchased one of these. Sorry I
could not give more info on sizes and dates. Will post if I find out
more.
Mark (working on rear fuse)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Swinford" <grs-pms(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Zodiac nose gear bungee failures |
"George Swinford"
I'm wondering if the nose bungee failures might be related to excessive
heat.Can the frequency of failures be related to flight hours?
It appears to me that the Stratus Subaru muffler is close enough to the
bungee to heat it some. I don't know if the Rotax is similar. Maybe some
sort of heat shield is in order. The main gear bungees don't appear to be
failing early.
Any ideas on the subject?
George Swinford--- reinforcing the rudder pedals and developing seals for
the steering slots on my Stratus-powered 601HD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Schallgren(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Steering Rods |
Rob:
You are right on. Ours are 280 and 290 mm also.
Stan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Swinford" <grs-pms(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | 601 nose gear steering rods |
"George Swinford"
Here is my bit of data on steering rod length: As furnished in my kit, the
steering rod is 287mm long, measured from the center of the hole in the
welded tab to the end of the threaded rod. With the rod end in place and
screwed all the way down, the length of the assembly is 305mm from
centerline to centerline. Upon trial assembly, with the rudder pedals jigged
in the vertical position, the length seemed to be correct. Hope this helps,
Rod.
George Swinford
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Meiste Family <meiste(at)essex1.com> |
Hi List,
I'm finally to the point of installing my 601 gear forks & brakes, and
have a few questions.
1. Must the four brake caliper bolts (shown on page LG-2) be torque to a
certain spec, or are they pre-torqued to the proper spec from the
factory?
2. Should these four bolts also be lubricated slightly at the point
where the caliper slides in order to prevent at system from binding?
Thanks for any advise.
Kelly Meiste
601 HD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Swinford" <grs-pms(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | 601 instrument panel material |
"George Swinford"
I am assuming that the .025 instrument panel is too light to serve without
reinforcement, particularly if an attitude indicator and DG are installed.
What gauge material has been found to be satisfactory?
What advice on the installation of a shock mounted sub-panel for the gyros,
as Tony Bingelis shows in his "Sportplane Construction Techniques"? I see a
lot of pictures that seem to show the gyros installed directly to the main
panel. Has this been satisfactory in the 601?
Any input on this subject will be appreciated. I've got to get my panel
layout in hand to get on with building this little gem.
George
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
on 9/24/00 12:48 PM, NOLIES4US(at)aol.com at NOLIES4US(at)aol.com wrote:
...
> Had a total failure of nose bungee, but luck was with me was 20 ft from
...
> This was the third bungee in 5 yrs.
> am going to fiberglass the form on strut and attach it permanantly.
> Bill J.
I've noticed that ACS lists a 'heavy duty' bungee similar to the 1080 (is
that the standard number of the supplied units?)... has anyone tried the
heavier bungee on the nose gear?
--
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
601 hds/CAM100
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
>> There's no better return on investment than a low-end
>> Magellan hand held GPS receiver. The AOPA airport directly
>> makes entry of a new airport location about a 2 minute
>> trivial task. Since selective access was turned off, my
>> GPS300 gives altitude in 1 foot increments.
>
>
>FYI, I just went around the 'net to see what is the present price range
>for GPSAs, and found this note on the Hart Aviation site (
>http://www.hartaviation.com ):
>"What happened to Magellan? Orbital Sciences (parent of Magellan) has
>discontinued the aviation line of Magellan GPS products. No official
>statement is available from Magellan."
>
>Carlos
I believe they got out of the TSO'd aviation panel mount
business . . . there's only so much some folks can stand
of bureaucratic BS driving their costs up without adding
value. The little hand-helds we've been discussing don't
need FAA blessing to do a fantastic job for the dollar . . .
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Austin" <daveaustin2(at)sprint.ca> |
| Subject: | Instrument panel |
George.. I mounted my flight instruments on an unbuffered removable panel
(almost all of the left side of the panel) for servicing reasons. I have a
vacuum driven attitude gyro in that panel which has been fine for six
years. And yes.. it has saved my life!
Dave Austin 601HDS 445 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 601 instrument panel material |
I used .063" sub panels. I have one on the left for the flight instruments
and one on the right for the engine instruments. Both are removable for
servicing. I did no shock mount either. I also added some "L" material on
the remaining .025" panel to further stiffen it.
Bill
>I am assuming that the .025 instrument panel is too light to serve without
>reinforcement, particularly if an attitude indicator and DG are installed.
>What gauge material has been found to be satisfactory?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
"John W. Tarabocchia"
Grant Corriveau wrote:
>
> I've noticed that ACS lists a 'heavy duty' bungee similar to the 1080 (is
> that the standard number of the supplied units?)... has anyone tried the
> heavier bungee on the nose gear?
>
> --
> Grant Corriveau
> Montreal
> 601 hds/CAM100
>
I purchased the Wicks has the Superior 1080HD for 50% less than ACS has
it listed..
--
John W. Tarabocchia
601hds(#6-4085) Web Site:
http://hometown.aol.com/zodiacbuilder/Home.html
Airframe 95% Complete...
Finishing up loose ends in fuselage before moving on...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Grant Schemmel <gschemmel(at)yahoo.com> |
I purchased one of these at OSH this year for use with
my o-200, but don't have it on yet. The HD version is
rated at 900 lbs, vs the regular one at 700 lbs.
Grant Schemmel
--- Grant Corriveau wrote:
>
>
> on 9/24/00 12:48 PM, NOLIES4US(at)aol.com at
> NOLIES4US(at)aol.com wrote:
> ...
> > Had a total failure of nose bungee, but luck was
> with me was 20 ft from
> ...
> > This was the third bungee in 5 yrs.
> > am going to fiberglass the form on strut and
> attach it permanantly.
> > Bill J.
>
> I've noticed that ACS lists a 'heavy duty' bungee
> similar to the 1080 (is
> that the standard number of the supplied units?)...
> has anyone tried the
> heavier bungee on the nose gear?
>
> --
> Grant Corriveau
> Montreal
> 601 hds/CAM100
>
>
>
> through
>
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
> Matronics!
>
>
>
>
>
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)oregonfast.net> |
I put my bet on heat as the factor that shortens the life of the nose bungy.
Heat muffs may help, heat wrap must certainly help, and heat shields where
the muffler and exhaust are too close to things.
Richard
701
Fitting cowel as we speak
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | zoe johnson <zoejohnson(at)juno.com> |
I use the 1280hd and have had 3 failures in 2 1/2 years, so don't think
that's answer..the first failed had oil on it, and I thought that may
have contributed to demise..but the other two were fresh from shop and
were dry when removed,so??Not fun to change either!!watch for looser
rudder cables..time to check nose bungee before it totally fails..another
tip off..have to pull off ground in t/o because nose is lower!
Jackie B. Johnson N5JZ
writes:
>
>
> on 9/24/00 12:48 PM, NOLIES4US(at)aol.com at NOLIES4US(at)aol.com wrote:
> ...
> > Had a total failure of nose bungee, but luck was with me was 20 ft
> from
> ...
> > This was the third bungee in 5 yrs.
> > am going to fiberglass the form on strut and attach it
> permanantly.
> > Bill J.
>
> I've noticed that ACS lists a 'heavy duty' bungee similar to the
> 1080 (is
> that the standard number of the supplied units?)... has anyone tried
> the
> heavier bungee on the nose gear?
>
> --
> Grant Corriveau
> Montreal
> 601 hds/CAM100
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
Talking about nose gear bungee.... a friend suggested
me to use the 1280HD instead of the 1080HD for the
nose gear. This bungee is 3/4" thick instead of 5/8"
and would require some changes in making the
brackets... I guess.
The reason for his suggestion is that I will use a
heavier Subaru engine (heavier than Rotax) and the
1080 in his mind is a bit too soft.
Making the changes is not really a problem since I
build from plans...
Does anyone have opinions on that? Did anyone did
this?
=====
Michel Therrien
http://www.pcperfect.com/mthobby/ch601
-- site has moved!
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "L.D. Pahnke" <ldpahnke(at)netwitz.net> |
I think the hook that the bungee connects to on the nose gear leg is very
sharp and crude. If the bungee is getting sawed through on this, that should
be very apparent. Would suggest that if this is the case, to smooth out the
hook and cover the bungee at those contact points with a stitched-on
leather sleeve chafing gear like on sailboat rigging. This might be of some
help. LDP
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
| Subject: | Airplane online article - my 15 minutes of fame! |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Hi all,
Just to let you know that there's an online newsletter that features the
story of my aircraft construction project, to be found at the following
address:
http://www.photopoint.com/community/magazine/2000/september/flying.html
Who was it who said we each have 15 minutes of fame? Is this mine?
Cheers,
Grant
(p.s. the first photo of a finished Zodiac actually belongs to Iztok Salomon
of AIRNET in Slovenia. They supplied my cowling/radiator and engine mounts,
as well as the inspiration to install the CAM100 engine.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Airplane online article - my 15 minutes of fame! |
In a message dated 9/27/00 9:05:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gfcorriv(at)total.net writes:
<< Who was it who said we each have 15 minutes of fame? Is this mine? >>
Andy Warhol!
