Zenith-Archive.digest.vol-cg
May 28, 2001 - June 19, 2001
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | NOLIES4US(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wt. and Balance and Nose Gear bungee |
I tried the 1280 in nose gear! it wouldn't fit, am useing the 1080HD.
Bill J. 601 HDS/EA-81
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Meiste's" <meiste(at)essex1.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rear Top Skin |
> How much of the rear top skin do you have extending past the rearmost
> bulkhead B6?
Steve,
My plane shows 50 mm at the top & 70 at the longeron.
I hope everyone is having a great memorial day
> weekend. Don't forget to take a moment and thank those that came before
us
> and gave the ultimate sacrifice for country.
Yes there is getting to be fewer of them every day. My Dad (a WW II) vet
just passed away this year. So when you see the vets today at your local
parades be sure to thank them ... they may not be there next year.
Kelly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
Yes I agree with you.
I would check them myself (very easy) and then as far as I can see there is
no reason ZAC could not copy your original plates if you send them to them.
Today in fact I am going to make my new plates by exactly that method.
Frank
p.s I know that you can drill a big hole in the middle to reduce
weight...can someone remind me how bit that was?
-----Original Message-----
From: STEFREE(at)aol.com [mailto:STEFREE(at)aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Splice plates
Hi,
I followed the splice plate thread very carefully when it was a hot topic a
few weeks ago but one thing I never noticed was if anyone actually sent
their
plates back to ZAC for inspection and if needed DRILLED replacements.
Did anyone do this? I have the letter and drawings that ZAC sent out but
frankly I don't feel it should be my responsibility to check them and then
possibly fabricate new ones. I understand they will replace them at no
additional charge but what is the reason that they cannot drill them as
well?
IS it because each set of splice plates will only mate to one wing spar
properly?
I was thinking of just sending my plates back to ZAC to have them check them
and if needed replace them. Has anyone else tried this? If so, what was
ZACs attitude?
I am concerned about leaving such a crucial portion of the airplanes
structural integrity up to my first time building skill levels.
Any feed back or input is appreciated.
Thanks,
Steve Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
Chris if your plate d is less than 10 (yours is 9) then surely you need
steel rear plates!????
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: SEAL2CC(at)aol.com [mailto:SEAL2CC(at)aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Splice plates
In a message dated 5/24/01 7:51:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, STEFREE(at)aol.com
writes:
<< what is the reason that they cannot drill them as well?
IS it because each set of splice plates will only mate to one wing spar
properly? >>
I think this is the case. I just got around to doing my
examination/measurement yesterday. My fronts were OK. My rears: "d" on the
plate was 8.5 to 9 but the "d" on the spar itself was 10-11+ meaning that
there was vertical "play" between the plate and spar: I could move the
plates
up and down in the spar even though the plates were radiused etc. If ZAC
just
drilled new plates using your hole pattern, they would have no way of
knowing
where the vertical position on the spar would be. I feel if this was a real
standard fitting and measurement, that they would have sent new completed
plates to all. But I think every situation is unique.
Because a new plate that fills the rear cavity can be fabricated with "d" of
the plate >= 10, fortunately I just need two new 6061-T6 rears vs steel
:-)
My kit is 6-4091 August 99. Are others finding fronts generally OK and rears
being more of an issue?
Regards,
Chris Carey
601 HDS N601BZ
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Splice plates |
In a message dated 5/28/01 1:45:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
frank_hinde(at)hp.com writes:
<< I would check them myself (very easy) and then as far as I can see there is
no reason ZAC could not copy your original plates if you send them to them.
>>
If you did this then it would seem you have the same problem with the new
plates. I think the difference from spar to spar when originally drilled out
at ZAC precludes them drilling your plates unless they also had your spars to
also mate to exactly recreate the required edge distances. Otherwise you have
to tell them EXACTLY the clearance from the plate to the spar so they can
place the holes correctly.I have a fair amount of vertical play in my plates
(rears)...they can be moved up and down in the spar cavity. The edge distance
on one of the PLATES would require me to use a 4130 replacement. However, the
edge distance of the hole in the SPAR is 11 so I actually need the 6061
replacement because when the new (taller) plate is fabricated my "d" will be
>= 10.. The two pieces of the puzzle...SPAR and PLATE are required to exactly
determine the fit.
Chris Carey
601HDS N601BZ
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Subaru EA Engines - Oil & Plugs... |
Took a trip down to the local auto parts shop this weekend and noticed
Platinum and Titanium spark plugs. Any thoughts to using these in converted
Subaru engines? Probably overkill, but it would make me feel better knowing
that they were there (assuming they don't cause problems with older style
engines).
I also remember awhile back that it was suggested NOT to use Synthetic Oil
because it would break down the seals or something on the Subaru engines.
Does any one know what exactly is at risk of breaking down? If possible,
could you just use different gaskets, etc.?
Been out of the building process for awhile but finally built a test engine
stand for the Subaru this weekend with the help of Steve Freeman. Can't wait
to get it plumb'd up for testing. Think it will help greatly in getting
familiar with the engine, etc.
Don Honabach
Tempe, AZ
601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Austin" <daveaustin2(at)sprint.ca> |
| Subject: | Synthetic oil use |
Very strong advise I received was "do not use synthetic oil if you will be
using 100LL gas". It causes a very rapid sludge build-up. Does the Soob
have a further limitation?
Dave Austin 601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 912 Engine Mount on CH701 |
Dear List - maybe someone with 912 on a CH701 can clarify:
At the bottom of the mount, there is a welded flange with a hole drilled in
it. Alternate instructions say this is an optional float fitting so I can
disregard. Does this mean the mount only attaches to the firewall at the
FIVE points that mate with the firewall FRONT? Does it mean there is NO
attachment to the bottom of the firewall/aircraft at all? Thanks, stan.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brook" <walruss(at)optushome.com.au> |
| Subject: | 912 Engine Mount on CH701 |
This is incorrect. There are 7 bolts that attach the 912 engine mount to the
firewall these are the 5 on the front and 2 on the bottom flanges of the
bottom of the 912 engine mount. You use an-3 somethings on these bottom
flange to go up into the main longerons of the forward fuse.
Mike 2 planes, 767 hours, fitting engines and instruments. Another set of
problems
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Sjl219(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 8:37 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: 912 Engine Mount on CH701
Dear List - maybe someone with 912 on a CH701 can clarify:
At the bottom of the mount, there is a welded flange with a hole drilled
in
it. Alternate instructions say this is an optional float fitting so I can
disregard. Does this mean the mount only attaches to the firewall at the
FIVE points that mate with the firewall FRONT? Does it mean there is NO
attachment to the bottom of the firewall/aircraft at all? Thanks, stan.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912 Engine Mount on CH701 |
Thanks Mike. I got twelve AN3-5 bolts, washers, and elastic stop nuts
(greenish yellow plastic inside). They don't look very substantial; hope you
got the same supply. I guess that means one each in the bottom (thru the
longeron). One each through the the cowl/R912-2 plate/firewall/R912-1angle.
One each through the middle (front) mounting tab/firewall. Two each on the
bottom tab/vertical channel/firewall. Two on the top tab/upper
channel/firewall. That makes twelve altogether. Sound right to you??
Also, did you install the cabin sides to the floor and to the longeron BEFORE
you installed the firewall or at the same time?
Seems to me that the safest thing would be to do the firewall last so there's
an accurate frame of reference to work with. Thanks, stan.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Subaru Engine Bolts |
Has any one else noticed that the engine bolts (engine mount to engine)
fit the engine mount just fine but are a bit undersized for the rubber
engine mounts for the Subaru engine?
I'm worried that this will allow the engine too much play even if the
bolts are sandwhiched good and tight.
Don Honabach
Tempe, AZ
601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brook" <walruss(at)optushome.com.au> |
| Subject: | 912 Engine Mount on CH701 |
Stan,
I bolted the top and the bottom ones first. You will have to get a couple of
AN3-7's for the side bolts because once you put the steel reinforcing angle
in you don't have the room left to get 2 threads out of the nut on an AN3-5.
I beefed up both top bolts to AN4-5 to be safe. The most highly loaded bolts
on the aircraft will be those 2 joining the cabin frame front piece to the
engine mount. Most of the engin load will go through that and a good part of
the thrust will go through that joint. I like the idea of it being a bit
stronger than the an3-5's. 12 is the right number.
I made up the forward fuse with all the floor stiffeners, seat front all
rivetted together. the you add the firewall and cabin frame with teh top
bolts in and the bottom rivet line on the firewall rivetted. IT IS IMPORTANT
THAT YOU HAVE THE FIREWALL AND ENGINE MOUNT ONWHEN YOU ARE JOINING THE
FORWAD FUSE TO THE REAR FUSE. The reason why is this. You have to have the
top of the rear fuse flat and level so that you can cut the vertical tubes
of your cabin frame to make the top tubes of your forward fuse flat and
level with the rear fuse.
If you don't have the engine mount on and fitted that can be a lot of twist
in the forward fuse assembly. This is not corrected can twist your cabin
which can fuck up your engine mounting and fuck up the way the aircraft
flies. THe engine mount acts are your reference and is a lot stiffer than
the forward fuse assembly before you put the forward and rear fuse together.
HOpe this helps,
If you have any queries please right back.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Sjl219(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 912 Engine Mount on CH701
Thanks Mike. I got twelve AN3-5 bolts, washers, and elastic stop nuts
(greenish yellow plastic inside). They don't look very substantial; hope
you
got the same supply. I guess that means one each in the bottom (thru the
longeron). One each through the the cowl/R912-2 plate/firewall/R912-1angle.
One each through the middle (front) mounting tab/firewall. Two each on the
bottom tab/vertical channel/firewall. Two on the top tab/upper
channel/firewall. That makes twelve altogether. Sound right to you??
Also, did you install the cabin sides to the floor and to the longeron
BEFORE
you installed the firewall or at the same time?
Seems to me that the safest thing would be to do the firewall last so
there's
an accurate frame of reference to work with. Thanks, stan.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Subaru Engine Bolts |
It was quite some time ago and I may be all wet but I seem to remember that
my Stratus engine mount bolts came with some sort of tubing that went over
the bolts to make them fit the rubber mounts correctly. I can't find any
reference to this in my build log either. Maybe another Stratus owner could
confirm this.
Bill
> Has any one else noticed that the engine bolts (engine mount to engine)
> fit the engine mount just fine but are a bit undersized for the rubber
> engine mounts for the Subaru engine?
>
> I'm worried that this will allow the engine too much play even if the
> bolts are sandwhiched good and tight.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)oregonfast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 Engine Mount on CH701 |
Youv'e got to fit everything at once , engine mount, firewall, floor, and
the floor angle/longerons to make sure the bottom engine mounts fit the
angle/longerons properly.
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: <Sjl219(at)aol.com>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 912 Engine Mount on CH701
>
> Thanks Mike. I got twelve AN3-5 bolts, washers, and elastic stop nuts
> (greenish yellow plastic inside). They don't look very substantial; hope
you
> got the same supply. I guess that means one each in the bottom (thru the
> longeron). One each through the the cowl/R912-2
plate/firewall/R912-1angle.
> One each through the middle (front) mounting tab/firewall. Two each on
the
> bottom tab/vertical channel/firewall. Two on the top tab/upper
> channel/firewall. That makes twelve altogether. Sound right to you??
>
> Also, did you install the cabin sides to the floor and to the longeron
BEFORE
> you installed the firewall or at the same time?
>
> Seems to me that the safest thing would be to do the firewall last so
there's
> an accurate frame of reference to work with. Thanks, stan.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Subaru Engine Bolts |
Bill,
Thanks! That might explain why I have 4 pieces of ~2" tubing.
Do you recall if you just inserted them into the rubber engine mounts or did
you have to use some type of grease to get everything working?
Also I have another newbie type question. I'm assuming the I have to lift up
the choke mechanisms on the dual carbs when starting engine (cold). Does
anyone recall if you need to apply 1/2 choke, full choke, etc. during the
starting process?
Regards,
Don Honabach
Tempe, AZ
601HDS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Subaru Engine Bolts
>
> It was quite some time ago and I may be all wet but I seem to remember
that
> my Stratus engine mount bolts came with some sort of tubing that went over
> the bolts to make them fit the rubber mounts correctly. I can't find any
> reference to this in my build log either. Maybe another Stratus owner
could
> confirm this.
>
> Bill
>
>
> > Has any one else noticed that the engine bolts (engine mount to engine)
> > fit the engine mount just fine but are a bit undersized for the rubber
> > engine mounts for the Subaru engine?
> >
> > I'm worried that this will allow the engine too much play even if the
> > bolts are sandwhiched good and tight.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Subaru Engine Bolts |
Don.
I don't recall adding any type of lubricant on the pieces of tubing.
When I start my Stratus cold, I always use full choke then as soon as it
fires, reduce it to half or less. The engine has always started easily even
when the temps have been below 20 degrees F.
Bill
> Thanks! That might explain why I have 4 pieces of ~2" tubing.
>
> Do you recall if you just inserted them into the rubber engine mounts or
did
> you have to use some type of grease to get everything working?
>
> Also I have another newbie type question. I'm assuming the I have to lift
up
> the choke mechanisms on the dual carbs when starting engine (cold). Does
> anyone recall if you need to apply 1/2 choke, full choke, etc. during the
> starting process?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kilby, Roger" <Roger.Kilby(at)DynCorp.com> |
Steve,
Yes, the cable lengths are determined with the controls in the neutral
position.
Roger Kilbu - N98RK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Royer, Michel" <RoyerM(at)tc.gc.ca> |
| Subject: | Mac4 Servo for Trim Tab |
Gidday everyone........according to the page 6-E-1 about the trim tab
travel.
Am i suppose to get 30 degree UP and DOWN or a total of 30 degree of
travel??????
Mine seems to be giving me 30 degree overall, 15 up and 15 down,
and with .7 inch of travel i don't see how i would be getting 30 both ways.
What do you guys got?????
Thx...should start engine soon....O-235 Lyco.
Michel Royer
Office (613)998-7812
Mailto:Royerm(at)tc.gc.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kilby, Roger" <Roger.Kilby(at)DynCorp.com> |
| Subject: | Prop Question... |
I have the ZAC supplied wooden GSC prop and am looking for something better.
I am looking at either an Warp or IVO composite prop. (These would be
ground-adjustable for a 601HDS)
Any opinions or suggestions?
Thanks,
Roger Kilby - N98RK - 601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dick Baner <db8(at)mtco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Question... |
I have tried them all and wood is nice if you are planning a prop strike but of
the composites I have much preferred Warp Drive, particularly with their
commitment to exchanging until you get the right match. They will also exchange
way down the road at minimal cost even if you change engines or planes. Dick
Baner
"Kilby, Roger" wrote:
>
> I have the ZAC supplied wooden GSC prop and am looking for something better.
> I am looking at either an Warp or IVO composite prop. (These would be
> ground-adjustable for a 601HDS)
> Any opinions or suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Roger Kilby - N98RK - 601HDS
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randall Stout" <r5t0ut(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Prop Question... |
Roger
You might look at www.powerfin.com . They are pretty
light and ground adjustable. Greatplains Aircraft supply recommended it for use
with my particular engine, VW 2180 with a 1.6:1 prsu. I have no experience with
this prop, so you'll have read and learn about it yourself.
Randy Stout - Las Vegas NV
r5t0ut(at)earthlink.net
Ch601HD Engine, instruments, and outboard wings still to go
----- Original Message -----
From: Kilby,
Roger
Sent: 5/29/01 5:36:52 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Prop
Question...
-- Zenith-List message posted by: "Kilby, Roger"
I have the ZAC supplied wooden GSC prop and am looking for something
better.