Chris Carey
601 HDS
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 601XL aileron trim |
| From: | wizard-24(at)juno.com |
Anyone else out there having trouble with ZAC's technical support?
Several weeks ago, I sent them an e-mail requesting info on whether an
ailron trim tab would be appropriate on the XL. No reply. Then, early
last week, I sent the following:
"I never received an answer from an e-mail I sent a couple of weeks ago,
so I thought I'd send another request in case it got lost. Regarding
aileron trim tabs on the XL wings, neither the drawings (nor the wing
kit) mentions the use of a trim tab. Shouldn't we be planning to install
one (might be important when flying without a passenger)? And what would
be the size and position, based on the new XL wing design? If electric
trim is a good idea, now would be the time to install it (my ailerons are
cleco'd, not yet riveted). And....shouldn't the necessary parts have been
included with the wing kit? Thanks."
Still no reply.
In case any other lister got an answer to this same question, I thought
I'd ask the list.
Mike Fortunato
601XL
Wings in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: 601XL aileron trim |
Mike Fothergill
I would not be without aileron trim on my HDS.
Mike
C-FRND
UHS Spinners
wizard-24(at)juno.com wrote:
>
>
> Anyone else out there having trouble with ZAC's technical support?
> Several weeks ago, I sent them an e-mail requesting info on whether an
> ailron trim tab would be appropriate on the XL. No reply. Then, early
> last week, I sent the following:
>
> "I never received an answer from an e-mail I sent a couple of weeks ago,
> so I thought I'd send another request in case it got lost. Regarding
> aileron trim tabs on the XL wings, neither the drawings (nor the wing
> kit) mentions the use of a trim tab. Shouldn't we be planning to install
> one (might be important when flying without a passenger)? And what would
> be the size and position, based on the new XL wing design? If electric
> trim is a good idea, now would be the time to install it (my ailerons are
> cleco'd, not yet riveted). And....shouldn't the necessary parts have been
> included with the wing kit? Thanks."
>
> Still no reply.
>
> In case any other lister got an answer to this same question, I thought
> I'd ask the list.
>
> Mike Fortunato
> 601XL
> Wings in progress
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
Does this mean that the 1280hd is just not better than
the 1080hd? or are you definitively recommending
against the 1280hd?
--- zoe johnson wrote:
>
>
> I use the 1280hd and have had 3 failures in 2 1/2
> years, so don't think
> that's answer..the first failed had oil on it, and I
> thought that may
> have contributed to demise..but the other two were
> fresh from shop and
> were dry when removed,so??Not fun to change
> either!!watch for looser
> rudder cables..time to check nose bungee before it
> totally fails..another
> tip off..have to pull off ground in t/o because nose
> is lower!
> Jackie B. Johnson N5JZ
=====
Michel Therrien
http://www.pcperfect.com/mthobby/ch601
-- site has moved!
Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rwilbers1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 601 instrument panel material |
George:
I bought a pre-cutout sub panel from Aircraft Spruce and Specialty.
Installing this over a cut out area stiffens the instrument panel
considerably, and also this provides an easy access to the area behind the
instrument panel. The sub panel is about .100" thick, so it is a very
substantial piece. It was developed for the RV series, but does fit OK on the
Zodiac panel.
I also bought a solid state electrical control device that mounts with
numerous switches thru the panel. I made a .040" ell shaped mounting bracket
that helps to stiffen the instrument panel.
Dick W.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Todd Lint" <tmlint(at)wilkshire.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 601XL aileron trim |
I have set several e-mails to ZAC's technical support and i have yet to
recieve a answer. I sent these e-mails about a month ago. My suggest? Call
them.
----- Original Message -----
From: <wizard-24(at)juno.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 9:18 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: 601XL aileron trim
>
> Anyone else out there having trouble with ZAC's technical support?
> Several weeks ago, I sent them an e-mail requesting info on whether an
> ailron trim tab would be appropriate on the XL. No reply. Then, early
> last week, I sent the following:
>
> "I never received an answer from an e-mail I sent a couple of weeks ago,
> so I thought I'd send another request in case it got lost. Regarding
> aileron trim tabs on the XL wings, neither the drawings (nor the wing
> kit) mentions the use of a trim tab. Shouldn't we be planning to install
> one (might be important when flying without a passenger)? And what would
> be the size and position, based on the new XL wing design? If electric
> trim is a good idea, now would be the time to install it (my ailerons are
> cleco'd, not yet riveted). And....shouldn't the necessary parts have been
> included with the wing kit? Thanks."
>
> Still no reply.
>
> In case any other lister got an answer to this same question, I thought
> I'd ask the list.
>
> Mike Fortunato
> 601XL
> Wings in progress
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)oregonfast.net> |
The issue has to be heat, not weight.
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Nose gear
>
> Does this mean that the 1280hd is just not better than
> the 1080hd? or are you definitively recommending
> against the 1280hd?
>
>
> --- zoe johnson wrote:
> >
> >
> > I use the 1280hd and have had 3 failures in 2 1/2
> > years, so don't think
> > that's answer..the first failed had oil on it, and I
> > thought that may
> > have contributed to demise..but the other two were
> > fresh from shop and
> > were dry when removed,so??Not fun to change
> > either!!watch for looser
> > rudder cables..time to check nose bungee before it
> > totally fails..another
> > tip off..have to pull off ground in t/o because nose
> > is lower!
> > Jackie B. Johnson N5JZ
>
>
> =====
> Michel Therrien
> http://www.pcperfect.com/mthobby/ch601
> -- site has moved!
>
> Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Newell" <anewell(at)canuck.com> |
Michel:
I have the standard bungee as supplied in the kit and a Subaru engine. A
stronger nose bungee would be good. I haven't had any problems with the
standard one but I have to be a bit careful taxing over bumps. It has
lasted for two years and I took it off to check it at my last annual. The
fabric cover had frayed a bit where it rubbed on the tab on the nose gear
leg. I just rotated it a bit and reinstalled it.
Regards,
Alan Newell, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
----------
> From: Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com>
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Nose gear
> Date: September 27, 2000 2:53 PM
>
>
> Talking about nose gear bungee.... a friend suggested
> me to use the 1280HD instead of the 1080HD for the
> nose gear. This bungee is 3/4" thick instead of 5/8"
> and would require some changes in making the
> brackets... I guess.
>
> The reason for his suggestion is that I will use a
> heavier Subaru engine (heavier than Rotax) and the
> 1080 in his mind is a bit too soft.
>
> Making the changes is not really a problem since I
> build from plans...
>
> Does anyone have opinions on that? Did anyone did
> this?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Self" <jself1(at)carolina.rr.com> |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
At Sun-N-Fun they were saying that Magellan bought Lowrence which could
account for the dropping of the Magellan line. The large page size unit was
sold to another company. Can anyone confirm this?
Jerry jself1(at)carolina.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: GPS
>
> >
> >
> >> There's no better return on investment than a low-end
> >> Magellan hand held GPS receiver. The AOPA airport directly
> >> makes entry of a new airport location about a 2 minute
> >> trivial task. Since selective access was turned off, my
> >> GPS300 gives altitude in 1 foot increments.
> >
> >
> >FYI, I just went around the 'net to see what is the present price range
> >for GPSAs, and found this note on the Hart Aviation site (
> >http://www.hartaviation.com ):
> >"What happened to Magellan? Orbital Sciences (parent of Magellan) has
> >discontinued the aviation line of Magellan GPS products. No official
> >statement is available from Magellan."
> >
> >Carlos
>
> I believe they got out of the TSO'd aviation panel mount
> business . . . there's only so much some folks can stand
> of bureaucratic BS driving their costs up without adding
> value. The little hand-helds we've been discussing don't
> need FAA blessing to do a fantastic job for the dollar . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
> --------------------------------------------
> ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
> ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
> ( and still understand nothing. )
> ( C.F. Kettering )
> --------------------------------------------
> http://www.aeroelectric.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 601XL aileron trim |
In a message dated 9/27/00 9:42:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
wizard-24(at)juno.com writes:
<< Anyone else out there having trouble with ZAC's technical support? >>
I've had the best luck with the good ole FAX machine. Usually turnaround that
day or within 24 hours. I don't get the feeling that Nick checks much into
the internet. An incoming FAX makes itself known right across from his and
Linda's desk!
Chris Carey
601 HDS
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darryl West" <rdwest(at)cadvision.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 601XL aileron trim |
I don't have or need one for my 601HD. I think the XL wingspan is somewhere
between the HD and HDS, so maybe it will need some trim?
Darryl
>
> I would not be without aileron trim on my HDS.
> Mike
> C-FRND
> UHS Spinners
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Grant Schemmel <gschemmel(at)yahoo.com> |
Maybe we should be looking at installing some kind of
safety cable that lies loosely around/between the
bungee mount on the nose gear, and the lower gear
bearing. Maybe make it long enough to allow the
maximum extension w/o the prop hitting the ground?
What do you guys think of the idea?
Grant Schemmel
--- zoe johnson wrote:
>
>
> I use the 1280hd and have had 3 failures in 2 1/2
> years, so don't think
> that's answer..the first failed had oil on it, and I
> thought that may
> have contributed to demise..but the other two were
> fresh from shop and
> were dry when removed,so??Not fun to change
> either!!watch for looser
> rudder cables..time to check nose bungee before it
> totally fails..another
> tip off..have to pull off ground in t/o because nose
> is lower!
Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
"John W. Tarabocchia"
Grant Schemmel wrote:
>
>
> Maybe we should be looking at installing some kind of
> safety cable that lies loosely around/between the
> bungee mount on the nose gear, and the lower gear
> bearing. Maybe make it long enough to allow the
> maximum extension w/o the prop hitting the ground?
>
> What do you guys think of the idea?
>
> Grant Schemmel
A simpler method might be to bolt or weld a piece of metal below the
lower bearing. At a point that would prevent the prop striking the
ground in the event of a bungee failure. This would also act as a
safety keeping the prop from hitting the ground in rough field
operation.
--
John W. Tarabocchia
601hds(#6-4085) Web Site:
http://hometown.aol.com/zodiacbuilder/Home.html
Airframe 95% Complete...
Finishing up loose ends in fuselage before moving on...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | NOLIES4US(at)aol.com |
When my bungee failed the was no advance warning, loose rudder cables sagging
nose gear.
I always have to lift nose on take off even with a 1" longer nose gear (due
to spacer between strut and fork).
Am going to install 1080HD 1280 would not fit on upper rear mount on strut.
I remember years ago the on rubber powered models that people used to soak
the rubber in castor oil, wonder if that would help.
Bill J.601 HDS/EA-81/ Ross.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | NOLIES4US(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 09/27/2000 4:26:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ldpahnke(at)netwitz.net writes:
<<
I think the hook that the bungee connects to on the nose gear leg is very
sharp and crude >>
I smoothed that all out, bungee broke where it turned under loser tube.
Bill J.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net> |
I was wondering if anyone has tried to bend their own all terain gear
and been very successful. The plans show the specs but I am concerned
as to if I can get the bends not only straight but without cracking.
phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 701 main gear |
"John W. Tarabocchia"
Phil Peck wrote:
>
>
> I was wondering if anyone has tried to bend their own all terain gear
> and been very successful. The plans show the specs but I am concerned
> as to if I can get the bends not only straight but without cracking.
> phil
Hi Phil,
I did it for my 601hds. You can see a picture on my web site. Drop a
note if you have any questions. More than happy to help.
Good luck.
John W. Tarabocchia
601hds(#6-4085) Web Site:
http://hometown.aol.com/zodiacbuilder/Home.html
Airframe 95% Complete...
Finishing up loose ends in fuselage before moving on...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com |
| Subject: | Re: dual batteries |
>I'm just interested if there is some
experience out there with some real simple
redundant electrical systems.
I've received several private emails asking about
my dual electrical system. Here is some info that
may answer most questions:
1) My system is NOT a dual battery system as described
by Bob Nuchols in his excellent publication. It is
a dual electrical system, which includes dual batteries,
dual alternators, dual fuse blocks (of the automotive
type as suggested by Bob), and a dpdt center off toggle
switch for each thing (radio, gyro, light, etc) that
needs to be switched. Switch up = "main" system,
switch down = "alternate" system. There really isn't a
"main", I should have called them "A" and "B". If you
like Bob's idea of an "essential bus" just switch the
"essential" stuff to one system and everything else to
the other. I am not suggesting that my system is better
or worse than Bob's, just different.
2) There is no way to interconnect the two systems, not
even for starting (starting uses only "main"). The
two systems are totally independent.
3) I did all this for several reasons:
a) Needed more capacity, hence 2nd alternator
b) Needed IFR redundancy
c) Needed more weight up front for CG
4) I was not able to get a straight answer from anyone
about installing a vacuum pump on the Rotax 912.
5) I am so happy with my system that when (if) I
build an RV-9 or whatever I may do it again, and
not even have a vacuum system even tho I'll be using
a Lycoming engine. Note that when (not if) the vacuum
system fails the AH is dead, and if the engine fails
the AH is also dead, if the AH is driven by vacuum.
One good way to solve this is to have an autopilot
driven by the (electrical) TC, as in S-TEC 30. In case
of vacuum or engine failure, turn on the autopilot.
Another way is to have an electric AH which keeps on
running (for a while) if the engine fails. It is
my experience that electrical systems are more
reliable than vacuum systems (YMMV). Maybe that is
because I am an electrical engineer... :)
Note that with a Lycoming or other engine that supports
a large alternator and a vacuum system the dual electrical
system will be more expensive, perhaps by 1.5 to 2 grand
using new parts, than the traditional system that uses
a vacuum AH and an electric TC.
5) The only thing I'd change is that next time I will
wire up the starting circuit to use both batteries.
That way each one can be small. Currently one battery
is larger than the other.
Hope this helps. If you reply to this on the newsgroup, please DO NOT
copy the whole message, as it is rather long...
cheers,
g.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com |
| Subject: | Re: Why dual batteries? |
I would be very nervous about flying a Suburu powered
plane that relies on a single electrical system for ignition.
Part of (or most of?) my opinion is based on my belief that
sometimes alternators fail without anyone noticing until
the battery is almost dead, and sometimes batteries fail.
This belief is not based on hard statistics, so you may
have a different opinion.
Given that you need a certain battery capacity for starting,
why not use two small batteries instead of one large one?
The cost and weight difference would be minimal, and
you might have more "feel good" with the redundacy
for the ignition system, even if you think it is not really
necessary.
The FAA, I think, requires a dual electric system to power
dual electronic ignition systems on certified planes.
.Perhaps someone can confirm this.
Note that this has nothing to do with why my plane has a
dual electric system. The Rotax 912 comes with a dual
electrical system for running the electronic ignition, and
a single 20 Amp system for running everything else.
I don't think there is any need to add anything to
the Rotax electrical system for day VFR flying.
g.
601HD Rotax 912 Trike IFR dual electric system
painfully slow but otherwise lots of fun, and inexpensive!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Copper State |
I will most likely be at CopperState as well, maybe going with Don H, or if
nothing else, meeting him there. Is ZAC bringing a plane down? Last year
they brought and 801 and the year before a 601HDS. it sure would be nice to
get another demo ride. I wonder if I could talk Roger into flying over to my
hanger at Deer Valley airport to give some tips!
Steve (Stuck and not building because of a new baby) Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "P.J. Larson" <pjl(at)cass.net> |
a while back someone mentioned a modification they made to the 701 front
axle because a friend of theirs broke their axle and did some major
damage to the plane. can't find anything in the archives. any help?
pat larson
701 from plans
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum System |
<39.aa2aaa7.270392b5(at)aol.com>
<022701c028db$1a6bdfc0$18210a18@bllvu1.wa.home.com>
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
Just a passing thought....will check my sources of replacement 12 volt vacuum
motors used in motorhome central vacs, I know the until is about 80% more
inches of vacuum then needed, but the motor does draw a fair amount of
current at 14
volts dc.. Perhaps using an IC regulator to reduce the voltage to around 8
volts would bring the current to an acceptable level and enough vacuum.
"TBO" for the brushes is rated 300-500 hours.
I used to build electrically driven standby vacuum systems . . . they
are NOT as dependable as an engine driven vacuum system . . . this is
why they were popularized as a standby. It sat in the airplane unused
until needed. The most dependable is a venturi . . . no moving parts.
Harder to de-ice tho. Given that one's #1 mission upon encountering
ice is to get out of ice, then perhaps de-ice isn't that important.
See latest issue AOPA pilot where a pilot writes about an instrument
course he took. The goal was to get him rated in 10 days. The first thing
the instructor did was cover up the attitude gyro saying, "we won't
need this."
I used to fly shotgun for a co-worker's instrument proficiency
work . . . he would cover up BOTH gyros and we'd go out to shoot
approaches to minimums in the typcial KS bumpy crosswinds. And by
the way, this was NOT a "no gyro" approach using timed turns from
the ground. We went out at lunch time to fly Mid Continent Airport
mixed in with all the big guys and totally on his own. He'd
nail those two needles together and track them right down to the
runway every time. Flying IFR with gyros is not difficult . . .
it's just a different way of doing it. Doing it well gives you
more options about equipment expectations and puts the odds of
living to fly another day decidedly in your favor.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Danielson" <steved(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 701 front axle , and now front wheel as well.. |
I'm interested in the reply myself. I have a plastic front wheel for the
701, and it seems to have permanent bearings because I can't find a way to
take them out. There is only a hole on each side of the wheel where the
small standard axle goes through. It doesn't seem to be turning that freely
now that I have it off and am wondering the best way to remedy.