I am looking at either an Warp or IVO composite prop. (These would be
ground-adjustable for a 601HDS)
Any opinions or suggestions?
Thanks,
Roger Kilby - N98RK - 601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Walker" <dwalk3dw(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Subaru Engine Bolts |
When I mounted mine, I talked to two A&P,s who advised me strongly to replace
the plastic tubing with chromoly tubing and cinch it up tight. They said no aircraft
engine they knew of was mounted that way. An engineer pilot advised me
of the same thing. Are some of you with Subaru using the plastic tubing? How
is it working? What are the pro's and cons. Don Walker HDS
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Morelli
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Subaru Engine Bolts
Don.
I don't recall adding any type of lubricant on the pieces of tubing.
When I start my Stratus cold, I always use full choke then as soon as it
fires, reduce it to half or less. The engine has always started easily even
when the temps have been below 20 degrees F.
Bill
> Thanks! That might explain why I have 4 pieces of ~2" tubing.
>
> Do you recall if you just inserted them into the rubber engine mounts or
did
> you have to use some type of grease to get everything working?
>
> Also I have another newbie type question. I'm assuming the I have to lift
up
> the choke mechanisms on the dual carbs when starting engine (cold). Does
> anyone recall if you need to apply 1/2 choke, full choke, etc. during the
> starting process?
=
=
=
=
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Subaru Engine Bolts |
I decided the choke was too much hassle and used a primer. I used the
solenoid from AS&S and so priming is done with the touch of a button...very
slick!
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Morelli [mailto:billvt(at)together.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Subaru Engine Bolts
Don.
I don't recall adding any type of lubricant on the pieces of tubing.
When I start my Stratus cold, I always use full choke then as soon as it
fires, reduce it to half or less. The engine has always started easily even
when the temps have been below 20 degrees F.
Bill
> Thanks! That might explain why I have 4 pieces of ~2" tubing.
>
> Do you recall if you just inserted them into the rubber engine mounts or
did
> you have to use some type of grease to get everything working?
>
> Also I have another newbie type question. I'm assuming the I have to lift
up
> the choke mechanisms on the dual carbs when starting engine (cold). Does
> anyone recall if you need to apply 1/2 choke, full choke, etc. during the
> starting process?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
Oh i see.
My plates are actually a tight fit between the spar caps and my d<10mm. In
this situation I just copied the original plate in steel. I drilled the
holes first and finished to size using the angle grinder. I also used the
angle grinder to radius the edges.
I guess you have this option too.
Copying the original plate is pretty easy and saves having to fuss with
trimming the plate to fit between the spars with the wing in place and
getting the drill bit inside the wing. It also means you can take the plates
off (in the hangar) and take them back to your workshop at home to do all
the machining work.
I also found that all you need to remove the plates is a lenth of timber to
support the outer end of the wing. The
-----Original Message-----
From: SEAL2CC(at)aol.com [mailto:SEAL2CC(at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Splice plates
In a message dated 5/28/01 1:45:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
frank_hinde(at)hp.com writes:
<< I would check them myself (very easy) and then as far as I can see there
is
no reason ZAC could not copy your original plates if you send them to them.
>>
If you did this then it would seem you have the same problem with the new
plates. I think the difference from spar to spar when originally drilled out
at ZAC precludes them drilling your plates unless they also had your spars
to
also mate to exactly recreate the required edge distances. Otherwise you
have
to tell them EXACTLY the clearance from the plate to the spar so they can
place the holes correctly.I have a fair amount of vertical play in my plates
(rears)...they can be moved up and down in the spar cavity. The edge
distance
on one of the PLATES would require me to use a 4130 replacement. However,
the
edge distance of the hole in the SPAR is 11 so I actually need the 6061
replacement because when the new (taller) plate is fabricated my "d" will be
>= 10.. The two pieces of the puzzle...SPAR and PLATE are required to
exactly
determine the fit.
Chris Carey
601HDS N601BZ
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Wt. and Balance and Nose Gear bungee |
Hmm, I have been using the Stratus soob HDS for a bit of STOL back country
(rock and plow rut landing strips!) work. This plane performs remarkably
well in this environment...If I had built a taildragger it would have been
awesome!
ANyway, with this in mind I have found the nose bungee to be marginal, at
anything more than perfectly smooth surfaces the nose will bob up and down,
and on rough surfaces one has to be careful!
Sadly I don't think a thicker bungee will fit in the space where the current
bungee is. If you think you can get it in then I would say go fit it. The
nose is certainly 'boingier' than the mains, which don't seem to move at all
except on a hard landing..... course I would'nt know..:-)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Morelli [mailto:billvt(at)together.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Wt. and Balance and Nose Gear bungee
Grant,
My aircraft also is a bit heavy at the nose (250 lbs.) due to the fact that
I have the Stratus Subaru. I have the standard ZAC nose bungee and on the
ground, my nose bungee sits about 1/8" off the stop. I started the habit of
wiping the grease mark off the nose gear strut so I can keep an eye on how
far the nose gear compresses ( the grease mark is a great indicator). I have
made 101 landings so far and the most that the nose bungee has compressed
was about 2 1/2". I have mad so pretty hard landings and have flown the
aircraft several times at full gross weight of 1300 lbs. So for me so far,
the standard bungee has been OK.
Regards,
Bill - HDS - TRI - Stratus - 63.7 hours - 101 landings
> My one concern is the nose gear bungee. The nosewheel handles almost its
> 'full load' all the time... mine sits at about 263 lbs. The nose bungee
was
> probably designed for the Rotax engine which must put a significantly less
> wt. on the nosewheel (?)...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Splice plates |
In a message dated 05/29/2001 11:06:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
frank_hinde(at)hp.com writes:
<< I guess you have this option too.
Copying the original plate is pretty easy and saves having to fuss with
trimming the plate to fit between the spars with the wing in place and
getting the drill bit inside the wing. >>
Yes Frank it would be easier to just copy the current plate onto the 4130
one, and I may do that if I can't get it right w/ the 6061. But I want to try
with the 6061 so I can have a shot of saving the 3-5lbs or so weight. At
least I have a fallback..
Regards,
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Subaru Engine Bolts |
Don,
Sorry to be such a newbie but what is chromoly tubing? Can you purchase it
locally or do you need to go Aircraft Spruce or similiar?
Thanks for your input. I tend to like things a bit over engineered so even
if the plastic tubing is technically fine, it sounds like an interesting
idea to use something I'm assuming holds up better.
Regards,
Don Honabach
Tempe, AZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Don Walker
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Subaru Engine Bolts
When I mounted mine, I talked to two A&P,s who advised me strongly to replace
the plastic tubing with chromoly tubing and cinch it up tight. They said no aircraft
engine they knew of was mounted that way. An engineer pilot advised me
of the same thing. Are some of you with Subaru using the plastic tubing? How
is it working? What are the pro's and cons. Don Walker HDS
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Morelli
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Subaru Engine Bolts
Don.
I don't recall adding any type of lubricant on the pieces of tubing.
When I start my Stratus cold, I always use full choke then as soon as it
fires, reduce it to half or less. The engine has always started easily even
when the temps have been below 20 degrees F.
Bill
> Thanks! That might explain why I have 4 pieces of ~2" tubing.
>
> Do you recall if you just inserted them into the rubber engine mounts or
did
> you have to use some type of grease to get everything working?
>
> Also I have another newbie type question. I'm assuming the I have to lift
up
> the choke mechanisms on the dual carbs when starting engine (cold). Does
> anyone recall if you need to apply 1/2 choke, full choke, etc. during the
> starting process?
=
=
=
=
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Schemmel, Grant" <Schemmel(at)utmc.aeroflex.com> |
| Subject: | Wt. and Balance and Nose Gear bungee |
Grant
For what it's worth, and I have not flown the plane yet, I changed out my kit-supplied
1080 bungee with the 1080HD, and it REALLY firmed things up. I have an
o-200 installed, and the 1080 bungee, I was able to push down on the prop and
make the nose go up and down without too much effort.
Now with the 1080HD, I can't budge it unless I put a lot of weight on the engine.
The 1080HD fits exactly like the 1080 does.
Grant Schemmel
Penrose, CO.
N602GS - o-200 601HDS
> My one concern is the nose gear bungee. The nosewheel handles almost its
> 'full load' all the time... mine sits at about 263 lbs. The nose bungee
was
> probably designed for the Rotax engine which must put a significantly less
> wt. on the nosewheel (?)...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pinneo, George" <George.Pinneo(at)trw.com> |
| Subject: | Leading edge tanks |
Material engineers shudder when someone knowingly puts brass or copper into contact
with aluminum!! You may not have corrosion yet, but you will!
I recommend Swagelok compression fittings; you can buy all aluminum double-ferrule
compression fittings so you don't have to do that. They not only don't attack
each other, they're lighter. All connections in the Swagelok system are unions
and thus interchangeable and remakable many, many times. I use 'em on oil
and fuel lines and use the nylon ones on my instrument lines. I use stainless
Whitey ball-valves with Swagelok connections on my fuel system. I used aluminum
Swageloks on my Matco brake lines. I haven't had a leak in any of these systems
yet. 300. hours.
GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pinneo, George" <George.Pinneo(at)trw.com> |
| Subject: | Leading edge tanks |
My Header tank has been welded 4 times after having 92 octane mogas in it. It's
a good idea to get all the gas out first, of course. One can do this using
a thorough flush with acetone followed by a thorough fill with tap water. I worked
with my welder; we had no explosions or fires. Technique and preparation
does count!
GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wayne Dolby <viper3(at)island.net> |
I'm interested in buying a CH 701, and am wondering if anyone on Vancouver island
or the lower mainland has a 701 that they would let me look at and possibly
take me for a brief flight.
TIA
Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | tail light wiring |
| From: | "Mark Sandidge" <MSandidge(at)PeabodyEnergy.com> |
05/29/2001 01:23:01 PM
Date: May 29, 2001
From: Mark Sandidge (msandidg(at)peabodygroup.com)
Subject: Tail Light Wiring
I am in the process of installing the rudder light. Would like to run wire
before closing rear fuse. What wire size should I use? Have not studied
Electric Bob's book enough yet. Guess I better get with it.
Thanks
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Leading edge tanks |
Sorry George I don't buy it!
Sure if there is tap water around (with mineral salts) then you have a
battery and it WILL corrode.
Gasoline is oil and I really don't think there is an issue...but I been
wrong before...:-)
I too have welded gas tanks successfully but I did use water/detergent to
clean it first.
I think if I were making a tank from scratch I would use the old air line
and bath filled with water leak test to check the welds...Make sure my Wife
was out shopping first!
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Pinneo, George [mailto:George.Pinneo(at)trw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 9:37 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Leading edge tanks
Material engineers shudder when someone knowingly puts brass or copper into
contact with aluminum!! You may not have corrosion yet, but you will!
I recommend Swagelok compression fittings; you can buy all aluminum
double-ferrule compression fittings so you don't have to do that. They not
only don't attack each other, they're lighter. All connections in the
Swagelok system are unions and thus interchangeable and remakable many, many
times. I use 'em on oil and fuel lines and use the nylon ones on my
instrument lines. I use stainless Whitey ball-valves with Swagelok
connections on my fuel system. I used aluminum Swageloks on my Matco brake
lines. I haven't had a leak in any of these systems yet. 300. hours.
GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Wood <mawood(at)zoo.uvm.edu> |
| Subject: | Wt. and Balance and Nose Gear bungee |
>Grant
>
>For what it's worth, and I have not flown the plane yet, I changed out my
>kit-supplied 1080 bungee with the 1080HD, and it REALLY firmed things up.
>I have an o-200 installed, and the 1080 bungee, I was able to push down on
>the prop and make the nose go up and down without too much effort.
>
>Now with the 1080HD, I can't budge it unless I put a lot of weight on the
>engine.
>
>The 1080HD fits exactly like the 1080 does.
>
>Grant Schemmel
>Penrose, CO.
>N602GS - o-200 601HDS
Grant
I am also going with an O-200 so I would be interested in the 1080HD
bungee. Where did you get it? Is it a ZAC product or some other source?
Thanks
Mark Wood
Middlebury, VT
N221MW 80% done and it feels like 99% to go.
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi,
Regarding the nylon block (6F17-3) that holds the rudder pedals in the
center. How tight do you tighten the bolts underneath the fuselage? If I
tighten them all the way then the pedals are almost impossible to move by
hand. Should a grease be applied to the inside of cut out circles? Or a
spacer between the 3 contact points of the block?
Thanks,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RUSSELL JOHNSON" <entec1(at)pld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rudder pedals |
> Regarding the nylon block (6F17-3) that holds the rudder pedals in the
> center. How tight do you tighten the bolts underneath the fuselage? If I
> tighten them all the way then the pedals are almost impossible to move by
> hand. Should a grease be applied to the inside of cut out circles? Or a
> spacer between the 3 contact points of the block?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
I had the same problem, I removed the nylon block, bolted it back together
and then re-bored the holes.
I also had to sand the primer off the rudder pedal tubes and polish the
bearing contact surface.
Russell J.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
Grease and tighten as required, as long as the tread engages the nylon in
the nut of course.
Consider drilling the heads and safety wiring the bolt heads, that way
tightening becomes a one man job.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: STEFREE(at)aol.com [mailto:STEFREE(at)aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 2:19 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Rudder pedals
Hi,
Regarding the nylon block (6F17-3) that holds the rudder pedals in the
center. How tight do you tighten the bolts underneath the fuselage? If I
tighten them all the way then the pedals are almost impossible to move by
hand. Should a grease be applied to the inside of cut out circles? Or a
spacer between the 3 contact points of the block?
Thanks,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wt. and Balance and Nose Gear bungee |
My HDS tri gear kit came with all 1080HD bungees.
Bill
> I am also going with an O-200 so I would be interested in the 1080HD
> bungee. Where did you get it? Is it a ZAC product or some other source?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rudder pedals |
In a message dated 05/29/2001 3:07:03 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
frank_hinde(at)hp.com writes:
> Consider drilling the heads and safety wiring the bolt heads, that way
> tightening becomes a one man job.
>
Hi Frank,
How do you drill the head of a bolt? Do you have a special jig to hold it in
or just clamp real tight in a vise? What size bit do you use, and is it a
special material. Those bolt heads seem awfully hard and it seems like a
regular bit could not handle the job.
On the same issue, can someone address the reason as to why some bolts are
safety wired and some aren't? Is there a rule to go by? I know the plans
say which ones to wire but I have often wondered why some are not. It seems
like some that are seemingly crucial are not safety wired while others are.
For instance, the bolts that hold the stabilizer on to the HT brackets are
not safety wired, but the bolts that hold the stop plates for the landing
gear are safety wired. I just wonder why.......
Thanks,
Steve Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rudder pedals |
In a message dated 5/29/01 7:33:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, STEFREE(at)aol.com
writes:
<< It seems
like some that are seemingly crucial are not safety wired while others are.
>>
Hi Steve...for one thing usually if the bolts are nylon locked, you don't
need to safety wire. The gear tops are not nylocked while the HT ass'y ones
are. How about the wing spar plater?? They are nylocked so no safety wiring.
To someone off the street I would think they would be surprised to see that
they are NOT wired. There are some where I think I'd like both nyloc and wire
at least from a layman's point of view!
Regards,
Chris Carey
601 HDS N601BZ
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brook" <walruss(at)optushome.com.au> |
| Subject: | Leading edge tanks |
From this materials engineer, I agree. Can you say galvanic corrosion and
feul leak in flight in the same sentance?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Pinneo,
George
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 4:37 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Leading edge tanks
Material engineers shudder when someone knowingly puts brass or copper into
contact with aluminum!! You may not have corrosion yet, but you will!