Thanks,
Steve Danielson
http://home.nc.rr.com/danielson/
----- Original Message -----
From: "P.J. Larson" <pjl(at)cass.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 7:10 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: 701 front axle
>
> a while back someone mentioned a modification they made to the 701 front
> axle because a friend of theirs broke their axle and did some major
> damage to the plane. can't find anything in the archives. any help?
> pat larson
> 701 from plans
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
| Subject: | Re: 601XL aileron trim |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
on 9/27/00 9:18 PM, wizard-24(at)juno.com at wizard-24(at)juno.com wrote:
>
> Anyone else out there having trouble with ZAC's technical support?
> Several weeks ago, I sent them an e-mail requesting info on whether an
...
> In case any other lister got an answer to this same question, I thought
> I'd ask the list.
>
> Mike Fortunato
> 601XL
> Wings in progress
I sent a fax of my battery installation to obtain approval for the slight
mods and haven't received anything yet. Usually they would have replied by
now - judging by past experience. Busy?
--
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
601 hds/CAM100
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Mounting the firewall.... when? |
For those of you that are getting close to mounting your engine....or just
dreaming about it. I have a recomendation for you. I am so close to hanging
the engine that I can taste it. I have had the engine sitting here for
several months and my friends keep asking, "Got your engine mounted yet?".
I have had a tough time controlling my urge to go ahead and mount the
firewall back on for the final time and take care of my own desire and all
of the inquiries at the same time. BUT, by removing the firewall and
keeping it off until now, I have been able to do things SOOO MUCH easier
through the wide open front end compared to what it would be like doing the
same tasks by reaching over the side skins and down to the bottom. For
example, after the instrument panel was pre-wired and fastened into the air
frame, I had tons of wires to route and hook up. (I'm leaving the forward
top skin clecoed in place for most of my "fitting" process), it was so easy
to see what needed to be done, and to reach in there and do it. In additon,
I needed to make upholstery side panels, and fit carpet in and around the
entire front end. Can you imagine how much simpler it is when you can just
sit there on a chair at the front of the air frame and work on fitting the
carpet around all those pedal bearings, and reach right out there and loom
up the wires? Last night I finalized the fitting and cut-out of the side
panels that I will upholster. It was very easy to see what needed to be
done, and slip the pieces in and out as the patterns were made. Doesn't
sound like much of a job making forward side panel patterns, but it is when
you are building the forward opening canopy version and the lift cylinders
are in your way while you are trying to make a pattern that fits nicely from
the wing spar to the firwall, around the lower gussets, cylinders, and NACA
vents in the side skins... Do yourself a favor... resist the urge to
mount the firewall and hang the engine until you get all of the things that
can be done more easily through that wide open front end.
Fred Zodie Rocket HDS N-601LX Area 41, Snailworks North
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Gone to Santa Rosa . . . |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
Dee and I are packed up and pulling the plugs on the
office computers. We'll be headed for Santa Rosa in the
morning to do a weekend seminar.
Will be taking care of e-mail duties via the dial-up
account and a traveling laptop but the hammer-n-tongs
stuff from the shop is on hold until Monday. Looking
forward to meeting with lots of our readers this weekend.
You don't need a reservation to make this program . . .
just show up and we'll find a seat for you.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/SantaRosa.html
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Davis" <jd(at)lri.sjhc.london.on.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: 701 front axle |
The axle supplied in my kit had nuts welded into the axle tube ends, and
you were supposed to just use short an5 bolts from each side. I beefed it
up by threading the proper size threaded right through the axle, leaving
enough protruding from each end to take nylock nuts. Seems to be more
robust, and so far, so good (~80 hours).
Regards, J.
| J. Davis, M.Sc. (comp_sci) | email: jd(at)uwo.ca |
| SysMgr, research programmer | voice: (519) 646 6100 x64166 |
| Lawson Research Institute | fax: (519) 646 6135 |
| London, Ontario | lriweb.sjhc.london.on.ca/~jd |
When I was eight, I played Little League. I was on first; I stole third; I
went straight across. Earlier that week, I learned that the shortest distance
between two points was a direct line. I took advantage of that knowledge.
--- Steven Wright
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, P.J. Larson wrote:
>
> a while back someone mentioned a modification they made to the 701 front
> axle because a friend of theirs broke their axle and did some major
> damage to the plane. can't find anything in the archives. any help?
> pat larson
> 701 from plans
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <mltpoly(at)eclipse.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 701 front axle , and now front wheel as well.. |
"John W. Tarabocchia"
Steve Danielson wrote:
>
>
> I'm interested in the reply myself. I have a plastic front wheel for the
> 701, and it seems to have permanent bearings because I can't find a way to
> take them out. There is only a hole on each side of the wheel where the
> small standard axle goes through. It doesn't seem to be turning that freely
> now that I have it off and am wondering the best way to remedy.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve Danielson
> http://home.nc.rr.com/danielson/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "P.J. Larson" <pjl(at)cass.net>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 7:10 PM
> Subject: Zenith-List: 701 front axle
>
> >
> > a while back someone mentioned a modification they made to the 701 front
> > axle because a friend of theirs broke their axle and did some major
> > damage to the plane. can't find anything in the archives. any help?
> > pat larson
> > 701 from plans
Get yourself an Azusa wheel. They come in all different sizes and all
different axle sizes also. I paid 60 bucks for the wheel, tire, and
tube , including shipping. It was filled with air and ready to bolt
on. The link on the bottom of my web site.
Good Luck
--
John W. Tarabocchia
601hds(#6-4085) Web Site:
http://hometown.aol.com/zodiacbuilder/Home.html
Airframe 95% Complete...
Finishing up loose ends in fuselage before moving on...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Livsey <jlivsey(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Attaching Range Markings |
Hi,
Has anyone got any suggestions about fixing range markings to various
instruments, eg ASI etc. I purchased some markings from AS and I'm not
sure how you should glue (or stick) them onto the face of an insrtument.
This is the first time I've posted to this site and my progress (or lack
thereoff at times) can be seen at
http://users.bigpond.com/jlivsey/zodiac.html
Many thanks, john livsey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RUSSELL JOHNSON" <entec1(at)pld.com> |
| Subject: | Wing joint cover strip |
Question: for those of you that have already installed the wing joint cover
strip, how did you tighten the adjustment bolt as shown on 6-V-15 ?
When the end of the cover is fastened at the trailing edge of the wing,
there is no way to access the takeup bolt unless a small hole is place in
the leading edge of the wing.
Russell J. 601-HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Ferris <ferret(at)forbin.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing joint cover strip |
I was just looking at this step too. I'm supposing one has to do this by trial
and error; tighten the bolt, and try it until it's a good fit. I'm planning on
adding screws into Tinnermans along the way on the top. When I flew the 601 at
Flypass, the cover strip was lifting-up quite a bit in flight.
I was wondering if a relief should be cut in the bottom of the nose skins to
allow the tensioner extrusion that's fastened to the cover strip to pass
through. Either that, or make a slot just wide enough for the washers to fit,
and capture it inside. I'm thinking the former would be better, but the plans
show nothing about this. What did everyone else do?
Greg F.
RUSSELL JOHNSON wrote:
>
> Question: for those of you that have already installed the wing joint cover
> strip, how did you tighten the adjustment bolt as shown on 6-V-15 ?
> When the end of the cover is fastened at the trailing edge of the wing,
> there is no way to access the takeup bolt unless a small hole is place in
> the leading edge of the wing.
>
> Russell J. 601-HDS
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Attaching Range Markings |
I asked this same question about instrument markings a while back and no one
on the list replied.
I have been unable so far to find anything in the FAR's that speaks to
required instrument markings.
Doesn't mean it is not required, I just can't find it.
Bill
>Has anyone got any suggestions about fixing range markings to various
>instruments, eg ASI etc. I purchased some markings from AS and I'm not
>sure how you should glue (or stick) them onto the face of an insrtument.
>Many thanks, john livsey
________________________________________________________________________________
"'Greg Ferris'"
| Subject: | Wing joint cover strip |
Greg,
I also screwed down the wing joint strip. Sheet metal screws without
tinnermans have held fine for two years now. The holes that I drilled in
the cover strip are a bit oversize so that the screw can turn freely, the
ones in the wing were undersize. Keeping that strip down not only looks
better, it reduces drag by keeping that high pressure air from blowing out
from under the strip and creating turbulence. Same for the wing baggage
lockers. I added extra dzus fasteners and L-braces so that it stays down
tight.
On the tension adjuster, I widened the joint slot underneath, so that I can
bring the L-bracket up at nearly a 90 degree angle thru the slot then turn
it to get the strip lined up.
Good Luck,
Jim Weston
McDonough, Ga.
CH601HDS w/Stratus
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Ferris [mailto:ferret(at)forbin.com]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Wing joint cover strip
I was just looking at this step too. I'm supposing one has to do this by
trial
and error; tighten the bolt, and try it until it's a good fit. I'm planning
on
adding screws into Tinnermans along the way on the top. When I flew the 601
at
Flypass, the cover strip was lifting-up quite a bit in flight.
I was wondering if a relief should be cut in the bottom of the nose skins to
allow the tensioner extrusion that's fastened to the cover strip to pass
through. Either that, or make a slot just wide enough for the washers to
fit,
and capture it inside. I'm thinking the former would be better, but the
plans
show nothing about this. What did everyone else do?
Greg F.
RUSSELL JOHNSON wrote:
>
> Question: for those of you that have already installed the wing joint
cover
> strip, how did you tighten the adjustment bolt as shown on 6-V-15 ?
> When the end of the cover is fastened at the trailing edge of the wing,
> there is no way to access the takeup bolt unless a small hole is place in
> the leading edge of the wing.
>
> Russell J. 601-HDS
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 09/26/00 |
>I am assuming that the .025 instrument panel is too light to serve without
reinforcement, particularly if an attitude indicator and DG are installed.
What gauge material has been found to be satisfactory?
I have a full gyro panel using the very light blank supplied by Zenair. It
is reinforced only on each side of the radio stack. It works just fine.
I believe that the vibration with the Rotax engine is less than it would be
with a non-geared engine, because the prop RPM is not the same as the
engine
RPM. I don't think that a sub-panel for the gyros is needed with the Rotax
engine, nevertheless were I to build a 601 I would consider making a
subpanel
for the gyros as is done on the factory 801.
g.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing joint cover strip |
Mike Fothergill
Russel;
Guessimate the front bolt length, then stretch the cover back to the
trailing edge. Guess again. Eventually it will be taut when you do up
the rear screws.
Mike
UHS Spinners
RUSSELL JOHNSON wrote:
>
>
> Question: for those of you that have already installed the wing joint cover
> strip, how did you tighten the adjustment bolt as shown on 6-V-15 ?
> When the end of the cover is fastened at the trailing edge of the wing,
> there is no way to access the takeup bolt unless a small hole is place in
> the leading edge of the wing.
>
> Russell J. 601-HDS
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Pinneo <George.Pinneo(at)trw.com> |
| Subject: | Attaching Range Markings |
I put the water-activated decal range-markings on my ASI: green, yellow and red.
Since your ASI won't be very accurate, the positions are just guesses.
GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fw: XL aileron trim |
| From: | Michael R Fortunato <wizard-24(at)juno.com> |
For those that are interested, I finally received a response from ZAC,
which is posted below.
Not very helpful of an answer IMHO, but that's what I got. I'm assuming
that ZAC doesn't think I should install one -- but then why are most
putting them on the HDS? I realize the wings are different, but I'm
thinking the flying characteristics are relatively similar.
So, not sure whether to install trim or not, and if I do, where and how
large? Do I copy the HDS specs? I'm not an aeronautical engineer, so I
hate to just wing it (excuse the expression).
By the way, thanks to those that have posted their viewpoints. I'm still
confused, but at least it helps to know what others are doing.
Mike Fortunato
601XL
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Zenith Aircraft Company" <info(at)zenithair.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:04:14 -0500
Subject: ZENITH AIRCRAFT
Thanks for your message to Zenith Aircraft Company. You wrote us:
> Shouldn't we be planning to install one (might be important when
> flying without a passenger)? And what would be the size and position,
> based on the new XL wing design? If electric trim is a good idea, now
> would be the time to install it (my ailerons are cleco'd, not yet
> riveted). And....shouldn't the necessary parts have been included with
> the wing kit?
The aileron trim tab is strictly optional - most single engine planes
don't use them.
Please contact us should you require any additional information.
Regards,
Zenith Aircraft Company
info(at)zenithair.com
http://www.zenithair.com
(573) 581-9000 (Mon-Fri, 8-5 Central)
(573) 581-0011 Fax
Write us at:
Zenith Aircraft Company
Mexico Memorial Airport, PO Box 650
Mexico, Missouri 65265-0650 USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing joint cover strip |
> Guessimate the front bolt length, then stretch the cover back to the
> trailing edge. Guess again. Eventually it will be taut when you do up
> the rear screws.
> Mike
+++ Sounds like a good response Mike. Also, for what it's worth, a local
builder/friend of mine did a pretty slick mod at the attachment point
underneath the wing. He devised a way to use a spring that is hooked to an
adjustable mount so that he can always have a way to adjust the tension on
the cover strip anytime in the future. With one end of the cover strip
attached to the spring mount, he pulls the strip back over the wing by
pulling on one of two holes in the rear edge. When the other hole lines up
with the hole in the wing skin, he inserts the screw, then removes what ever
he had inserted in the first hole to pull it back (some sort of handle with
a hook so he can get a real good pull on it), then puts in the second hole.
His wing/joint covers stay in constant tension all the time and look good.
Fred
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Attaching Range Markings |
> I have been unable so far to find anything in the FAR's that speaks to
> required instrument markings.
> Doesn't mean it is not required, I just can't find it.
> Bill
++ Bill and others, My EAA Tech Councilor says that you can tell when your
aircraft is getting close to completion when the accumulated paper work
weighs about as much as the air frame!! Based on the many PILES I have
around here, I must be getting close!! Looking in one of those piles, I
found a couple of things that might help. In the June 2000 issue of Sport
Aviation, beginning on page 31, you will find a nice article "Markings,
Placards, Numbers", by Ron Alexander. In the June issue of Sport Aviation
1997, page 86, another article somewhat similar, but covers more of what to
do in general, getting ready for the final inspection. Included on page 91
of that article is a "Checklist" of what to have to have done for Initial
Pre-Flight, Exterior/Interior?Pre-Flight (building phase), Before Starting
Engine (Day of Inspection), and finally... After Landing (following Test
Flight and Maintenance). Hope this helps. Bill, when you find out all the
answers, please let me know. Fred Area 41, Snailworks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Spring tension mod for wing cover strap |
Bill Morelli asked me for more details on the spring assisted cover strap
idea. As you know, it's sometimes not that easy to describe something, but
here goes. I'm not sure I remember this completely, but memory says that it
is done with a pair of heavy gauge "L's" (.090 I think) (but only about 3/4"
length) positioned crosswise to the direction of the pull. One is riveted
to the wing skin (or beefed up area) within the bottom of the wing. It has
a small eyebolt going through it with a nylock nut to keep it from
un-threading. Lengthening or shortening the eye bolt adjusts the spring
tension. The moderatly stiff spring is attached to the eyebolt on that end,
and the other end of he spring is attached through a small hole in the edge
of the other "L". That "L" is riveted to the cover strap. Adjustment of
the tension on the spring is easily done through the open gap at the top of
the wing. *Adjust the spring via the length of the eye bolt, pull the strap
over the wing and check it, release for more adjustment until you like how
it fits, then put the rear screws in the cover strap in place and it's done.
. As best I can remember, the cover strap is riveted to the "L" so that the
strap extends past it about an inch or two. That little extension on past
the "L" is pre-curved "up" just a bit so that when the cover strap is put in
place, it holds tight against the bottom of the wing and covers the small
slot in the bottom wing skin. The slot is slightly wider than the "L"on the
strap, which allows the "L" to move backward and forward in order to let the
spring tension work. There ya go... difficult to describe, but works well.
If you think about it for a while I'm sure it will come to focus, or...
perhaps you'll think of an even better way to do. I hope this helps some of
you.
Fred Area 41, Snailworks North.... Zodie Rocket N-601LX
Getting nearer and nearer to hanging the Jabiru 3300 engine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Chapman <pchapman(at)ionsys.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Attaching Range Markings |
At 03:08 AM 29-09-2000 , you wrote:
>Has anyone got any suggestions about fixing range markings to various
>instruments, eg ASI etc. I purchased some markings from AS and I'm not
>sure how you should glue (or stick) them onto the face of an insrtument.
I had stick on ones from Aircraft Spruce, rather than the 'immerse in
water' type. The green arc provided was too small for my instrument, so I
had to buy a second set of markings to have enough.
As G. Pinneo says, there will be errors in the IAS, but I still tried to
place the markings in their ideal locations. I wasn't sure whether to apply
the markings directly above the 'correct' airspeed values, or take into
account the parallax from the pilot's usual viewing angle, looking past the
markings applied on the face of the instrument. Take your pick?
As for the bottom of the yellow arc, which is Vno, the Maximum Structural
Cruising Speed, I figure it would be sufficient just to put it at the top
of the most optimistic cruise speed Zenair ever suggested (eg, originally
140 mph for the HDS). This assumes the aircraft would be designed so it
wouldn't ever cruise in the yellow arc.
Since I like playing with numbers, I did it the hard way: By FAR 23 the
aircraft must sustain a 50 fps gust at Vc, never going above the allowed g
limits (the yield limits, not ultimate limits). This Vc is just a point on
the FAR's speed vs. g-loading diagram, but it is sometimes known as "V
cruise", perhaps erroneously. Vno can never be assigned by the
manufacturer to be above Vc, but it could be lower if desired. I guess they
are usually set the same. One can plug data into the modern FAR's gust load
formulas. The aircraft related factors in the formulas are speed, wing
loading, and how fast the wing's lift changes as the angle of attack
changes (which can be estimated). I ended up with 143 mph for the 601 HDS.