I recommend Swagelok compression fittings; you can buy all aluminum
double-ferrule compression fittings so you don't have to do that. They not
only don't attack each other, they're lighter. All connections in the
Swagelok system are unions and thus interchangeable and remakable many, many
times. I use 'em on oil and fuel lines and use the nylon ones on my
instrument lines. I use stainless Whitey ball-valves with Swagelok
connections on my fuel system. I used aluminum Swageloks on my Matco brake
lines. I haven't had a leak in any of these systems yet. 300. hours.
GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Meiste's" <meiste(at)essex1.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wt. and Balance and Nose Gear bungee |
Likewise for mine (kit was purchased Jan 99).
Kelly
> My HDS tri gear kit came with all 1080HD bungees.
>
> Bill
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org> |
| Subject: | Leading edge tanks |
>
> >From this materials engineer, I agree. Can you say galvanic corrosion and
>feul leak in flight in the same sentance?
Ok, so what did you do about the brass finger screens screwed into the
aluminum flanges on the gas tanks supplied by ZAC?
I am wrestling with that question right now - who did something different?
Gary Liming, 801, on the wings.
Gary Liming
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Alberti" <daberti(at)execpc.com> |
I have worked on carbs for cars, motorcycles, and snowmobiles and all of
them have brass main jets, metering rods throttle plates etc. and none of
them has ever had those parts clogged or frozen due to galvanic corrosion.
Right now I'm not sure there is a problem in a fuel application.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Liming" <gary(at)liming.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 12:20 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Leading edge tanks
>
> >
> > >From this materials engineer, I agree. Can you say galvanic corrosion
and
> >feul leak in flight in the same sentance?
>
> Ok, so what did you do about the brass finger screens screwed into the
> aluminum flanges on the gas tanks supplied by ZAC?
>
> I am wrestling with that question right now - who did something different?
>
> Gary Liming, 801, on the wings.
>
> Gary Liming
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <eburton(at)cancom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hello from a new List Member |
Hi List members,
Just wanted to drop a short note to let you know who I am. My name is Ed Burton,
I live in Marathon, Ontario and have been interested in building a kit plane for
some time now. I am a student pilot with approximately 40 hours in Cessna 152 and
172. I fall into the 40 to 50 age bracket married with two children (adults now).
I narrowed my choices to three, Challenger, the Murphy Rebel and the CH-701. Most
recently I have been leaning very heavily towards the 701 however I am very
uneasy considering I have never read a blueprint nor worked with sheet metal
before let alone construct an aircraft. So, if it doesn't cause a problem with
the list I would like to lurk and learn more about the Zenith aircraft. Thank you
all for taking the time to read this.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CZECH AIRCRAFT WORKS" <aircraft(at)CZAW.CZ> |
| Subject: | Hello from a new List Member |
Just to let you know, there are quick-build kits (and super QBKs) available
through Flypass in Canada or Airlink in the USA.
Cheers,
CHIP
Chip W. Erwin
CZECH AIRCRAFT WORKS, S.R.O.
Manufacturer of sport aircraft & AIRCRAFT FLOATS
Lucn 1824, 686 02 Star Mesto, Czech Republic
Tel: (420 632) 543 456 Fax: (420 632) 543 692
USA Fax: (561) 264 0936
Mobile Tel: (420) 602 342 717
E-mail: aircraft(at)czaw.cz www.airplane.cz
---
Hi List members,
Just wanted to drop a short note to let you know who I am. My name is Ed
Burton,
I live in Marathon, Ontario and have been interested in building a kit plane
for
some time now. I am a student pilot with approximately 40 hours in Cessna
152 and
172. I fall into the 40 to 50 age bracket married with two children (adults
now).
I narrowed my choices to three, Challenger, the Murphy Rebel and the CH-701.
Most
recently I have been leaning very heavily towards the 701 however I am very
uneasy considering I have never read a blueprint nor worked with sheet metal
before let alone construct an aircraft. So, if it doesn't cause a problem
with
the list I would like to lurk and learn more about the Zenith aircraft.
Thank you
all for taking the time to read this.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shay King" <shaking(at)eircom.net> |
| Subject: | 701 Flaperon skin problems. |
Dear list,
I'm having trouble getting my flaperon skins to fit. I think the pre
bend in the skins is in the wrong place. The result is the leading edge
profile is OK at the ends where the nose ribs are, but in the middle the
profile is different. If the bend was about 8mm further aft along the
bottom, the skin would fit like a glove.
Has anyone else had this problem? I'm building from a kit.
Regards,
Shay King.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wt. and Balance and Nose Gear bungee |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
on 29/5/01 6:28 PM, Bill Morelli at billvt(at)together.net wrote:
>
> My HDS tri gear kit came with all 1080HD bungees.
>
> Bill
I'll have to check as I think that's what I have too... not sure though. At
any rate I gave the prop a 'pull test' yesterday to see how much flex there
was in the nose strut and I must admit that right now anyway (i.e. with a
fairly new bungee), the nose doesn't sink much. Your assessment from grease
marks of a couple of inches seems to apply here too.
I suspect that renewing this bungee on a regular (annual?) basis is a good
preventative maintenance action?
--
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
Zodiac 601hds/CAM100
C-GHTF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Wood" <twood(at)ucf.k12.pa.us> |
Good Morning Builders,
I assume the cut out on the leading edge skin for the fuel tank cap and
filler neck needs to be larger than the cap. Another words, about 2.5
inches. What about water or gas getting into the wing around the cap?
I appreciate your ideas.
Thanks,
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Steer" <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: XL Fuel Tanks |
I cut mine (601HD) for a close fit around the filler cap. Maybe it's a
different cap than the one you have, but my opening is 3 1/8" diameter.
I haven't sealed it yet, so am also interested in how everybody did that.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Wood" <twood(at)ucf.k12.pa.us>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 11:45 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: XL Fuel Tanks
>
> Good Morning Builders,
>
> I assume the cut out on the leading edge skin for the fuel tank
cap and
> filler neck needs to be larger than the cap. Another words, about 2.5
> inches. What about water or gas getting into the wing around the cap?
>
> I appreciate your ideas.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | andrew.sanclemente(at)monster.com |
| Subject: | Retrofitting LE Tanks 601HDS |
Hi,
Im retrofitting the LE tanks to my HDS and was wondering what method was
used for locating the holes in the bottom of the nose skin for the vent and
fuel drain. I noticed one post which mentioned that the rear of the tank is
not perpendicular to the spar and to measure using a square? Can someone
elaborate on the best method for determining where these holes should go
and the best method for determining these locations? Since the vent and
drain stick out I can't simply lay the tank in there (at least that doesn't
seem like a good method)
All help greatly appreciated!!!
Andrew
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Fleming <jfleming(at)cofc.edu> |
Ed,
I'm new as well and have an interest in the STOL-701. I'm currently
preparing to solo in a Challenger II but am slightly leaning the 701 way.
However, the sheer volume of Challenger's sold does attest to their safety
(almost 3000 and are especially popular in Canada) versus 500+ for the 701.
Have you had a demo in either aircraft? I'm looking for a ride in the 701
to make my decision. Thoughts from the list? Why did you pick a STOL-701?
Jim Fleming
Charleston, South Carolina
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ed
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hello from a new List Member
Hi List members,
Just wanted to drop a short note to let you know who I am. My name is Ed
Burton,
I live in Marathon, Ontario and have been interested in building a kit plane
for
some time now. I am a student pilot with approximately 40 hours in Cessna
152 and
172. I fall into the 40 to 50 age bracket married with two children (adults
now).
I narrowed my choices to three, Challenger, the Murphy Rebel and the CH-701.
Most
recently I have been leaning very heavily towards the 701 however I am very
uneasy considering I have never read a blueprint nor worked with sheet metal
before let alone construct an aircraft. So, if it doesn't cause a problem
with
the list I would like to lurk and learn more about the Zenith aircraft.
Thank you
all for taking the time to read this.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Schemmel, Grant" <Schemmel(at)utmc.aeroflex.com> |
| Subject: | Wt. and Balance and Nose Gear bungee |
Hi Mark
Actually, I picked it up from one of the vendor booths at Osh last year, I think
it was Wag Aero. However, I also think it's readily available from ACS too.
Grant Schemmel
Penrose, CO
N602GS - o-200/hds
*********************************
Grant
I am also going with an O-200 so I would be interested in the 1080HD
bungee. Where did you get it? Is it a ZAC product or some other source?
Thanks
Mark Wood
Middlebury, VT
N221MW 80% done and it feels like 99% to go.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Steer" <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wt. and Balance and Nose Gear bungee |
Yep, it's on page 205 of my 1998/99 ACS catalog. $19.95 each.
Not that it matters to you scratch builders, but the shock cord that came in
my 601HD kit from ZAC is the 1080HD cord.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Schemmel, Grant" <Schemmel(at)utmc.aeroflex.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Wt. and Balance and Nose Gear bungee
>
> Hi Mark
>
> Actually, I picked it up from one of the vendor booths at Osh last year, I
think it was Wag Aero. However, I also think it's readily available from
ACS too.
>
> Grant Schemmel
> Penrose, CO
> N602GS - o-200/hds
> *********************************
> Grant
> I am also going with an O-200 so I would be interested in the 1080HD
> bungee. Where did you get it? Is it a ZAC product or some other source?
>
> Thanks
> Mark Wood
> Middlebury, VT
> N221MW 80% done and it feels like 99% to go.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Danielson" <steved(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why STOL-701? |
I had challeneger video and enjoyed watching it many times. You could get
one in the air for about half the $$$ of a 701. The things that drew me to
the 701 though were:
All Metal Construction, could leave it tied down outside.
Side by side seating
Never any structural failures
Challenger has tube and fabric, tandem, and there have been some structural
failures. (I hope I am not slandering challenger, but I thought I had read
of some saves on the BRS site regarding a challenger wing folding up...)
Steve Danielson
Director of Architecture and Technology
Zeris Interactive
http://www.zeris.com
919-349-6164
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fleming" <jfleming(at)cofc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:13 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Why STOL-701?
>
>
> Ed,
>
> I'm new as well and have an interest in the STOL-701. I'm currently
> preparing to solo in a Challenger II but am slightly leaning the 701 way.
> However, the sheer volume of Challenger's sold does attest to their safety
> (almost 3000 and are especially popular in Canada) versus 500+ for the
701.
> Have you had a demo in either aircraft? I'm looking for a ride in the 701
> to make my decision. Thoughts from the list? Why did you pick a STOL-701?
>
> Jim Fleming
> Charleston, South Carolina
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <eburton(at)cancom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Why STOL-701? |
Hello Jim and List,
The main reason I'm looking seriously at the 701 is the metal construction as no
hangar space is available where I live.
Other Reasons: Low stall speed
Excellent Short field capabilities and performance
Easily falls within the Advanced UL category (Canada)
Claims of being a good first time builder's kit
Very few chemicals to work with during construction
From what I've gathered so far, a good safety record
Chris Heintz - a proven aircraft designer
Availability of a factory workshop making the decision
process a little easier
I haven't had a demo in either aircraft. So far I'm basing all my thoughts on
what I've read and seen so far.
Ed Burton
Jim Fleming wrote:
> Why did you pick a STOL-701?
>
> Jim Fleming
> Charleston, South Carolina
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Retrofitting LE Tanks 601HDS |
Yes I found this tricky but I didn't have a better method than just doing it
by eye.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: andrew.sanclemente(at)monster.com
[mailto:andrew.sanclemente(at)monster.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 6:15 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Retrofitting LE Tanks 601HDS
Hi,
Im retrofitting the LE tanks to my HDS and was wondering what method was
used for locating the holes in the bottom of the nose skin for the vent and
fuel drain. I noticed one post which mentioned that the rear of the tank is
not perpendicular to the spar and to measure using a square? Can someone
elaborate on the best method for determining where these holes should go
and the best method for determining these locations? Since the vent and
drain stick out I can't simply lay the tank in there (at least that doesn't
seem like a good method)
All help greatly appreciated!!!
Andrew
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
Unnecessary to do both. If the bolt is loose (so that it can turn in the
hole (such as a cable clevis bolt) then use a drilled bolt and cotter pin.
If the bolt is tight (i.e can't turn) then a nyloc is perfectly fine.
safety wired bolts are a pain and only necessary is you can't use either
nyloc or cotter pin.
-----Original Message-----
From: SEAL2CC(at)aol.com [mailto:SEAL2CC(at)aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Rudder pedals
In a message dated 5/29/01 7:33:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, STEFREE(at)aol.com
writes:
<< It seems
like some that are seemingly crucial are not safety wired while others are.
>>
Hi Steve...for one thing usually if the bolts are nylon locked, you don't
need to safety wire. The gear tops are not nylocked while the HT ass'y ones
are. How about the wing spar plater?? They are nylocked so no safety wiring.
To someone off the street I would think they would be surprised to see that
they are NOT wired. There are some where I think I'd like both nyloc and
wire
at least from a layman's point of view!
Regards,
Chris Carey
601 HDS N601BZ
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)oregonfast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Why STOL-701? |
Get a ride in a 701. Unless you need speed, the decision will make itself.
Having made the "right"" decision you will spend the next couple of years
"making it right".
No regrets here.
Richard, 701, still making it right.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed" <eburton(at)cancom.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Why STOL-701?
>
> Hello Jim and List,
>
> The main reason I'm looking seriously at the 701 is the metal construction
as no
> hangar space is available where I live.
>
> Other Reasons: Low stall speed
> Excellent Short field capabilities and
performance
> Easily falls within the Advanced UL category
(Canada)
> Claims of being a good first time builder's kit
> Very few chemicals to work with during
construction
> From what I've gathered so far, a good safety
record
> Chris Heintz - a proven aircraft designer
> Availability of a factory workshop making the
decision
> process a little easier
>
> I haven't had a demo in either aircraft. So far I'm basing all my thoughts
on
> what I've read and seen so far.
>
> Ed Burton
>
>
> Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> > Why did you pick a STOL-701?
> >
> > Jim Fleming
> > Charleston, South Carolina
> >
>
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pinneo, George" <George.Pinneo(at)trw.com> |
| Subject: | Leading edge tanks |
I built three all-aluminum replacements, of course!
GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pinneo, George" <George.Pinneo(at)trw.com> |
I'm sure you wore rubber gloves when you installed all your fuel line hardware
so you wouldn't leave body salt traces on the brass ferrules, of course.
(Hey: it's your plane and it's OK with me! You get to be anal about other details.)
GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RUSSELL JOHNSON" <entec1(at)pld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Retrofitting LE Tanks 601HDS |
> Im retrofitting the LE tanks to my HDS and was wondering what method was
> used for locating the holes in the bottom of the nose skin for the vent
and
> fuel drain.
> Andrew
After carefully measuring the fittings on the tank and transfering these
measurements to the wing skin, and then carefully cutting the hole slightly
larger than the fittings, guess what? They still missed.
If I had to do it over, I would use some poster board to make a mock-up of
the tank and lay this in on the forward wing skin to mark the locations of
the fittings.
Russell J. / 601-HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Retrofitting LE Tanks 601HDS |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
>
> Hi,
> Im retrofitting the LE tanks to my HDS and was wondering what method was
> used for locating the holes in the bottom of the nose skin for the vent and
> fuel drain. I noticed one post which mentioned that the rear of the tank is
> not perpendicular to the spar and to measure using a square? Can someone
> elaborate on the best method for determining where these holes should go
> and the best method for determining these locations? Since the vent and
> drain stick out I can't simply lay the tank in there (at least that doesn't
> seem like a good method)
> All help greatly appreciated!!!