Being conservative I used 140 for the markings -- just like the initial guess.
(At weights lower than gross, things get a little messier. Although a
couple factors more or less balance each other out, the safe thing is still
to slow down, as a lighter plane is more easily accelerated by gusts.)
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Livsey <jlivsey(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Attaching Range Markings |
Bill Morelli wrote:
> I asked this same question about instrument markings a while back and no one
> on the list replied.
>
> I have been unable so far to find anything in the FAR's that speaks to
> required instrument markings.
>
> Doesn't mean it is not required, I just can't find it.
>
> Bill
>
> >Has anyone got any suggestions about fixing range markings to various
> >instruments, eg ASI etc. I purchased some markings from AS and I'm not
> >sure how you should glue (or stick) them onto the face of an insrtument.
>
> >Many thanks, john livsey
Bill,
Thanks for the response anyway. As far as markings etc go it is specified in
our (Australian) Civil Aviation Orders. As these were based (the cynics may say
copied) on the Amercian regulations I'm sure you could find the info on the FAA
site. I have attached a link to the Australian regulations which covers the
sitution quite well. and may be of some help Section 3.27 is the one of
interest. You should also note that these regs are for Amateur (Home) built
aircraft that will be certified on the GA register. For experimental aircraft
there are different regs but I think (And I will be corrected as I'm not an
expert) that in this area they are probably the same.
See this site , http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/cao101/10128.pdf
You can go back to the home page by using the URL http://www.casa.gov.au/ and
do a search for all Australian regulations etc etc.
Regards john livsey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Karnes" <karnesj(at)harbornet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Attaching Range Markings |
I cut thin strips of a plain label from my label maker and put them on
engine gauges to tell me where the min. and max. amounts are. Somewhere I
saw that if you put markings on the gauge faces, you have to make a mark
where the glass meets the housing to make sure that nothing has moved.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Livsey <jlivsey(at)bigpond.com>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 12:08 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Attaching Range Markings
>
> Hi,
>
> Has anyone got any suggestions about fixing range markings to various
> instruments, eg ASI etc. I purchased some markings from AS and I'm not
> sure how you should glue (or stick) them onto the face of an insrtument.
>
> This is the first time I've posted to this site and my progress (or lack
> thereoff at times) can be seen at
>
> http://users.bigpond.com/jlivsey/zodiac.html
>
> Many thanks, john livsey
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Karnes" <karnesj(at)harbornet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing joint cover strip |
While we are on the subject of cover strips, how do you get a tight fit at
the junction of the outboard and center wing sections (especially with the
HDS wing which doesn't even follow the same line as the center wing leading
edge)?
----- Original Message -----
From: RUSSELL JOHNSON <entec1(at)pld.com>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 6:04 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Wing joint cover strip
>
> Question: for those of you that have already installed the wing joint
cover
> strip, how did you tighten the adjustment bolt as shown on 6-V-15 ?
> When the end of the cover is fastened at the trailing edge of the wing,
> there is no way to access the takeup bolt unless a small hole is place in
> the leading edge of the wing.
>
> Russell J. 601-HDS
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
I was looking at my nose gear today after all of the discussion on the
bungees letting go.
If I measure from the steering rods to the top of the steering rod slots, it
measures 4 inches. That means that if my bungee let go, the fuselage would
slam down and the steering rods would be the first thing to make contact. I
am sure that they would probably be bent and damaged from the weight of the
fuselage.
Seems to me that a prudent thing to do would be to construct a clamp of some
sort that could be tightened around the nose gear beneath the lower noseweel
bearing. It could be placed so that if the bungee let go it would only allow
the fuselage to drop 3 1/2 inches before contacting the lower bearing thus
saving the steering rods.
In my case this would also protect the prop. My prop clearance is close to 8
inches. If the nose gear could only collapse 3 1/2 + another 3 inches if the
nose tire went flap, would still allow a small margin for the prop.
Bill (filling, sanding, filling, sanding, painting, filling, sanding, ....
all of the fiberglass parts - I truly dislike this part!!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
| Subject: | Attaching Range Markings |
I second the paper work thing - currently I'm working my way through all the
regs for the inspection... Somewhere in there (can't remember where exactly)
it says, that we are supposed to put markings on the the instruments. So
far, I have only Vne marked on the AI (using a tiny piece of a red label).
The gren arc can be only determined after the first flight tests (Vso and so
on). For engine instruments I installed the EIS. It has a built in alarm
function with min / max levels for all read-outs. Kind of hard to put labels
on that thing...
Thilo Kind
Hoping to conduct W&B tomorrow...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of fhulen
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 4:46 PM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com; Bill Morelli
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Attaching Range Markings
>
>
> > I have been unable so far to find anything in the FAR's
> that speaks to
> > required instrument markings.
> > Doesn't mean it is not required, I just can't find it.
> > Bill
>
> ++ Bill and others, My EAA Tech Councilor says that you can
> tell when your
> aircraft is getting close to completion when the accumulated
> paper work
> weighs about as much as the air frame!! Based on the many
> PILES I have
> around here, I must be getting close!! Looking in one of
> those piles, I
> found a couple of things that might help. In the June 2000
> issue of Sport
> Aviation, beginning on page 31, you will find a nice article
> "Markings,
> Placards, Numbers", by Ron Alexander. In the June issue of
> Sport Aviation
> 1997, page 86, another article somewhat similar, but covers
> more of what to
> do in general, getting ready for the final inspection.
> Included on page 91
> of that article is a "Checklist" of what to have to have done
> for Initial
> Pre-Flight, Exterior/Interior?Pre-Flight (building phase),
> Before Starting
> Engine (Day of Inspection), and finally... After Landing
> (following Test
> Flight and Maintenance). Hope this helps. Bill, when you
> find out all the
> answers, please let me know. Fred Area 41, Snailworks
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Maxson <pmaxson(at)interactive.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: XL aileron trim |
> The aileron trim tab is strictly optional - most single engine planes
> don't use them.
You're right, this isn't very helpful. It does help me make my decision
though. I'm going to fly without them, at least at first. The ailerons
are done, except for the tips, and I suppose I could revisit them after
flying.
Phil Maxson
CH601XL, N601MX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Austin" <daveaustin2(at)sprint.ca> |
Re Phil Maxson note.. I've flown for 6 years with my 601 and would be lost
without the trim. On long trips, leaning on the stick for hours is no fun.
It is needed when carrying a passenger vs no pass., when flying cross-wind,
to "lean" the aircraft into the wind. Even a power change will give
less/more torque, which needs countering. So.. I would strongly recommend
it. Worth every dime.
Good flying!
Dave Austin 601HDS 449 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
| Subject: | Propellor angles and tracking... |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
Today I practiced using my WARP DRIVE protractor and set my blades at 14
degrees. I did a very approximate tracking check and seems I have a bit of
difference - most noticeable on one particular blade... what does this mean?
Is my engine flange off? Or something in the propellor/hub itself?
I'd like to convert that 14" angle into a propellor pitch to be able to
compare with some other data, etc... I guess to do this I figure the
circumference of a 70" circle (my prop diameter), then apply a sin? or cos?
of the prop angle to calculate how far that would screw through the air?
Any of you mathematical types have a formula memorized for this?
And why can't I remember the formula for the circumference of a circle. It's
only been 30+ years since I used to use it in school - 30 years?! no wonder
... I'll go look it up somewhere. 2piD? 2piRsquared?
1/2thedistancetothegoalline???
cheers,
Grant
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Attaching Range Markings |
| From: | Clyde D Ehlers <clydes-shop(at)juno.com> |
Hi: John
This is Clyde If you wont to put them inside of the instrument I used
vinel self adhesive baking made by 3m and panted the colors needed (
Red,Green,Yellow, ) used a sharpened Compes to do the arcs and striate
edge
to do the rest. If you put them on the out side of the glassed you need a
anti skid mark on the glass
to show that there is no slippage of Glass.
writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> Has anyone got any suggestions about fixing range markings to
> various
> instruments, eg ASI etc. I purchased some markings from AS and I'm
> not
> sure how you should glue (or stick) them onto the face of an
> insrtument.