> Andrew
I used a piece of clear plastic sheeting to make a template then transferred
the hole location to the actual skin.... worked okay, but not perfectly -
due to circumference of the actual .025 skin I suppose...
--
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
Zodiac 601hds/CAM100
C-GHTF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PHIL_PFOERTNER(at)udlp.com |
I'm starting the center section on my hds and have all of the parts for the TDO
from ZA but the building sequence documentation falls apart at this point. Any
suggestion on which drawings and manuals to look ant for a 601hds taildragger at
this point?
Wings and tail complete.
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dick Baner <db8(at)mtco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why STOL-701? |
I have a 701 and have flown a challenger II several times. Both are good at what
they do but they do different things. The 701 is more like a fully enclosed
"regular" airplane with the doors on and the challenger, even with the enclosure,
is
more like flying an ultralight. I am not knocking either one, it just depends
on
what you are looking for. Of course it is also metal vs fabric, the 701 will take
longer to build but is more forgiving of hard landings as long as you do not take
the nose gear in first but that is also true of the challenger. Both are suitable
for long flights albeit slow. Dick Baner
Ed wrote:
>
> Hello Jim and List,
>
> The main reason I'm looking seriously at the 701 is the metal construction as
no
> hangar space is available where I live.
>
> Other Reasons: Low stall speed
> Excellent Short field capabilities and performance
> Easily falls within the Advanced UL category (Canada)
> Claims of being a good first time builder's kit
> Very few chemicals to work with during construction
> From what I've gathered so far, a good safety record
> Chris Heintz - a proven aircraft designer
> Availability of a factory workshop making the decision
> process a little easier
>
> I haven't had a demo in either aircraft. So far I'm basing all my thoughts on
> what I've read and seen so far.
>
> Ed Burton
>
> Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> > Why did you pick a STOL-701?
> >
> > Jim Fleming
> > Charleston, South Carolina
> >
>
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob and Dawn Luce" <robluce1(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why STOL-701? |
The 701 is the closest cross between a Ultralight (what we'd call an UL in
the US) and a real plane that I know of. It has insanely good short field
and slow flight characteristics, but it's an all metal airplane, made of
6061, which is highly corosion resistant. It's fairly rugged (stay off the
nosewheel during landings), fairly easy to fly (as long as the fan keeps
spinning), and in general is concidered a fun airplane to own.
It also is supposed to be a fairly easy kit to put together, comparitively.
At 500 hours (average builder, my understanding) it's something that you
could finish, even if it's your first project and you're not the fastest
builder. The factory support is supposed to be pretty good.
Oh, also, there are quite a few more than 500 701 kits that have been sold.
I thought it was something along of the lines of 800+ kits completed, I
don't know how many sold. With an Ultralight, for the most part,
sold=completed. With a kit plane, even one that has a 500 hr completion
time, sold doesn't equal completed kits.
Unfortunately, I haven't built one, yet. I'm still looking at the bank
account and trying to squeeze out the money (and I'm quite a ways from doing
it).
An Ultralight would be much faster to build, but all fabric, so you wouldn't
want to keep it outside. The Murphy Rebel is a very nice plane, in most
ways better than the 701, but it takes longer to build, costs more, requires
a bigger engine, and you don't get plans with the plane. For whatever
reason, I'd like a set of the plans so that if something were to happen and
parts weren't available I'd still be able to make the part correctly.
Rob Luce
Ed,
I'm new as well and have an interest in the STOL-701. I'm currently
preparing to solo in a Challenger II but am slightly leaning the 701 way.
However, the sheer volume of Challenger's sold does attest to their safety
(almost 3000 and are especially popular in Canada) versus 500+ for the 701.
Have you had a demo in either aircraft? I'm looking for a ride in the 701
to make my decision. Thoughts from the list? Why did you pick a STOL-701?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge tanks |
The brass fittings and finger screens on my 1948 Bellanca were screwed in
sometime before April 7, 1948 when it was first licensed. I haven't seen
any galvanic corrosion at these joints and they still aren't leaking today
are bigger more important mountains to climb.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Liming" <gary(at)liming.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 12:20 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Leading edge tanks
>
> >From this materials engineer, I agree. Can you say galvanic corrosion and
>feul leak in flight in the same sentance?
Ok, so what did you do about the brass finger screens screwed into the
aluminum flanges on the gas tanks supplied by ZAC?
I am wrestling with that question right now - who did something different?
Gary Liming, 801, on the wings.
Gary Liming
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Leading edge tanks |
I agree,
On the joint compound I found some Teflon paste at my local hardware store,
says its compatible with fuels and it works great.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Cy Galley [mailto:cgalley(at)qcbc.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Leading edge tanks
The brass fittings and finger screens on my 1948 Bellanca were screwed in
sometime before April 7, 1948 when it was first licensed. I haven't seen
any galvanic corrosion at these joints and they still aren't leaking today
are bigger more important mountains to climb.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry McFarland" <larrymc(at)qconline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Retrofitting LE Tanks 601HDS |
Russ,
I just finished putting the holes in the nose skin for leading edge tanks
day before
yesterday. The cork must be on the back bumpers. A piece of aluminum the
width of
the two ribs and deep enough to capture the spar holes and the drain and
vent is cut.
The spar line and rib holes are match-marked from the nose skin to the piece
and drilled.
Cleco it to the spar line and ribs and measure positions for vent and drain
by placing
the tank against the cork and best estimate lateral fit with cork on
outboard rib and
the opposing outlet fitting. Mark the template, measure and recheck by
eyeball and remove it.
Drill and fit the holes for the vent and drain in the template and check the
actual fit with the tank.
If it is perfect, remove the piece and transfer the holes to the nose skin
by re-clecoing it
to the proper spar and rib holes in the nose skin. Match mark the vent and
drain to the nose
skin and remove the template. Drill and enlarge the holes to suit. By now,
you get the
idea. The same works for placement of the flush filler hole on top of the
tank. Using top spar
holes, only there, you drill a 1/16" center hole for the filler cap and
check it by ink marker thru to
the filler cap. Any adjustments can be repeated when you center drill the
nose skin.
Then, open the hole to 3/16", adjust your fly-cutter to exacting diameter
checked on a blank
piece and manually cut (not with power drill) repeat, manually cut the hole
carefully and patiently.
by hand. The results are gonna be great.
Larry C. McFarland 601HDS.
----- Original Message -----
From: RUSSELL JOHNSON <entec1(at)pld.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Retrofitting LE Tanks 601HDS
>
> > Im retrofitting the LE tanks to my HDS and was wondering what method
was
> > used for locating the holes in the bottom of the nose skin for the vent
> and
> > fuel drain.
>
> > Andrew
>
>
> After carefully measuring the fittings on the tank and transfering these
> measurements to the wing skin, and then carefully cutting the hole
slightly
> larger than the fittings, guess what? They still missed.
>
> If I had to do it over, I would use some poster board to make a mock-up of
> the tank and lay this in on the forward wing skin to mark the locations of
> the fittings.
>
> Russell J. / 601-HDS
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rudder pedals |
Hello, Steve:
If I understand correctly what your original question was, it
had nothing to do with the issue of nylock nuts vs. safety-wiring of
bolts.
I had the exact same problem that you describe with the nylon
block being too tight to allow free turning of the rudder pedal
tubes. That's because when you make the saw cut in that block (to
make the 2 half-blocks that you're bolting together around the
tubes), you remove material equal to a bit more than the thickness of
the saw blade.
To remedy this situation, I added washers around the 3 bolts
that hold the whole assembly together. I think it took two washers
on each bolt (between the half-blocks) to take up enough space and
allow the rudder pedals to move freely. Try it. I think you'll find
this works quite well.
Phil Raker: HDS/Stratus, on wheels, ready to mount tail feathers
---- Begin Original Message ----
> Regarding the nylon block (6F17-3) that holds the rudder pedals in
the
> center. How tight do you tighten the bolts underneath the
fuselage? If I
> tighten them all the way then the pedals are almost impossible to
move by
> hand. Should a grease be applied to the inside of cut out
circles? Or a
> spacer between the 3 contact points of the block?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
A proud member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
aopa.net
The official e-mail service of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
Visit AOPA Online at http://www.aopa.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Retrofitting LE Tanks 601HDS |
Almost,
I found that the tanks have a tendancy to work their way to the root of the
wing.... due to the taper on the nose skin. The flush cap then hits the hole
in the nose skin which prevents further movement,.... of course you don't
want to open up the hole in the wing 'cos it will move again!
I can't think off hand of a good way to stop this happening.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry McFarland [mailto:larrymc(at)qconline.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Retrofitting LE Tanks 601HDS
Russ,
I just finished putting the holes in the nose skin for leading edge tanks
day before
yesterday. The cork must be on the back bumpers. A piece of aluminum the
width of
the two ribs and deep enough to capture the spar holes and the drain and
vent is cut.
The spar line and rib holes are match-marked from the nose skin to the piece
and drilled.
Cleco it to the spar line and ribs and measure positions for vent and drain
by placing
the tank against the cork and best estimate lateral fit with cork on
outboard rib and
the opposing outlet fitting. Mark the template, measure and recheck by
eyeball and remove it.
Drill and fit the holes for the vent and drain in the template and check the
actual fit with the tank.
If it is perfect, remove the piece and transfer the holes to the nose skin
by re-clecoing it
to the proper spar and rib holes in the nose skin. Match mark the vent and
drain to the nose
skin and remove the template. Drill and enlarge the holes to suit. By now,
you get the
idea. The same works for placement of the flush filler hole on top of the
tank. Using top spar
holes, only there, you drill a 1/16" center hole for the filler cap and
check it by ink marker thru to
the filler cap. Any adjustments can be repeated when you center drill the
nose skin.
Then, open the hole to 3/16", adjust your fly-cutter to exacting diameter
checked on a blank
piece and manually cut (not with power drill) repeat, manually cut the hole
carefully and patiently.
by hand. The results are gonna be great.
Larry C. McFarland 601HDS.
----- Original Message -----
From: RUSSELL JOHNSON <entec1(at)pld.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Retrofitting LE Tanks 601HDS
>
> > Im retrofitting the LE tanks to my HDS and was wondering what method
was
> > used for locating the holes in the bottom of the nose skin for the vent
> and
> > fuel drain.
>
> > Andrew
>
>
> After carefully measuring the fittings on the tank and transfering these
> measurements to the wing skin, and then carefully cutting the hole
slightly
> larger than the fittings, guess what? They still missed.
>
> If I had to do it over, I would use some poster board to make a mock-up of
> the tank and lay this in on the forward wing skin to mark the locations of
> the fittings.
>
> Russell J. / 601-HDS
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Engine Mount treatment |
Dear List, I have a 912 engine mount (new from ZAC) ready for mounting and I
want to "protect" it in a reasonable fashion (no, I don't want to send it off
to be powder coated).
I thought I would rub it down (gently of course) with lacquer thinner to
remove the oily finish, prime it with my favorite brand of primer (Mar-Hyde
5111 single stage, self-etching), and paint it with a light color spray can
of Rustoleum enamel.
Help keep me out of trouble....is this a "reasonable" approach? Thanks, stan
(701)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | proper drilling of bolt holes |
Dear List, now I want to drill those "perfectly round and tight" bolt holes
I've been warned about so the engine mount doesn't fall off the firewall.
I've only had to drill a couple bolt holes so far with this kit, and they had
bushings in them so a 3/16 bit on my drill press worked fine.
Apparently, the trick is to drill the hole undersized and ream it up. I've
been to local hardware stores and searched Aircraft Spruce Catalog and no one
seems to sell a proper reamer. I've been warned that the reamer should not
be tapered because that would not give a uniform bolt hole. But if a reamer
isn't tapered, then how the heck does it fit into the hole??
Can anyone give me some advice, tell me where to go (to buy the tools I need,
of course). This mount from ZAC cost me $516.00 and I can't afford to screw
it up. Thanks, stan (701).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry McFarland" <larrymc(at)qconline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Retrofitting LE Tanks 601HDS |
Almost is right, ....
I should have mentioned that after fitting the tank to
rear boundry cork and outboard cork, I added a channel with cork,
in my case 16mm, plus cork to the inboard side. Made a snug fit too.
If the nose skin is already buttoned up, one could consider pushing
the tank outboard from thru the inboard nose rib and use an insulating
foam that hardens like the stuff for windows.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1) <frank_hinde(at)hp.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 5:32 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Retrofitting LE Tanks 601HDS
>
> Almost,
>
> I found that the tanks have a tendancy to work their way to the root of
the
> wing.... due to the taper on the nose skin. The flush cap then hits the
hole
> in the nose skin which prevents further movement,.... of course you don't
> want to open up the hole in the wing 'cos it will move again!
>
> I can't think off hand of a good way to stop this happening.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry McFarland [mailto:larrymc(at)qconline.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 2:49 PM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Retrofitting LE Tanks 601HDS
>
>
>
> Russ,
> I just finished putting the holes in the nose skin for leading edge tanks
> day before
> yesterday. The cork must be on the back bumpers. A piece of aluminum
the
> width of
> the two ribs and deep enough to capture the spar holes and the drain and
> vent is cut.
> The spar line and rib holes are match-marked from the nose skin to the
piece
> and drilled.
> Cleco it to the spar line and ribs and measure positions for vent and
drain
> by placing
> the tank against the cork and best estimate lateral fit with cork on
> outboard rib and
> the opposing outlet fitting. Mark the template, measure and recheck by
> eyeball and remove it.
> Drill and fit the holes for the vent and drain in the template and check
the
> actual fit with the tank.
> If it is perfect, remove the piece and transfer the holes to the nose skin
> by re-clecoing it
> to the proper spar and rib holes in the nose skin. Match mark the vent
and
> drain to the nose
> skin and remove the template. Drill and enlarge the holes to suit. By
now,
> you get the
> idea. The same works for placement of the flush filler hole on top of the
> tank. Using top spar
> holes, only there, you drill a 1/16" center hole for the filler cap and
> check it by ink marker thru to
> the filler cap. Any adjustments can be repeated when you center drill the
> nose skin.
> Then, open the hole to 3/16", adjust your fly-cutter to exacting diameter
> checked on a blank
> piece and manually cut (not with power drill) repeat, manually cut the
hole
> carefully and patiently.
> by hand. The results are gonna be great.
> Larry C. McFarland 601HDS.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: RUSSELL JOHNSON <entec1(at)pld.com>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 11:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Retrofitting LE Tanks 601HDS
>
>
> >
> > > Im retrofitting the LE tanks to my HDS and was wondering what method
> was
> > > used for locating the holes in the bottom of the nose skin for the
vent
> > and
> > > fuel drain.
> >
> > > Andrew
> >
> >
> > After carefully measuring the fittings on the tank and transfering these
> > measurements to the wing skin, and then carefully cutting the hole
> slightly
> > larger than the fittings, guess what? They still missed.
> >
> > If I had to do it over, I would use some poster board to make a mock-up
of
> > the tank and lay this in on the forward wing skin to mark the locations
of
> > the fittings.
> >
> > Russell J. / 601-HDS
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brook" <walruss(at)optushome.com.au> |
| Subject: | 701 Flaperon skin problems. |
nope. I would suggest you put your spar in slightly the wrong location.
There is a bit of play in where to put the spar in relation to the
predrilled holes. I put 8 flaps together in didn't have much of a problem.
But I was very careful as to where to put the slots cut in the skin in
relation to the bend in the skin. That is to say I made sure that the
predrilled holes were on or about the middle of the spar while the tips of
the nose ribs just about touched the front flange of the flap skin.
Check your slot position and it should work out. It's a great feeling to put
your outer flaps that you built 6 months ago on the flap support brackets
and see that they fit just about perfectly with the inside flaps that you
made last week.
good luck
Mike 2 planes, 2 701's fitting engines instruments and door.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Shay King
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 11:04 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: 701 Flaperon skin problems.