>
> This is the first time I've posted to this site and my progress (or
> lack
> thereoff at times) can be seen at
>
> http://users.bigpond.com/jlivsey/zodiac.html
>
> Many thanks, john livsey
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yours Truly,
Clyde Ehlers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dick Baner <db8(at)mtco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 701 front axle , and now front wheel as well.. |
Saw your note about the plastic front wheel. You would be smart to get rid of
it as soon as possible. My original plastic front wheel simply collapsed when
the rim separated sitting at the airfield. I sent photos to zenair and found
they are replacing with an aluminum wheel due to this kind of problem I
suppose. For me it was lucky but would be bad if it happened during landing,
etc. Dick Baner
Steve Danielson wrote:
>
> I'm interested in the reply myself. I have a plastic front wheel for the
> 701, and it seems to have permanent bearings because I can't find a way to
> take them out. There is only a hole on each side of the wheel where the
> small standard axle goes through. It doesn't seem to be turning that freely
> now that I have it off and am wondering the best way to remedy.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve Danielson
> http://home.nc.rr.com/danielson/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "P.J. Larson" <pjl(at)cass.net>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 7:10 PM
> Subject: Zenith-List: 701 front axle
>
> >
> > a while back someone mentioned a modification they made to the 701 front
> > axle because a friend of theirs broke their axle and did some major
> > damage to the plane. can't find anything in the archives. any help?
> > pat larson
> > 701 from plans
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Attaching Range Markings |
| From: | Clyde D Ehlers <clydes-shop(at)juno.com> |
HI; Fred
The makings are in the aircraft overhaul manuals for the deferent type
of aircraft. And under
part 21 & 23 & 121 & 123 Motley under part 91 , And Instruments are all
under 2% tolerance
a lot more accurate then the seat of the pants.
>
> > I have been unable so far to find anything in the FAR's that
> speaks to
> > required instrument markings.
> > Doesn't mean it is not required, I just can't find it.
> > Bill
>
> ++ Bill and others, My EAA Tech Councilor says that you can tell
> when your
> aircraft is getting close to completion when the accumulated paper
> work
> weighs about as much as the air frame!! Based on the many PILES I
> have
> around here, I must be getting close!! Looking in one of those
> piles, I
> found a couple of things that might help. In the June 2000 issue of
> Sport
> Aviation, beginning on page 31, you will find a nice article
> "Markings,
> Placards, Numbers", by Ron Alexander. In the June issue of Sport
> Aviation
> 1997, page 86, another article somewhat similar, but covers more of
> what to
> do in general, getting ready for the final inspection. Included on
> page 91
> of that article is a "Checklist" of what to have to have done for
> Initial
> Pre-Flight, Exterior/Interior?Pre-Flight (building phase), Before
> Starting
> Engine (Day of Inspection), and finally... After Landing (following
> Test
> Flight and Maintenance). Hope this helps. Bill, when you find out
> all the
> answers, please let me know. Fred Area 41, Snailworks
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yours Truly,
Clyde Ehlers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dor J Burkholder" <djburkholder(at)starpower.net> |
"Dor J Burkholder"
I'm new in this 601 game. I had not read about any nose gear failures! Doe
the bungy break, or slip off?? Also, do you land on the front gear a lot or
drop onto the runway from 6 ft or so alot? I had a previous partner who did
both of these alot!! Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | NOLIES4US(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 09/29/2000 4:57:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
billvt(at)together.net writes:
<<
If I measure from the steering rods to the top of the steering rod slots, it
measures 4 inches. That means that if my bungee let go, the fuselage would
slam down and the steering rods would be the first thing to make contact. I
am sure that they would probably be bent and damaged from the weight of the
fuselage. >>
I made a form out of foam and then fiberglassed it, had it on with duct tape
for testing it hit the bottom bearing at same time as steering rods.
I amgoing to add about 1/4 in. to it and then attached it in a semi-permant
way.
Bill J.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rwilbers1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron trim |
Dave: Where do you install the aileron trim mechanism? Is it possible to
install after the wings have been attached? Thanks
Dick W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Cajun" <sam.caj(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 701 front axle |
Try the search string : plathey & axle & broke
Sam(701)
>
>a while back someone mentioned a modification they made to the 701 front
>axle because a friend of theirs broke their axle and did some major
>damage to the plane. can't find anything in the archives. any help?
>pat larson
>701 from plans
>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Austin" <daveaustin2(at)sprint.ca> |
I installed the electric trim unit just inside the second rib of the right
aileron. You want it to be clear of any prop wash. Cut a hole in the
underside, installed the unit and then installed a removable plate for
servicing. Yes, it should be quite easy to install, even after final
assembly. I used a connector in the wing gap to allow easy disconnect
should the wings need to come off. I rivetted the hinge to the underside of
the trailing edge of the aileron with the flat side of the hinge upwards,
putting the rivets as far forward as possible to avoid interference with the
upper skin. Made the tab 15 x 3 inches. This has been more than enough.
You can adjust the trim of the ailerons so that under "usual" conditions (in
my case, just me)the plane flies straight and level with the trim tab in a
neutral position. This gives minimum drag for that condition.
Good flying!
Dave Austin 601HDS 449 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Propellor angles and tracking... |
Hey, Grant
As Steve Allen use to say Pie are not square, pie are round
Keep on trucking.
Ken Lennox
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Mayne" <bazmay(at)ozemail.com.au> |
| Subject: | fitting firewall |
Great advice Fred,
I'm sure that anyone who has fitted all the front then fitted trim, wiring
etc afterwards wishes they had received this advice. I had my firewall on
but nothing else.
Barry Mayne HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Slaughter <mslaughter(at)interhop.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron trim |
>I'll just add to Dave's post that a standard 5 pin DIN plug from Radio
>Shack works great as a connector (cheap,too)
> Mike S.
>I installed the electric trim unit just inside the second rib of the right
>aileron. You want it to be clear of any prop wash. Cut a hole in the
>underside, installed the unit and then installed a removable plate for
>servicing. Yes, it should be quite easy to install, even after final
>assembly. I used a connector in the wing gap to allow easy disconnect
>should the wings need to come off. I rivetted the hinge to the underside of
>the trailing edge of the aileron with the flat side of the hinge upwards,
>putting the rivets as far forward as possible to avoid interference with the
>upper skin. Made the tab 15 x 3 inches. This has been more than enough.
>You can adjust the trim of the ailerons so that under "usual" conditions (in
>my case, just me)the plane flies straight and level with the trim tab in a
>neutral position. This gives minimum drag for that condition.
>Good flying!
>Dave Austin 601HDS 449 hrs
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim or Diane Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Propellor angles and tracking... |
Tim or Diane Shankland
Grant,
The first part of your question is easy, the circumference of a circle is pi
times D in your case 70 times 3.14159
219.9 inches. If you want to know how far the prop would theoretically advance
with each turn ( no slippage),
and if the angle of the prop is measured with reference to the plane of the prop
it would be the tangent of 14
degrees times the circumference. In this case that would be 219.9 times 0.249
54.76 inches.
Tim Shankland
Grant Corriveau wrote:
>
> Today I practiced using my WARP DRIVE protractor and set my blades at 14
> degrees. I did a very approximate tracking check and seems I have a bit of
> difference - most noticeable on one particular blade... what does this mean?
> Is my engine flange off? Or something in the propellor/hub itself?
>
> I'd like to convert that 14" angle into a propellor pitch to be able to
> compare with some other data, etc... I guess to do this I figure the
> circumference of a 70" circle (my prop diameter), then apply a sin? or cos?
> of the prop angle to calculate how far that would screw through the air?
>
> Any of you mathematical types have a formula memorized for this?
>
> And why can't I remember the formula for the circumference of a circle. It's
> only been 30+ years since I used to use it in school - 30 years?! no wonder
> ... I'll go look it up somewhere. 2piD? 2piRsquared?
> 1/2thedistancetothegoalline???
>
> cheers,
> Grant
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
Hi folks,
I'm somewhat puzzled by some tach readings:
today, I fired up the engine (Rotax 912 installed on a 601 HDS)for some taxi
tests around the airport. I have installed an EIS 2000 from Grand Rapid
(great device, great company), which shows the RPMs accuratly (at least as
far as I can tell). In addition, I have installed a Micro 1000 tacho. One of
the two wires from the Rotax 912 for RPM readings is ground; the other wire
is connected to the EIS and to the Micro 1000. My problem: the Micro only
shows very small RPMs (below 1,000, even, if the engine is running at 3,500
RPM).
Anybody with any ideas?
On another note: after some taxiing the engine developed a leak in the
cooling fluid overflow tube. After checking I found, that the tube was not
rated for the typical temperatures of the cooling fluid. Some fluid dripped
onto the muffler and developed quite an amount of steam (looked like smoke
in the first seconds - had some exiting seconds....).
Thanks
Thilo Kind
replacing cooling fluid overflow tube...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Danielson" <steved(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | How to read prices in the parts database for 701 |
I am trying to look up prices in the online database and am confused about
how to figure out the prices. (Also, are the prices in this database
accurate if anybody knows?)
For example, I am looking up the nose ribs for the flaperons. THere are 4
per side, so there are 8 total.
The entry in the database reads like this:
Part No: 7A1-2
Record ID: 1660
Part Description: FLAPERON NOSE RIBS
Material: T=.016
Section: FLAPERONS-7
Part Type: RIBS
Quantity: 8.00
Quantity Desription: 4R+4L
Unit Price: $8.40
So is that 8 * 8.40 = $67.20 for the set?