Dear list,
I'm having trouble getting my flaperon skins to fit. I think the pre
bend in the skins is in the wrong place. The result is the leading edge
profile is OK at the ends where the nose ribs are, but in the middle the
profile is different. If the bend was about 8mm further aft along the
bottom, the skin would fit like a glove.
Has anyone else had this problem? I'm building from a kit.
Regards,
Shay King.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brook" <walruss(at)optushome.com.au> |
Ed,
I've just about got 2 stols flying in 10 months from the time the crate
arrived and about 780 hours so far. They fly like a dream and although the
plans and manual leave a lot to be desired the build time is realistic in my
humble opinion.
Go for a fly in one before you by and take a long hard look at your bank
account and think about how much having a magic carpet like a STOL means to
you. Then remember how good it was to fly the thing, write the cheque and
start buying tools. :-) I've got a bunch of photos (like about 300) of them
that I can burn onto a CDrom of different parts of my build and I can send
you a copy of the photos for a bottle of good canadian whisky.
regards
Mike 2 planes, 2 stols simultaneously what will be flying from go to wo in
under 11 months.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ed
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Why STOL-701?
Hello Jim and List,
The main reason I'm looking seriously at the 701 is the metal construction
as no
hangar space is available where I live.
Other Reasons: Low stall speed
Excellent Short field capabilities and performance
Easily falls within the Advanced UL category
(Canada)
Claims of being a good first time builder's kit
Very few chemicals to work with during
construction
From what I've gathered so far, a good safety
record
Chris Heintz - a proven aircraft designer
Availability of a factory workshop making the
decision
process a little easier
I haven't had a demo in either aircraft. So far I'm basing all my thoughts
on
what I've read and seen so far.
Ed Burton
Jim Fleming wrote:
> Why did you pick a STOL-701?
>
> Jim Fleming
> Charleston, South Carolina
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Merced, CA Fly-in |
Are any Listers going to the Merced, CA Fly-in this weekend?
Randy L. Thwing, 701 plans, Las Vegas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brook" <walruss(at)optushome.com.au> |
| Subject: | Leading edge tanks |
Cy,
I stand corrected. I was thinking about putting a small magnesium
sacrificial anode onto my machine to add protection to galvanic corrosion.
It may not be necessary but it isn't a heavy thing to do. I haven't decided
about that at the moment. If there is any corrosion there the magnesium will
do the corroding for the other materials.
As most people on the list would know the relative concern you should have
about corrosion should be based on how you are going to use it and where you
are going to be storing it. If you are using it in rural environments I
wouldn't worry, but if you are storing in on the edge of a salt water lake
in florida or somewhere I worry a lot.
thanks for the info.
Mike 2 planes
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Cy Galley
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Leading edge tanks
The brass fittings and finger screens on my 1948 Bellanca were screwed in
sometime before April 7, 1948 when it was first licensed. I haven't seen
any galvanic corrosion at these joints and they still aren't leaking today
are bigger more important mountains to climb.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Liming" <gary(at)liming.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 12:20 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Leading edge tanks
>
> >From this materials engineer, I agree. Can you say galvanic corrosion and
>feul leak in flight in the same sentance?
Ok, so what did you do about the brass finger screens screwed into the
aluminum flanges on the gas tanks supplied by ZAC?
I am wrestling with that question right now - who did something different?
Gary Liming, 801, on the wings.
Gary Liming
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Mount treatment |
> I thought I would rub it down (gently of course) with lacquer thinner to
> remove the oily finish, prime it with my favorite brand of primer
(Mar-Hyde
> 5111 single stage, self-etching), and paint it with a light color spray
can
> of Rustoleum enamel.
++ I did just about what you wrote. But, I was advised by my EAA Tecnical
Councilor to have it bead blasted first to remove any welding flash and prep
the metal for the Mar-Hyde self etching primer. If you do bead blast it,
use gloves or something in handling it thereafter. I am told by the paint
people that right after bead blasting is the most perfect "clean" there is,
and if you don't handle it with your fingers, just go right ahead right away
and apply the primer. I did, and it worked perfectly. That primer is really
hard finish and I wound up finishing it with several coats of that alone.
I've done abrasion tests and it seems to be as hard as other spray finishes
you might consider putting over it. Nice looking gray too. Looks good, is
durable, and hard enough to let you do good rubdowns when you clean it up
from time to time in the future.
Fred
Area 41, Snailworks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com> |
| Subject: | Re: proper drilling of bolt holes |
Straight flute reamers from Cleaveland Tool 1-800-368-1822. $8-12 each for
3/16 - 9/16.
Gary K.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Sjl219(at)aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 8:24 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: proper drilling of bolt holes
>
> Dear List, now I want to drill those "perfectly round and tight" bolt
holes
> I've been warned about so the engine mount doesn't fall off the firewall.
>
> I've only had to drill a couple bolt holes so far with this kit, and they
had
> bushings in them so a 3/16 bit on my drill press worked fine.
>
> Apparently, the trick is to drill the hole undersized and ream it up.
I've
> been to local hardware stores and searched Aircraft Spruce Catalog and no
one
> seems to sell a proper reamer. I've been warned that the reamer should
not
> be tapered because that would not give a uniform bolt hole. But if a
reamer
> isn't tapered, then how the heck does it fit into the hole??
>
> Can anyone give me some advice, tell me where to go (to buy the tools I
need,
> of course). This mount from ZAC cost me $516.00 and I can't afford to
screw
> it up. Thanks, stan (701).
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Mandell <tmandell(at)jps.net> |
| Subject: | Retrofitting LE Tanks 601HDS |
Someone told me about using lipstick (or similar stuff) around the top
of the tank neck (without the cap on). My wife thought I was nuts when
I asked for her lipstick! I pulled the LE skin into position where it
made it's final fit (without the tank in place), opened it up, then I
put the tank in with lipstick on the filler neck, pulled the skin down
(I hate those straps!) and it left a respectable mark on the inside of
the skin where I wanted to begin cutting. First I drilled a small hole
and then put the skin down over the tank to see approx. where that was.
The rest is a series of trial fits and adjustments. I also taped close
the fuel tank filler while cutting and filing. They came out great.
Now, regarding the vent tube on the bottom... because the tank fits
differently with the skin clecoed in place than it does when you're
holding it up to the spar and trying to mark a place to drill for the
vent tube, this becomes a tricky proposition! my first one was off
about 2mm to being dead center. Naturally, the second one was better
:-) If you use small holes to spot the location you should do fine.
Hope this helps.
Tom
601 HDS Tri, 912UL 80% done, 51% to go.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Retrofitting LE Tanks 601HDS |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
> I found that the tanks have a tendancy to work their way to the root of the
> wing.... due to the taper on the nose skin. The flush cap then hits the hole
I'm glad to hear this actually, because one of my tanks must be sitting a
tad high inside the le skin right now and so the 'flush cap' isn't quite
flush. I'm hoping that with time and turbulence it will settle in a little
to as nice a fit as the other side.
I have put a safety pin through the bolt on the inside of the 'thermos
bottle' flush cap to ensure there's no way for the squash-nut to ever fall
off into the tank. Are any of you devising a chain of some sort to save
losing the filler cap at the pumps?
--
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
Zodiac 601hds/CAM100
C-GHTF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Royer, Michel" <RoyerM(at)tc.gc.ca> |
| Subject: | Engine Mount treatment |
I suggest you paint it WHITE.
If any cracks develop, very easy to see.
I made this suggestion to the person that made mine
and he now does it on all his mounts, actually he thought
it was a very good idea himself....
Michel Royer
Office (613)998-7812
Mailto:Royerm(at)tc.gc.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: Sjl219(at)aol.com [mailto:Sjl219(at)aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 8:17 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Engine Mount treatment
Dear List, I have a 912 engine mount (new from ZAC) ready for mounting and I
want to "protect" it in a reasonable fashion (no, I don't want to send it
off
to be powder coated).
I thought I would rub it down (gently of course) with lacquer thinner to
remove the oily finish, prime it with my favorite brand of primer (Mar-Hyde
5111 single stage, self-etching), and paint it with a light color spray can
of Rustoleum enamel.
Help keep me out of trouble....is this a "reasonable" approach? Thanks,
stan
(701)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Airplane noise... |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
CAM Engines
I may decide to look seriously at the muffler for the CAM100 as designed by
the dealer in Slovenia. I don't consider the engine noisy with just the
tuned exhaust header as supplied... but given the growing sensitivity (see
AVWEB article below ..)
Which I find ridiculous. The most consistantly irritating source of noise
here where I live is LAWNMOWERS, WEED WACKERS, and CHAIN SAWS!!! Some days
it seems I'm surrounded by gardening contractors seeking to drive me nuts,
hired by neighbours who would really rather live on a golf course! I read
somewhere about the amount of pollution and fuel wasted each year just by
lawnmowers - it was incredible!
I have to drive to the airport to find some peace and quiet - I'm NOT
joking!
Anyhow -- fyi regarding mufflers, etc...
--
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
Zodiac 601hds/CAM100
C-GHTF
---------------
...AS GROUPS GO PUBLIC ON THE WEB...
Things aren't getting easier for pilots. Anti-noise activists are
taking their pleas to a global audience on the Internet, and there are
plenty of Web sites to choose from. The "Airport Noise Report" offers a
weekly newsletter; the "Noise Pollution Clearinghouse" has an "Aviation
Noise" page that offers links to grass-roots "Airport Noise Groups"
categorized by state on a point-and-click map. Trust us, the list goes
on. For pilots, the best defense may be to offer no offense at all, and
toward that end, you may want to review Boeing's list of 297 U.S.
airports that operate with some form of noise regulation. The features
of the listing include written noise-abatement procedures, airport
diagrams and area maps that pinpoint the exact location of noise-
monitoring devices.
...TO WAGE WAR ON SMALL PLANES...
One of many, a group called Stop The Noise, has a homepage for those
living near Bedford, Mass. -- or anywhere else in the nation -- who find
their lifestyle compromised by noisy aircraft flying above their
property. This particular group focuses its angst on aerobatic training
flights emanating from Hanscom Field. Hanscom is home to 1995 National
Aerobatic Champion, veteran member of the U.S. World Aerobatic Team and
active airshow performer Michael Goulian and his flight school. Some
would think his presence would be the source of local pride, but to each
his own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Retrofitting LE Tanks 601HDS |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
This kind of thing could ruin your whole day!
Grant
------------------------
A reverse-wired stick on a Lufthansa Airbus A320 nearly resulted in a crash
last week. The aircraft dipped to a 21-degree left bank immediately after
takeoff from Frankfurt, before the co-pilot switched his sidestick to
priority and was able to recover the aircraft. Review of the aircraft's
flight data recorder showed that its left wing missed the ground by less
than two feet. The crew said they had performed all appropriate preflight
checks and did not discover any irregularities. After climbing to altitude,
in-flight checks confirmed the reversal problem and the aircraft returned to
Frankfurt. Maintenance had been performed on the captain's controls prior to
the flight...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: proper drilling of bolt holes |
In a message dated 5/31/01 7:34:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rich(at)carol.net
writes:
<< Try http://www.mscdirect.com
If it's in stock you should get in in 3 days... no extra charge. They
have a daily route from their main warehouse. >>
What parts or tool kit is this? Part #? I'm also getting ready to order
chucking reamers etc for the wing splice plate job and also ready to do the
firewall / engine mount / longeron work.
Thanks,
Chris
601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rwilbers1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: proper drilling of bolt holes |
Dear Stan:
A machine reamer has a 45 degree bevel on each land that will be
approximately .040" wide. This allows the reamer to pick up the drilled hole,
center the reamer to the drilled hole, then reams to size. The proper
undersize dimension of the drill prior to reaming should be about .012" to
.015".
Regards.....Dick (601HDS on wheels)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Ivers" <jivers(at)microtech.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: hds tailwheel |
Hi Phil,
as far as I know, the only documentation for the TDO is half a dozen pages
of mainly drawings, with a few brief notes on the first page. You just have
to figure it out from that, I'm afraid!
JIm Ivers, 601HD TDO (plans)
-----Original Message-----
From: PHIL_PFOERTNER(at)udlp.com <PHIL_PFOERTNER(at)udlp.com>
Date: Thursday, 31 May 2001 4:04
Subject: Zenith-List: hds tailwheel
>
>I'm starting the center section on my hds and have all of the parts for the
TDO
>from ZA but the building sequence documentation falls apart at this point.
Any
>suggestion on which drawings and manuals to look ant for a 601hds
taildragger at
>this point?
>
>Wings and tail complete.
>
>Thanks
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <zodiac.builder(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wt. and Balance and Nose Gear bungee |
Bill Steer wrote on 5/30/01 10:09 am:
>--> Zenith-List message
>posted by: "Bill Steer"
>
>
>Yep, it's on page 205 of my
>1998/99 ACS catalog. $19.95
>each.
Wicks Aircraft Suplly has them in their catalogue. I believe they go for about
$13.99.
Good luck,
John W. Tarabocchia
601HDS Web site: http://hometown.aol.com/zodiacbuilder/Home.html
Airframe 100% Complete...
Tearing Down 0-200
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: proper drilling of bolt holes |
| From: | Jim <jashford(at)hawaii.rr.com> |
Stan,
Go to any well equipped hardware store and buy a "step drill". Woks like a
charm in aluminum and makes perfect round holes.
Jim Ashford
912 601 HDS
> From: Sjl219(at)aol.com
> Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 20:24:57 EDT
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: proper drilling of bolt holes
>
>
> Dear List, now I want to drill those "perfectly round and tight" bolt holes
> I've been warned about so the engine mount doesn't fall off the firewall.
>
> I've only had to drill a couple bolt holes so far with this kit, and they had
> bushings in them so a 3/16 bit on my drill press worked fine.
>
> Apparently, the trick is to drill the hole undersized and ream it up. I've
> been to local hardware stores and searched Aircraft Spruce Catalog and no one
> seems to sell a proper reamer. I've been warned that the reamer should not
> be tapered because that would not give a uniform bolt hole. But if a reamer
> isn't tapered, then how the heck does it fit into the hole??
>
> Can anyone give me some advice, tell me where to go (to buy the tools I need,
> of course). This mount from ZAC cost me $516.00 and I can't afford to screw
> it up. Thanks, stan (701).
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org> |
| Subject: | Re: proper drilling of bolt holes |
>
>Stan,
>
>Go to any well equipped hardware store and buy a "step drill". Woks like a
>charm in aluminum and makes perfect round holes.
Brand name for these is "Unibit" and HarborFrieght Tools has them
cheapest. They come in three different sizes, depending on how big you
want to get.
Gary Liming
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Meiste's" <meiste(at)essex1.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hello from a new List Member |
> I narrowed my choices to three, Challenger, the Murphy Rebel and the
CH-701
Hi Ed,
Sorry about being late with this but my PC has been down the past day or so.
Anyway here's my story ... I built a Challenger II about six years ago and
have put about 250 hours on it since then. It's a great (and safe) little
plane and I really love it. But like all planes it has it's strengths, and
weaknesses. I think it's main bad points are a very nasty adverse yaw. For
the longest time I didn't even know what this was cause the CH II was the
only plane I had ever flown. But for normal pilots this plane is very
intimidating to fly, especially in the winter with the doors on! It's not
unusual to fly using full stick and full rudder (at the same time). But like
I said, I didn't know this was unusual cause it's all I've ever flown so it
didn't bother me.
It's other bad trait is trying to fly the darn thing from 10 AM to 5 PM.
It's almost impossible! The thermals will beat you, and the plane to death
(lots of full stick & rudder again)!