Here is another one:
Part No: 7A2-6
Record ID: 1669
Part Description: FLAPERON TIPS
Material: F/G
Section: FLAPERONS-7
Part Type: FLAPERON TIPS
Quantity: 1.00
Quantity Desription: 1R+1L
Unit Price: $49.50
Now the quantity is 1 and the quantity description is 1R + 1L, so is that
$49.50 for the pair?
Is it Quantity * Unit Price = Total Price, qith Quantity Description to tell
what "1" unit is? Seems to be ambiguous.
Thanks,
Steve Danielson
http://home.nc.rr.com/danielson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Tanner" <vk3auu(at)sympac.com.au> |
To stop my nose gear bottoming on my CH701 I have wrapped some fairly rigid
foam around the gear leg. The foam is a strip about 4 inches wide and 1/2
inch thick, cut from a back packers sleeping mat. It is held in place with a
short sleeve cut from a piece of aluminum scaffold pipe about 1 1/2 inches
long, slit into two pieces with the whole deal clamped with a large muffler
clamp. This type of foam seems to be impervious to oil and grease.
David Tanner
CH701 -912 145 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Norris <rnorris4(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron trim |
Two alternatives to aileron trim are wing tanks (feed from the heavy
side until trimmed then alternate sides) and an autopilot. I plan to
install a Navaid Devices unit. More $ than just a trim but does so much
more too.
Dave Austin wrote:
>
>
> Re Phil Maxson note.. I've flown for 6 years with my 601 and would be lost
> without the trim. On long trips, leaning on the stick for hours is no fun.
> It is needed when carrying a passenger vs no pass., when flying cross-wind,
> to "lean" the aircraft into the wind. Even a power change will give
> less/more torque, which needs countering. So.. I would strongly recommend
> it. Worth every dime.
> Good flying!
> Dave Austin 601HDS 449 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Austin" <daveaustin2(at)sprint.ca> |
Re my note on installing.. one error. The hinge should be flat side down,
with the tab placed on top. That puts the hinge pin close along the rear
edge of the aileron.
Dave Austin 601HDS 449 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Graham Kirby <gkirby(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron trim |
Dave,
Did you do have to do anything to strengthen the
aileron around the servo and the access hole?
Has anyone put a recessed trimtab into an aileron? I
guess this would require a lot of extra work...
Graham Kirby
601HD
--- Dave Austin wrote:
>
>
> Re my note on installing.. one error. The hinge
> should be flat side down,
> with the tab placed on top. That puts the hinge pin
> close along the rear
> edge of the aileron.
> Dave Austin 601HDS 449 hrs
Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron trim |
In a message dated 9/30/00 9:34:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
mslaughter(at)interhop.net writes:
<< I'll just add to Dave's post that a standard 5 pin DIN plug from Radio
>Shack works great as a connector (cheap,too) >>
There is also a nifty weatherproof plug that I used on both elevator and
aileron trim installations. Available from Mouser Electronics in 3 thru 8 pin
varietys with both cord and panel type installations. They are locking and
double sealed, exceeding Coast Guard specs for water tightness. Cord type 5
pin recepticle is part # 502-EN3C5F...$6.60, and plug is $4.48. Not as cheap
as some but if you are only using 3 or 4 in a plane might be worth a look.
They're on page 121 of catalog 602 May-July 2000 and page 125 of the just out
#603 EN3 Mini plugs.
Chris Carey
601 HDS N601BZ
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How to read prices in the parts database for 701 |
In a message dated 9/30/00 10:13:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
steved(at)nc.rr.com writes:
<< Quantity: 8.00
Quantity Desription: 4R+4L
Unit Price: $8.40 >>
Unit price is per rib so 8X $8.40...my experience having looked up prices 3-4
times is that they are accurate.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rich <rich(at)carol.net> |
Has anyone looked in this product as an oil cooler for aircraft? It's made for
automatic
transmission oil cooling.
http://www.tekonsha.com/Tekonsha/DOCS/frproducts.html
Rich
CH-801
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
Mike Fothergill
The inside diameter of cooler is not large enough for the 912. They want
1/2" id/12mm. You do not want to restrict volume flow.
Mike
UHS Spinners
Rich wrote:
>
>
> Has anyone looked in this product as an oil cooler for aircraft? It's made for
automatic
> transmission oil cooling.
>
> http://www.tekonsha.com/Tekonsha/DOCS/frproducts.html
>
> Rich
> CH-801
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Livsey <jlivsey(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re Range Markings |
Just for the record on the ASI attached is what Zenith had to say when I
wrote to them;
====Snip====
On a another matter could you please advise the range markings on the
ASI for a 601HDS you would recommend (I know the stall and VNE but
can't find the others).
VA Maneuvering Speed 119 mph
VNE Never Exceed Speed 150 mph
VX Best Angle-of-Climb Speed 85 mph
VY Best Rate-of-Climb Speed 85 mph
VS Stall Speed 58 mph
RANGE OF AIRSPEED INDICATOR: 0-160 MPH
AIRSPEED MARKING: GREEN ARC 58 - 136
YELLOW ARC 120 - 149
RED LINE 150
The postal address is,,
John Livsey
13 Daff Avenue
Moorabbin 3189
Victoria
Australia.
Many thanks, john livsey (Builder-6 3697)
We will mail the above part.
Nick Heintz
Zenith Aircraft Company
support(at)zenithair.com
http://www.zenithair.com
Please contact us should you require any additional information.
Regards,
Zenith Aircraft Company
info(at)zenithair.com
http://www.zenithair.com
(573) 581-9000 (Mon-Fri, 8-5 Central)
(573) 581-0011 Fax
Write us at:
Zenith Aircraft Company
Mexico Memorial Airport, PO Box 650
Mexico, Missouri 65265-0650 USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thilo Kind" <m_tkind(at)sprynet.com> |
| Subject: | Re Range Markings |
Hi John,
what model are you building / flying? I just checked the spec sheet for the
Zodiac CH 601 HDS again on Zenith's web page and it states Vne = 160 mph.
Best regards
Thilo Kind
filling out form 8130-6, 8130-12, etc., etc. etc. for inspection - that is
more work than building the plane...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> John Livsey
> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 7:54 PM
> To: pchapman(at)ionsys.com; Matronics Email List
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re Range Markings
>
>
> Just for the record on the ASI attached is what Zenith had to
> say when I
> wrote to them;
>
>
> ====Snip====
>
> On a another matter could you please advise the range markings on the
> ASI for a 601HDS you would recommend (I know the stall and VNE but
> can't find the others).
>
> VA Maneuvering Speed 119 mph
>
>
> VNE Never Exceed Speed 150 mph
>
>
> VX Best Angle-of-Climb Speed 85 mph
>
>
> VY Best Rate-of-Climb Speed 85 mph
>
>
> VS Stall Speed 58 mph
>
>
> RANGE OF AIRSPEED INDICATOR: 0-160 MPH
>
> AIRSPEED MARKING: GREEN ARC 58 - 136
> YELLOW ARC 120 - 149
> RED LINE 150
>
>
> The postal address is,,
>
> John Livsey
> 13 Daff Avenue
> Moorabbin 3189
> Victoria
> Australia.
>
> Many thanks, john livsey (Builder-6 3697)
>
> We will mail the above part.
>
>
> Nick Heintz
> Zenith Aircraft Company
> support(at)zenithair.com
> http://www.zenithair.com
> Please contact us should you require any additional information.
>
> Regards,
> Zenith Aircraft Company
> info(at)zenithair.com
> http://www.zenithair.com
>
> (573) 581-9000 (Mon-Fri, 8-5 Central)
> (573) 581-0011 Fax
>
> Write us at:
> Zenith Aircraft Company
> Mexico Memorial Airport, PO Box 650
> Mexico, Missouri 65265-0650 USA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim or Diane Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron trim |
Tim or Diane Shankland
I have recessed the my aileron trim into the aileron, I did it the same
way that it was done for the elevator trim. I cut out the piece with a
utility knife, many strokes over the same lines then flex it until it
breaks. My concern is that I didn't want the trim tab sticking out where
it would get damaged my me or anyone walking around the plane.
Tim Shankland
Graham Kirby wrote:
>
> Dave,
> Did you do have to do anything to strengthen the
> aileron around the servo and the access hole?
>
> Has anyone put a recessed trimtab into an aileron? I
> guess this would require a lot of extra work...
>
> Graham Kirby
> 601HD
>
> --- Dave Austin wrote:
> >
> >
> > Re my note on installing.. one error. The hinge
> > should be flat side down,
> > with the tab placed on top. That puts the hinge pin
> > close along the rear
> > edge of the aileron.
> > Dave Austin 601HDS 449 hrs
>
> Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Tanner" <vk3auu(at)sympac.com.au> |
IHMO the best cooler is the one that Rotax supply for the 912
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Livsey <jlivsey(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Re Range Markings |
Thilo,
I asked the same question of Zenith, here is the response !!!!
September 04, 2000 - October 02, 2000
Zenith-Archive.digest.vol-bv