But all said it's a very safe plane if built, & maintained properly. And the
performance is good also. Flying solo I can touch 100 MPH & yet keep
altitude at only 30 MPH with my Rotax 503.
I'm sure you would find the 701 a much nicer plane, but it's like comparing
the 601 to an RV. You get more ... but you pay more.
And by the way in case your wondering ... I'm building a 601 HD (the CH II
is for sale if your interested)
Kelly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Cajun" <sam.caj(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rudder pedals |
Also, if you have yet to tackle this little chore, consider
carefully the order in which you do things.
1. size the block of nylon (if not already done by ZAC)
2. drill your three bolt holes
3. cut the block in half
4. bolt the two halves back together
5. drill your rudder tubing holes
fine adjustment of the fit can be made by either removing a
little material from the mating faces if the fit is a bit sloppy
or as Mr. Raker did, add shims, if the fit is tight.
Sam (701, wish I was as fast as Michael)
> I had the exact same problem that you describe with the
nylon
> block being too tight to allow free turning of the rudder pedal
> tubes. That's because when you make the saw cut in that block
(to
> make the 2 half-blocks that you're bolting together around the
> tubes), you remove material equal to a bit more than the
thickness of
> the saw blade.
> To remedy this situation, I added washers around the 3
bolts
> that hold the whole assembly together. I think it took two
washers
> on each bolt (between the half-blocks) to take up enough space
and
> allow the rudder pedals to move freely. Try it. I think
you'll find
> this works quite well.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "patrick walsh" <pwalsh4539(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | new pre-flight item |
Well, my 601 has been sitting for about a week now...in my hangar. Went
in there the other day for a tool...and out of the saddle (in front of the rudder)...comes
a nice swarm of crazed wasps!!!!!.....
After taking care of that little problem...I realized they can easily get into
the cabin from the rear fuselage....so at least in the spring and
summer.....I think I will preflight the fuselage via seat removal and flashlight.
A swarm of wasps in the cabin during flight just doesn't sound like a good
day!!!!
Just thought I would share that thought....
.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Fleming <jfleming(at)cofc.edu> |
| Subject: | Challenger II and Zenith 701? |
Kelly,
Thanks for the input on the Challenger II and Zenith 701...
I am preparing to solo in the Challenger II Long wing and have not
experienced the adverse yaw you speak about due to a great modification to
the stabilizer fins while flying with the doors on - see
http://challenger.inebraska.com/abarnard.htm, perhaps you will want to keep
the plane!
I'm leaning towards the Zenith 701 because it seems to have great STOL
abilities and a solid company behind you. What do do think of drawings and
manual for the 601 HD? What engine?
Jim
James B. Fleming
1102-A Berkeley Street
Charleston, South Carolina 29406
----- Original Message -----
From: "The Meiste's" <meiste(at)essex1.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hello from a new List Member
>
>
> > I narrowed my choices to three, Challenger, the Murphy Rebel and the
> CH-701
>
>
> Hi Ed,
> Sorry about being late with this but my PC has been down the past day or
so.
> Anyway here's my story ... I built a Challenger II about six years ago and
> have put about 250 hours on it since then. It's a great (and safe) little
> plane and I really love it. But like all planes it has it's strengths, and
> weaknesses. I think it's main bad points are a very nasty adverse yaw. For
> the longest time I didn't even know what this was cause the CH II was the
> only plane I had ever flown. But for normal pilots this plane is very
> intimidating to fly, especially in the winter with the doors on! It's not
> unusual to fly using full stick and full rudder (at the same time). But
like
> I said, I didn't know this was unusual cause it's all I've ever flown so
it
> didn't bother me.
> It's other bad trait is trying to fly the darn thing from 10 AM to 5 PM.
> It's almost impossible! The thermals will beat you, and the plane to death
> (lots of full stick & rudder again)!
> But all said it's a very safe plane if built, & maintained properly. And
the
> performance is good also. Flying solo I can touch 100 MPH & yet keep
> altitude at only 30 MPH with my Rotax 503.
> I'm sure you would find the 701 a much nicer plane, but it's like
comparing
> the 601 to an RV. You get more ... but you pay more.
> And by the way in case your wondering ... I'm building a 601 HD (the CH II
> is for sale if your interested)
>
> Kelly
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: proper drilling of bolt holes |
Once again, thanks to all for the addresses and advice.
Gary, I BOUGHT a unibit so I could drill those holes in the firewall for
throttle, primer, electrics, fuel. There must be some trick to using it
because all the holes came out really crummy. I had to file them down and
shove grommets into them to hide the mess. The unibit seems to work
perfectly on a drill press but in a handheld drill, I guess I couldn't
control it. I practiced on aluminum ok; maybe it's not supposed to be used
on galvanized sheet metal????? Yes, I backed it with plywood. stan.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rudder pedals |
Yes, you're absolutely correct, Sam. The preferred method would
be just as you describe, and scratch builders would have that
option. The 601 kit supplies a block with the large holes (for the
rudder pedal tubes) already drilled. We kit builders are forced to
scratch-build that part or saw and shim. Being lazy and not having
easy access to the appropriate plastic material, I chose the latter
route.
Phil Raker; HDS/Stratus, mounting empennage and connecting controls
(I also wish I was as fast as Michael!)
Also, if you have yet to tackle this little chore, consider
carefully the order in which you do things.
1. size the block of nylon (if not already done by ZAC)
2. drill your three bolt holes
3. cut the block in half
4. bolt the two halves back together
5. drill your rudder tubing holes
fine adjustment of the fit can be made by either removing a
little material from the mating faces if the fit is a bit sloppy
or as Mr. Raker did, add shims, if the fit is tight.
Sam (701, wish I was as fast as Michael)
> I had the exact same problem that you describe with the
nylon
> block being too tight to allow free turning of the rudder pedal
> tubes. That's because when you make the saw cut in that block
(to
> make the 2 half-blocks that you're bolting together around the
> tubes), you remove material equal to a bit more than the
thickness of
> the saw blade.
> To remedy this situation, I added washers around the 3
bolts
> that hold the whole assembly together. I think it took two
washers
> on each bolt (between the half-blocks) to take up enough space
and
> allow the rudder pedals to move freely. Try it. I think
you'll find
> this works quite well.
A proud member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
aopa.net
The official e-mail service of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
Visit AOPA Online at http://www.aopa.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Walker" <dwalk3dw(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: hds tailwheel |
Phil, Unless there have been big modifications the two are essentially the same.(TDO
and NG) Proceed with the centerwing like plans call for on the tricycle,
deleting anything on the nosewheel. Don Walker HDS TDO
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Ivers
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: hds tailwheel
Hi Phil,
as far as I know, the only documentation for the TDO is half a dozen pages
of mainly drawings, with a few brief notes on the first page. You just have
to figure it out from that, I'm afraid!
JIm Ivers, 601HD TDO (plans)
-----Original Message-----
From: PHIL_PFOERTNER(at)udlp.com <PHIL_PFOERTNER(at)udlp.com>
Date: Thursday, 31 May 2001 4:04
Subject: Zenith-List: hds tailwheel
>
>I'm starting the center section on my hds and have all of the parts for
the
TDO
>from ZA but the building sequence documentation falls apart at this point.
Any
>suggestion on which drawings and manuals to look ant for a 601hds
taildragger at
>this point?
>
>Wings and tail complete.
>
>Thanks
>
>
=
=
=
=
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RUSSELL JOHNSON" <entec1(at)pld.com> |
| Subject: | Facet pumps for leading edge tanks |
When mounting the Facet pumps for the leading edge tanks in the outer center
wing bay , what have some of you used for mounting brackets.
Really don't like the idea of mounting to the lower wing skin, but reluctant
to drill holes in the wing spar web. Should soft mounts be used to isolate
the vibration of the pump?
Russell J. / 601-HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Facet pumps for leading edge tanks |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
on 1/6/01 10:52 AM, RUSSELL JOHNSON at entec1(at)pld.com wrote:
>
> When mounting the Facet pumps for the leading edge tanks in the outer center
> wing bay , what have some of you used for mounting brackets.
>
> Really don't like the idea of mounting to the lower wing skin, but reluctant
> to drill holes in the wing spar web. Should soft mounts be used to isolate
> the vibration of the pump?
>
> Russell J. / 601-HDS
Russel,
I made an angled braket that points the pump at an angle up towards the wing
lightening hole (ala Facet recommendation). I may make it out of stiffer
material and remove the rubber grommets because now, especially when the
pump draws some air and cavitates, it transfers the vibrations into the fuel
line. I think this must be 'a bad thing'...
The pumps are MUCH quieter once completely full of fuel. Personally I've
decided that the noise they make as the tank approaches empty will be a good
'Get your butt on the ground' warning device!
--
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
Zodiac 601hds/CAM100
C-GHTF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Steer" <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Facet pumps for leading edge tanks |
I made up brackets from "L" angle that sit between the two outboard ribs.
That way, the fuel line attached to the outlet of the pump can be supported
by anchoring it to other "L" angles riveted to the more inboard ribs.
I know Thilo used a plastic electrical box that he riveted to the outside of
the most outboard rib, and then attached the pump to that plastic box. The
wiring for the pump goes through a small PVC tube that's also anchored to
the ribs.
Hope this helps.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "RUSSELL JOHNSON" <entec1(at)pld.com>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 10:52 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Facet pumps for leading edge tanks
>
> When mounting the Facet pumps for the leading edge tanks in the outer
center
> wing bay , what have some of you used for mounting brackets.
>
> Really don't like the idea of mounting to the lower wing skin, but
reluctant
> to drill holes in the wing spar web. Should soft mounts be used to isolate
> the vibration of the pump?
>
> Russell J. / 601-HDS
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Facet pumps for leading edge tanks |
I bolted mine thru the lower wing skin using large head flat alu screws.
They are very low profile and can't be seen.
Glad to see you are putting the pumps in the hydraulically correct place,
i.e close to the source of the fuel.... but please lets not open that can of
worms again!
There is not much room in the center wing bay, if like me you put a fuel
filter at the discharge of each pump....I had to move my pumps so I have
four of those screws in my lower wing skin!
I used a 3/8ths suction line from tank to pump, 90 degree 3/8ths to 1/8th
elbow (hardware store) into the fuel pump, 2" flex hose pump to filter. 90
degree discharge from filter to 1/4" flex hose. Note that I brought the
filter discharge out to the wing joint space so I could replace the filter
by removing the wing cover. 1/4" Flex hose to alu fuel pipe run to inside
cockpit (theres is Just engough space between the vertical 'L' and the
center wing spar to get the alu line through). Run alu lines in front of
spar to canter of cocpit, under rudder cables. Non return (check) valves to
the gascolator.....then run forward (under rudder cables) out to the engine.
So on the suction side of the pump I used 3/8ths flex hose and 1/4" on the
discharge side.
Personally i would not bolt to the wing spar even thogh I did pass my brake
lines through the spar (drill the hole in exactly the middle of the spar and
debur/polish the hole).
Hope this helps
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: RUSSELL JOHNSON [mailto:entec1(at)pld.com]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 7:53 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Facet pumps for leading edge tanks
When mounting the Facet pumps for the leading edge tanks in the outer center
wing bay , what have some of you used for mounting brackets.
Really don't like the idea of mounting to the lower wing skin, but reluctant
to drill holes in the wing spar web. Should soft mounts be used to isolate
the vibration of the pump?
Russell J. / 601-HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Facet pumps for leading edge tanks |
You won't hear the pumps when flying, empty or full.
I personally would not purposely soft mount the pumps, but if you do make
sure you have flex hose connections to the pump and make sure your metal
lines are securely anchored...i.e. make sure your flex lines do indeed flex.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Corriveau [mailto:gfcorriv(at)total.net]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Facet pumps for leading edge tanks
on 1/6/01 10:52 AM, RUSSELL JOHNSON at entec1(at)pld.com wrote:
>
> When mounting the Facet pumps for the leading edge tanks in the outer
center
> wing bay , what have some of you used for mounting brackets.
>
> Really don't like the idea of mounting to the lower wing skin, but
reluctant
> to drill holes in the wing spar web. Should soft mounts be used to isolate
> the vibration of the pump?
>
> Russell J. / 601-HDS
Russel,
I made an angled braket that points the pump at an angle up towards the wing
lightening hole (ala Facet recommendation). I may make it out of stiffer
material and remove the rubber grommets because now, especially when the
pump draws some air and cavitates, it transfers the vibrations into the fuel
line. I think this must be 'a bad thing'...
The pumps are MUCH quieter once completely full of fuel. Personally I've
decided that the noise they make as the tank approaches empty will be a good
'Get your butt on the ground' warning device!
--
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
Zodiac 601hds/CAM100
C-GHTF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Facet pumps for leading edge tanks |
Oh yes I forgot to mention (especially if you do not angle the pumps
upwards, like I did'nt) make sure your fuel line goes UPWARDS sometime soon
after it exits the pump, .e make sure you fuel pump is not the high point of
the system where it may collect air.
As my filter is directly after the pump (and the angled outlet faces
upwards) this essentially does the same thing.
Planning the fuel install was one of the most fun parts of the whole project
for me.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Steer [mailto:bsteer(at)gwi.net]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Facet pumps for leading edge tanks
I made up brackets from "L" angle that sit between the two outboard ribs.
That way, the fuel line attached to the outlet of the pump can be supported
by anchoring it to other "L" angles riveted to the more inboard ribs.
I know Thilo used a plastic electrical box that he riveted to the outside of
the most outboard rib, and then attached the pump to that plastic box. The
wiring for the pump goes through a small PVC tube that's also anchored to
the ribs.
Hope this helps.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "RUSSELL JOHNSON" <entec1(at)pld.com>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 10:52 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Facet pumps for leading edge tanks
>
> When mounting the Facet pumps for the leading edge tanks in the outer
center
> wing bay , what have some of you used for mounting brackets.
>
> Really don't like the idea of mounting to the lower wing skin, but
reluctant
> to drill holes in the wing spar web. Should soft mounts be used to isolate
> the vibration of the pump?
>
> Russell J. / 601-HDS
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: hds tailwheel |
CAUTION! The center section of the wing is NOT the same for TD & Tri-
gear. The main landing gear is mounted in a different location in
the center wing. The tri is in the middle (aft of the main spar),
the TD is at the leading edge (forward of the main spar). Make sure
you have the correct drawings before starting. If all else fails,
check with Nick.
PHR
HDS(tri)
---- Begin Original Message ----
Phil, Unless there have been big modifications the two are
essentially the same.(TDO and NG) Proceed with the centerwing like
plans call for on the tricycle, deleting anything on the nosewheel.
Don Walker HDS TDO
A proud member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
aopa.net
The official e-mail service of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
Visit AOPA Online at http://www.aopa.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Meiste's" <meiste(at)essex1.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Challenger II and Zenith 701? |
> I am preparing to solo in the Challenger II Long wing and have not
> experienced the adverse yaw you speak about due to a great modification to
> the stabilizer fins while flying with the doors on - see
> http://challenger.inebraska.com/abarnard.htm,
Yup mine has this mod also, matter of fact another CH !! pilot & myself
designed the windshield VG's that also will help greatly when you put the
doors on. But as you mentioned the long wing version is not as bad as the
clipped wing CH II.
> I'm leaning towards the Zenith 701 because it seems to have great STOL
> abilities and a solid company behind you.
I agree ... good choice!
What do do think of drawings and manual for the 601 HD?
At first I thought they were the worst things I've ever seen (being a
draftsman by trade). But after MUCH studying most all the info is there, you
just have to dig to find it.
What engine?
Mine has the Status EA-81 (nice!), and the right engine for the HD " in my
opinion ".
Good luck!
Kelly
601 HD 90% complete, & you know the rest.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Merrill <lagom(at)earthlink.net> |
Hello list!
I'm a newbee to this list, but I have been reading for a while. I have yet to make
the plunge and get the plans for the 601HD. I am going to scratch build. Of
course there are still many questions to get answers for. I would like to ask
if there is anyone on the list who has done anything else besides the bubble
canopy? I was hoping that someone had done a fixed windshields and a slide
canopy like the RV-9. If someone has, I would like info and comments from the
rest.
Happy building
Merrill
Mt. Dora, fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SHenry2029(at)aol.com |
Hello
I have just purchased the rudder and will attend the workshop in June. I too would
like the fixed shield with a sliding canopy. So, No I have not heard anything
yet but I will keep alert and if you here anything let me know. I ultimately
would like to put the 601 HD on amphibs and know that float planes occasionally
hit submerged objects and flip over. The one peace canopy does not give you
the option of exiting the aircraft if turned turtle. The sliding canopy would
allow your pre landing checklist to include unlocking canopy and sliding back.
Also, The option of open cockpit flying whenever you want is wonderful. Remember
the Ercoupe and even the new Searey amphibian.
Shenry2029(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brook" <walruss(at)optushome.com.au> |
Has anyone heard of a mechanical pump on a rotax 912 failing in flight? I'd
be interested to know as at the moment I'm going thinking about the feul
system.
MIke 2 planes, 770 both engines are in and I'm going to start the wiring
this week.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Fuel Tank Filler Neck Sealing |
A few days ago someone asked about how to seal around the filler necks on
the fuel tanks,
I made press fit fairings for my filler necks to seal them and photos can be
seen at my web site http://homepages.together.net/~billvt/
Any questions, send me an e-mail from the site.
Regards,
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
Mike;
Yes. I had one fail in flight. The booster took over.
Mike
UHS Spinners
Michael Brook wrote:
>
>
> Has anyone heard of a mechanical pump on a rotax 912 failing in flight? I'd
> be interested to know as at the moment I'm going thinking about the feul
> system.
>
> MIke 2 planes, 770 both engines are in and I'm going to start the wiring
> this week.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 6/1/01 5:02:57 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
lagom(at)earthlink.net writes:
> I was hoping that someone had done a fixed windshields and a slide canopy
> like the RV-9. If someone has, I would like info and comments from the
> rest.
>
Marshall Allan in Phoenix AZ made a good slide. Heavy but functional. you
can see it on my web site. www.tempe-embroidery.com/zodiac
Steve Freeman
601 hds
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Norris <rnorris4(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: tail light wiring |
18ga should be fine.
Mark Sandidge wrote:
> I am in the process of installing the rudder light. Would like to run wire
> before closing rear fuse. What wire size should I use? Have not studied
> Electric Bob's book enough yet. Guess I better get with it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: hds tailwheel |
I would like to add that those drawings are free of
charge. Nick sent them to me before I decided to go
with the nose wheel.
--- phadr2(at)aopa.net wrote:
>
> CAUTION! The center section of the wing is NOT the
> same for TD & Tri-
> gear. The main landing gear is mounted in a
> different location in
> the center wing. The tri is in the middle (aft of
> the main spar),
> the TD is at the leading edge (forward of the main
> spar). Make sure
> you have the correct drawings before starting. If
> all else fails,
> check with Nick.
>
> PHR
> HDS(tri)
>
> ---- Begin Original Message ----
>
>
>
> Phil, Unless there have been big modifications the
> two are
> essentially the same.(TDO and NG) Proceed with the
> centerwing like
> plans call for on the tricycle, deleting anything on
> the nosewheel.
> Don Walker HDS TDO
>
>
> A proud member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
> Association.
> aopa.net
> The official e-mail service of the Aircraft Owners
> and Pilots Association.
> Visit AOPA Online at http://www.aopa.org
>
>
>
> through
>
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
> Matronics!
>
>
>
>
>
=====
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
http://www.pcperfect.com/mthobby/ch601
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Steer" <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | Turnbuckles - 601HD |
For those of you who have used turnbuckles instead of ZAC's angle fittings
6V14-4, where did you place them? I have control cables with a fork swaged
on one end and plan to attach that swaged end to the horns on the control
surfaces. I'd like to attach the other end of the cable to the stick and
rudder pedals with turnbuckles, but the fork end of the turnbuckle isn't
deep enough to allow free movement with the 10mm radius at the attachment
points. I can cut the number of nicopress fittings in half if I can attach
the turnbuckles to the control.
Thanks for any help.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Meiste's" <meiste(at)essex1.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Turnbuckles - 601HD |
Bill,
Installed my T-buckles on my HD at the tail.
The ones for the rudder are on the outside of the plane just in front of the
rudder horn.
And my elev has them installed at the top & bottom horns also.
Keep in mine my plane is not flying yet, but I don't foresee any problems
with this setup.
Kelly
601 HD
> For those of you who have used turnbuckles instead of ZAC's angle fittings
> 6V14-4, where did you place them
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Golovich" <john(at)golovich.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tail light wiring |
What is Electric Bob's book? Would it help me with the electric on a 801?
From the instructions on an 801 it says I will need two wires (ground and a
power). The subkit comes with one cable. Is this a mistake or am I
confused?
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norris" <rnorris4(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: tail light wiring
>
> 18ga should be fine.
>
> Mark Sandidge wrote:
>
> > I am in the process of installing the rudder light. Would like to run
wire
> > before closing rear fuse. What wire size should I use? Have not studied
> > Electric Bob's book enough yet. Guess I better get with it.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org> |
| Subject: | Re: tail light wiring |
>
>What is Electric Bob's book? Would it help me with the electric on a 801?
>
> >From the instructions on an 801 it says I will need two wires (ground and a
>power). The subkit comes with one cable. Is this a mistake or am I
>confused?
I believe there is more than one wire in the cable from the subkit.
Gary Liming
>John
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Norris" <rnorris4(at)earthlink.net>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 10:56 PM
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: tail light wiring
>
>
> >
> > 18ga should be fine.
> >
> > Mark Sandidge wrote:
> >
> > > I am in the process of installing the rudder light. Would like to run
>wire
> > > before closing rear fuse. What wire size should I use? Have not studied
> > > Electric Bob's book enough yet. Guess I better get with it.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Austin" <daveaustin2(at)sprint.ca> |
| Subject: | Fuel supply design |
Just to throw a little spice in here, I used the parallel feed approach from
the gascolator to the carbs.
Dave Austin 601HDS
To slip the surly bonds of earth and dance the sky on laughter-silver'd
wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Radiator for Subaru Installs. |
I've been working on the Subaru EA81 engine along with the FWF Kit from
Zenith.
It appears to be a thrown together solution for all the radiator hoses
and such. Has anybody thought of or accomplished going with a different
pressure bottle / radiator to limit the number of different size hoses
required? Currently we have three different sizes needed - ~30mm for the
radiator, ~33mm for the engine pump hook up, 1" for the secondary engine
hookup and 1" for the pressure bottle. Seems like it would make sense
just to have all the openings at ~33m with the possible exception of 1"
for the secondary hook up or to reverse it and make everything 1" except
for the pump and to a conversion on just that connector.
I'm going to get in touch with a couple of recommended radiator shops on
Monday, but was curious if any one else had a solution or comments.
Regards,
Don Honabach
Tempe, AZ
601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rwilbers1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: tail light wiring |
How do we get "Electric Bob's " book? Is this available on line?
Thanks ..... Dick 601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi List,
I hope this question isn't too basic, but.....
How tight do you tighten castle nuts? Do you thread them just past the hole
drilled for the cotter pin? Or do you lightly snug them (or tight) up
against the surface they mate to?
I know this is basic but I can't find anything written about it, and I
unfortunately don't have a mentor.....(Tom Decker where did you go!?!)
Thanks guys,
Steve Freeman
6-3737 601 HDS (Working on details in fuselage area.......Main structure
complete.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: aeroelectric connection |
> How do we get "Electric Bob's " book? Is this available on line?
> Thanks ..... Dick 601HDS
His webb site is www.aeroelectric.com
The AeroElectric Connection
6936 Bainbridge Road
Wichita, KS 67226-1008
Fax/Phone: 316-685-8617
E-Mail nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim and Lucy <jpollard(at)mnsi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: tail light wiring |
>
>How do we get "Electric Bob's " book? Is this available on line?
>Thanks ..... Dick 601HDS
He has a website
http://www.aeroelectric.com
Bob is also on the matronics AeroElectric-List list
if you have any questions
Jim Pollard
Merlin Ont
zenair 601 hds
ea 81
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Radiator for Subaru Installs. |
Don,
Also you will see 3/4" heater line on 5/8" connectors on your thermostat
if you have a stratus. I went to AutoZone and they let me explore their
hoses till I got correct combo. By the way I had to move my radiator to
under my rear spar to keep heat within tolerances. This 48" rearward move
with aluminum pipe was easy and reduced my temps by 30 degrees and helped my
cg. Also as you will find in archives you must brace the upper shelf if you
have a trike.
Chuck
2408S
43 Hours and almost done with mods, getting ready to paint
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 7:59 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Radiator for Subaru Installs.
>
> I've been working on the Subaru EA81 engine along with the FWF Kit from
> Zenith.
>
> It appears to be a thrown together solution for all the radiator hoses
> and such. Has anybody thought of or accomplished going with a different
> pressure bottle / radiator to limit the number of different size hoses
> required? Currently we have three different sizes needed - ~30mm for the
> radiator, ~33mm for the engine pump hook up, 1" for the secondary engine
> hookup and 1" for the pressure bottle. Seems like it would make sense
> just to have all the openings at ~33m with the possible exception of 1"
> for the secondary hook up or to reverse it and make everything 1" except
> for the pump and to a conversion on just that connector.
>
> I'm going to get in touch with a couple of recommended radiator shops on
> Monday, but was curious if any one else had a solution or comments.
>
> Regards,
> Don Honabach
> Tempe, AZ
> 601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Bracing upper shelf???? |
In a message dated 6/2/01 9:47:44 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
2408s@cox-internet.com writes:
> Also as you will find in archives you must brace the upper shelf if you
> have a trike.
>
How did you brace your upper shelf? I have to remake mine because of a
dumbass mistake I made, so now would probably be the best time to do it.
Thanks,
Steve Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Challenger II and Zenith 701? |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
on 1/6/01 6:58 PM, The Meiste's at meiste(at)essex1.com wrote:
...
> What do do think of drawings and manual for the 601 HD?
FYI - update from Zenair:
The 4th edition of the ZODIAC CH 601 HD Drawings and Manuals has now been
released. This latest edition of the drawings has all been drawn on AutoCAD
for maximum clarity.
Supplied with the complete ZODIAC kit, the drawings are not just assembly
instructions (as with most kits), but are detailed 11" x 17" CAD blueprints
of the entire airframe assembly, and come with an assembly manual. Supplied
with a serial number, you can actually build your own aircraft from
"scratch" following the drawings and manuals.
Many builders start their project with the drawing and manuals to get a
thorough understanding of the aircraft design and its construction. If
purchased separately, the cost of the drawings and manuals is deductible off
the cost of the full kit.
Preview the new ZODIAC CH 601 HD drawings at
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/drawings.html
Preview the new ZODIAC XL drawing at:
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/drawings.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Kay <skay(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radiator for Subaru Installs. |
Don, an RV-9 buddy of mine got an Eggenfellnner Subaru and FWF Kit and was
amazed at how well thought out it was. I know he offers one for the 801. You
might want to look into it.
Don Honabach wrote:
>
> I've been working on the Subaru EA81 engine along with the FWF Kit from
> Zenith.
>
> It appears to be a thrown together solution for all the radiator hoses
> and such. Has anybody thought of or accomplished going with a different
> pressure bottle / radiator to limit the number of different size hoses
> required? Currently we have three different sizes needed - ~30mm for the
> radiator, ~33mm for the engine pump hook up, 1" for the secondary engine
> hookup and 1" for the pressure bottle. Seems like it would make sense
> just to have all the openings at ~33m with the possible exception of 1"
> for the secondary hook up or to reverse it and make everything 1" except
> for the pump and to a conversion on just that connector.
>
> I'm going to get in touch with a couple of recommended radiator shops on
> Monday, but was curious if any one else had a solution or comments.
>
> Regards,
> Don Honabach
> Tempe, AZ
> 601HDS
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Benford2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith-List Digest: 18 Msgs - 06/02/01 |
John, About the wire for the rear light. You need to run a seperate conductor
for the light. The wire that comes with the kit is for the elevator trim and
is a multiconductor cable. Don't forget to install the wire and grommets in
the two rear bulkheads before riveting on the top skin of the rear fuselage.
I am running a seperate ground wire to all lights,senders, etc but the
airframe will work for a ok ground Ben Haas N801BH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radiator for Subaru Installs. |
I went to NAPA and they let me go in back and pick thru all the preformed
hoses. I was able to find just the right sizes and bends and they also have
plastic elbows and straight couplers for heater hoses. I also made some
aluminum tubing with beaded ends and 1/8 NPT fittings welded on for coolant
pressure and temp. I think I'll make another to go from the 1" to the 30
(33?) mm water pump inlet. A lot of little pieces but it's coming out nice.
Egenfelner welds on new ends to the Cadillac evaporator cores to match the
sizes. You've got a good point, a lot of different sizes and it could be
done better. An adapter for the odd water pump inlet would be the most
helpful. In my picking thru NAPA hoses, I found some premolded hoses that
stepped between sizes and that helps too. All good fun though.
Gary K.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Kay <skay(at)optonline.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Radiator for Subaru Installs.
>
> Don, an RV-9 buddy of mine got an Eggenfellnner Subaru and FWF Kit and was
> amazed at how well thought out it was. I know he offers one for the 801.
You
> might want to look into it.
>
> Don Honabach wrote:
>
> >
> > I've been working on the Subaru EA81 engine along with the FWF Kit from
> > Zenith.
> >
> > It appears to be a thrown together solution for all the radiator hoses
> > and such. Has anybody thought of or accomplished going with a different
> > pressure bottle / radiator to limit the number of different size hoses
> > required? Currently we have three different sizes needed - ~30mm for the
> > radiator, ~33mm for the engine pump hook up, 1" for the secondary engine
> > hookup and 1" for the pressure bottle. Seems like it would make sense
> > just to have all the openings at ~33m with the possible exception of 1"
> > for the secondary hook up or to reverse it and make everything 1" except
> > for the pump and to a conversion on just that connector.
> >
> > I'm going to get in touch with a couple of recommended radiator shops on
> > Monday, but was curious if any one else had a solution or comments.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Don Honabach
> > Tempe, AZ
> > 601HDS
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)oregonfast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Turnbuckles - 601HD |
I put my T-buckles on the rudder pedals and the control arm for the elevator
right behind the seat. They should not need to be adjusted much after the
first few hours. I just couldn't bring myself to accept Angles and Bolts as
turnbuckles.
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: "The Meiste's" <meiste(at)essex1.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Turnbuckles - 601HD
>
> Bill,
> Installed my T-buckles on my HD at the tail.
> The ones for the rudder are on the outside of the plane just in front of
the
> rudder horn.
> And my elev has them installed at the top & bottom horns also.
> Keep in mine my plane is not flying yet, but I don't foresee any problems
> with this setup.
>
> Kelly
> 601 HD
>
> > For those of you who have used turnbuckles instead of ZAC's angle
fittings
> > 6V14-4, where did you place them
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bracing upper shelf???? |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
on 3/6/01 1:59 AM, STEFREE(at)aol.com at STEFREE(at)aol.com wrote:
> How did you brace your upper shelf?
> Steve Freeman
Steve,
Check with Nick Heintz - there is a new drawing for the XL firewall that
takes advantage of the fact that the fuel tank is no longer behind the
instrument panel to make a stiffer set-up. As well it shows how to brace the
nose-gear 'shelf' as well.
I was glancing at the new 601 HD online examples of the new drawings and
maybe they show the beefier plan there too... not sure, I'd have to look
again.
But check with Nicholas.
--
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
Zodiac 601hds/CAM100
C-GHTF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)oregonfast.net> |
The only thing different about a castle nut is how it is held on. The
torque depends on what you are securing, a roller wheel bearing? a forked
control fitting? or something that needs to be torqued town tight.
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: <STEFREE(at)aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 8:41 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: castle nuts
>
> Hi List,
>
> I hope this question isn't too basic, but.....
>
> How tight do you tighten castle nuts? Do you thread them just past the
hole
> drilled for the cotter pin? Or do you lightly snug them (or tight) up
> against the surface they mate to?
>
> I know this is basic but I can't find anything written about it, and I
> unfortunately don't have a mentor.....(Tom Decker where did you go!?!)
>
> Thanks guys,
>
> Steve Freeman
> 6-3737 601 HDS (Working on details in fuselage area.......Main structure
> complete.)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rich <rich(at)carol.net> |
Just saw this on the Eggenfellner site. Pretty good discount for those
builders getting together wanting his engine.
Rich
801
GET TOGETHER, FIND ANOTHER BUILDER IN YOUR AREA
Finally an incentive to get your engine NOW.
June package price $14,995.00
June package price (2 builders buying 2 packages) $13,995.00
June package price (3 builders buying 3 packages) $12,995.00
June package price (4 builders buying 4 packages) $11,995.00
June package price (5 builders buying 5 packages) $10,995.00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Angle of Incidence |
I'm getting ready to assemble the upper longerons and fuselage, the
drawings says that I should have a 3 degree angle of incidence between
the upper longeron and the lower flat surface of the wing. My question
(just to make sure I'm conceptualizing this right) is does that mean
with the longeron level the leading edge of the with would be up to
achieve the 3 degrees.
Thanks for any help.
Tim Shankland
Two wings and tail done, ready to make parts that look like an airplane
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 6/3/01 8:10:49 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
holcombe(at)oregonfast.net writes:
> a forked
>
Like on control cable forks or surfaces that will be moving underneath the
castle nuts. How tight should these castle nuts be made...Or where the brake
fork attaches to the brake pedal.
Thanks.....
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <eburton(at)cancom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith-List Thanks to All |
Just a short note of thanks for all those who replied on and off list.
Thanks list members.
Ed Burton
Marathon, Ontario
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Angle of Incidence |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
on 3/6/01 11:33 AM, Tim Shankland at tshank(at)megsinet.net wrote:
...
> with the longeron level the leading edge of the with would be up to
> achieve the 3 degrees.
>
> Thanks for any help.
That sound right to me. With the longerons at 'zero', the lower surface of
the wing should be at plus 3 degrees (according to your statement). That
would mean that the leading edge is 3 degrees 'up'.
--
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
Zodiac 601hds/CAM100
C-GHTF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Keith Maloney <kmaloney(at)lsil.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Angle of Incidence |
I'm scratch building, but using the side skins dimensioned in the plans
I was only able to get just under 2.5 degrees. I would be interested in
hearing if you get the 3 degrees.
Keith Maloney
9-4196 HD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Sa <wings1(at)videotron.ca> |
| Subject: | Data vs Information |
Hello, Listers
I have spent the past hour and a half reviewing postings I have kept
since 1999 (I have 500+ of them; reviewed 10%). Ended up deleting a few,
but kept most of them. Tons of good information in there.
The issue with these postings is this: there is some kind of information
that you know exists out there, and you might remember reading about it
(e.g., Avdel rivets). No point in keeping this info, I know that if I
ever need it, I'll be smart enough to go to the Matronics web site and
search. But how about stuff that you might not think about, like an easy
method for doing something, a neat modification or (gasp!) a plan update
you haven't heard about?
How have you folks stored, or, more important, retrieve this kind of
info? If you can't find it easily, there is no point in keeping it
around...
Thanks
Carlos
(CH601HD - tail ribs done, cutting parts)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Angle of Incidence |
Would this angle be determined by the elevation of the rear fuselage by 180mm
1745mm back from the front of the side skins to attach to and coincide with
the angle of the center wing rear Z?
Regards,
Chris Carey
601 HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Meiste's" <meiste(at)essex1.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Data vs Information |
> How have you folks stored, or, more important, retrieve this kind of
> info? If you can't find it easily, there is no point in keeping it
> around...
Hi Carlos,
I've been printing hard copies of all the things I see that I think may be
useful as my building progresses. I then put the hard copies in folders
(tail, wings, ctr wing, fuse, gear, ect, ect) in my garage by my plane.
Works great for reference as I'm building.
Enjoy!
Kelly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Grant <rgrant(at)cadvision.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Data vs Information |
>How have you folks stored, or, more important, retrieve this kind of
>info? If you can't find it easily, there is no point in keeping it
>around...
Hi Carlos,
Thanks for the opportunity for me to give something back to the list after
the weeks that I have been lurking while I try to decide whether a 601 or
an 801 is the project for me.
There is a terrific piece of software out there that does all of the
information gathering, sorting and retrieving you might ever need.
It's called Zoot! and a trial version can be found at www.zootsoftware.com
It is an extremely powerful information manager which can be tailored 13
ways to Sunday and beyond to suit your needs. In its simplest form you can
just highlight text on the screen and then send the highlighted text to a
Zoot database. If you then want to retrieve something, Zoot has a
lightening quick query function that will pull out all of the items
matching your search terms.
But that is the very simplest way of using Zoot. More typically a user
creates folders within a Zoot database. Each folder can have "rules" which
you define, to pull in material matching criteria. Once in a folder,
"actions" go to work to further sort and manipulate material.
It can pull in all of your mail in Microsoft Outlook and similarly organize
the content. So, using the zenith-list as an example, one could have Zoot
set to automatically find, sort, organize and otherwise manipulate
everything that you receive from the zenith-list.
It would be possible for example to have a Zoot database consisting of
folders labeled; Engine, Wing, Fuel, Instruments, Gear, Techniques, or
whatever. Each of the folders would have rules that determine what is to
be put into them. Using Engine as an example, rules could be set that say
in effect that any message containing the words; engine, subaru, rotax,
starter, exhaust or any other engine related word you care to think up;
would be put into the Engine folder. Other folders would have different
criteria for contents. Obviously most messages and material that you might
clip from the web or elsewhere could fit into more than one category or
folder. Zoot recognizes these instances and creates links in related
folders.
Now, whenever you synchronize your zenith-list outlook mail with Zoot the
information is instantly sorted and filed. It is possible to perform the
same trick with other mail programs but not quite as seamlessly.
Zoot can also perform similar information magic with just about any file on
your computer.
While working on the web you can have Zoot set to record all of the URL's
you visit, to file material you come across on the web, either the entire
page at once or just the stuff you highlight.
It is a very very powerful piece of software and the learning curve is a
bit steep but it is used quite a bit by academics, journalists, scientists,
business people and anyone else who deals with masses of information and
needs a way to access it easily, quickly and efficiently.
Zoot's capabilities are vast and constantly evolving because the author,
Tom Davis, won't leave it alone.
Read some of the reviews on the web page and also check out the Zoot
mailing list which in lieu of a completed help file is a great resource.
Once you get over the initial feeling of "The Gods Must be Crazy" you
simply won't be able to operate without it.
I have absolutely no connection with Zoot other than being a fascinated,
often confused, more often amazed, customer.
Rick Grant
Rick Grant Communications
International Media and Crisis Management
Calgary - Ottawa
www.rickgrant.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net> |
| Subject: | proper drilling of bolt holes |
> Gary, I BOUGHT a unibit so I could drill those holes in the firewall for
> throttle, primer, electrics, fuel. There must be some trick to using it
> because all the holes came out really crummy. I had to file them down and
> shove grommets into them to hide the mess. The unibit seems to work
> perfectly on a drill press but in a handheld drill, I guess I couldn't
> control it. I practiced on aluminum ok; maybe it's not supposed to be
used
> on galvanized sheet metal????? Yes, I backed it with plywood. stan.
++ Stan, Since I didn't see any other replies to your posting about drilling
holes in the firewall I'll offer a few comments. Some fellows mistakenly
think they have a true "unibit" but in actuality have something else. The
unibit is also called a "step drill" because it is a long series of ever
increasing bit diameters, one after the other on a single drill shaft.
Since the true unibit has no interrupted openings in it's diameter like a
twist drill or paddle bit etc., it is virtually impossible to drill an out
of round hole or to drill a really ragged hole. When you say you can't
control it, that sounds like you have a "fly cutter" type drill, which in
deed is really hard to use except in a drill press with the work clamped
securely in place. My firewall has at least 8 holes that were drilled in it
with the unibit and not one of them needed anything other than a few scrubs
on the back side with a medium grit silicon sand paper. You stated that you
backed the holes up with a piece of wood. This should not at all be a
benefit or necessary with the unibit. It self centers, drills perfectly
round holes, and does this increasingly bigger and bigger maintaining those
wonderfuly smooth and round holes as the size of the hole gets larger and
larger. Since there are so many of us experiencing consistently smooth
holes all the time with it's use, it would seem to indicate that perhaps you
don't have an actual "unibit step drill".
Soft Landings..........
Fred
601LX working on the engine cowling
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Data vs Information |
I also do the same thing - it's great for when you are not at a part yet
and get there later on. You open up the section and in 5 to 30 minutes
you have a huge amount of resources available to you. I also print out
pictures for future reference. Really helps to see how other builders
put stuff together.
Regards,
Don
P.S. Thanks to everyone who posted a response to the Sub Radiator
question.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of The
Meiste's
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Data vs Information
> How have you folks stored, or, more important, retrieve this kind of
> info? If you can't find it easily, there is no point in keeping it
> around...
Hi Carlos,
I've been printing hard copies of all the things I see that I think may
be
useful as my building progresses. I then put the hard copies in folders
(tail, wings, ctr wing, fuse, gear, ect, ect) in my garage by my plane.
Works great for reference as I'm building.
Enjoy!
Kelly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Ferris <ferret(at)forbin.net> |
I installed the throttle cables yesterday and have a question. Due to
the fact that the throttle stop is off-center, the cable to one carb is
longer than the other, and has a couple of gentle bends in it (I made
the cable longer than it had to be to make sure the bends were as gentle
as possible). When I push the throttle in somewhat rapidly, the carb
with the longer cable moves slower than the other carb (the carbs would
be way out of sync.) What happens is the cable pushes through the hole
in the bolt on the bellcrank during movement.
Obviously, this can not be a good thing. I wonder why this would be
different on any plane though. Have others seen this? Could there be
something wrong with my carbs?
Thank you,
Greg Ferris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Angle of Incidence |
Thanks for the replies,
Answering the question posted,
1. I'm not sure yet whether I can get the 3 degrees, since I just started
trimming today and am not yet finished. I'm assuming that when trimming out
for the wing skin you do not want to trim where the fuselage touches the rear
Z.
2. As far as using the rear fuselage for reference I can't because I haven't
built it yet. I'm starting from the front because that takes up less space.
Tim Shankland
Grant Corriveau wrote:
>
> on 3/6/01 11:33 AM, Tim Shankland at tshank(at)megsinet.net wrote:
> ...
> > with the longeron level the leading edge of the with would be up to
> > achieve the 3 degrees.
> >
> > Thanks for any help.
>
> That sound right to me. With the longerons at 'zero', the lower surface of
> the wing should be at plus 3 degrees (according to your statement). That
> would mean that the leading edge is 3 degrees 'up'.
>
> --
> Grant Corriveau
> Montreal
> Zodiac 601hds/CAM100
> C-GHTF
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russ and Brenda" <rbee797(at)mnsi.net> |
If you go to the zenair web site, they have pictures of many types of canopy
installations
my favorite is the gull wing doors on a zodiac from England
Russ Brunelle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Mattsson" <ken.mattsson(at)helsinki.fi> |
| Subject: | CAD drawings for the 701? |
> > What do do think of drawings and manual for the 601 HD?
>
> FYI - update from Zenair:
>
> The 4th edition of the ZODIAC CH 601 HD Drawings and Manuals has now been
> released. This latest edition of the drawings has all been drawn on AutoCAD
> for maximum clarity.
So how about the CH701, does it already have its drawings and manuals drawn on
AutoCAD? If not, there is a very good reason to wait with ordering the plans until
they are CAD ones.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Bungee Stop and Tow Bar |
I just added information and photos to my web site on a bungee stop and tow
bar I made. If interested, go to http://homepages.together.net/~billvt/
Regards,
Bill - N812BM - HDS - Tri - Stratus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Garrou, Douglas" <DGarrou(at)hunton.com> |
Hi all - we're contemplating leaving our 801 in "natural" aluminum rather
than painting. So now we need to figure out what to do with the cowl.
Leaving it in fiberglass white doesn't seem like much of an option.
I've seen bare-aluminum aircraft with fiberglass bits painted "regular
silver" (see, for example, the pictures at the very bottom of the page at
http://homepage.mac.com/dugaru/PhotoAlbum5.html), but that doesn't seem like
a good option. The silver just kind of "looks wrong."
Does anybody know of a paint (or other process) that will match the look of
polished 6061 aluminum? Barring that, how difficult do you think it would
be to construct our own cowl out of aluminum? Do you think there there any
metal cowls for certified aircraft that might work on an 801 (with a
Lycoming 0-360)?
Thanks
Doug Garrou
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Radiator for Subaru Installs. |
Hey Chuck,
I was thinking (as I was watching my Stratus temps hit 220....too close for
me) about moving my rad back as you did,
I can't see how you get the hoses on, did you just drop the front of the rad
own and buy another 90 degree flex bend?
Did you use 1' or 1 1/4" for your alu rad tubes?
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Sonberg [mailto:2408s@cox-internet.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Radiator for Subaru Installs.
Don,
Also you will see 3/4" heater line on 5/8" connectors on your thermostat
if you have a stratus. I went to AutoZone and they let me explore their
hoses till I got correct combo. By the way I had to move my radiator to
under my rear spar to keep heat within tolerances. This 48" rearward move
with aluminum pipe was easy and reduced my temps by 30 degrees and helped my
cg. Also as you will find in archives you must brace the upper shelf if you
have a trike.
Chuck
2408S
43 Hours and almost done with mods, getting ready to paint
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 7:59 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Radiator for Subaru Installs.
>
> I've been working on the Subaru EA81 engine along with the FWF Kit from
> Zenith.
>
> It appears to be a thrown together solution for all the radiator hoses
> and such. Has anybody thought of or accomplished going with a different
> pressure bottle / radiator to limit the number of different size hoses
> required? Currently we have three different sizes needed - ~30mm for the
> radiator, ~33mm for the engine pump hook up, 1" for the secondary engine
> hookup and 1" for the pressure bottle. Seems like it would make sense
> just to have all the openings at ~33m with the possible exception of 1"
> for the secondary hook up or to reverse it and make everything 1" except
> for the pump and to a conversion on just that connector.
>
> I'm going to get in touch with a couple of recommended radiator shops on
> Monday, but was curious if any one else had a solution or comments.
>
> Regards,
> Don Honabach
> Tempe, AZ
> 601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Chapman <pchapman(at)ionsys.com> |
| Subject: | July 2000 CH 601 stall/spin accident followup |
The June issue of Sport Aviation uses the G. Schwarz accident of July 29,
2000 as an example in a safety article. This was the accident where a list
member & wife died because of a stall/spin while turning base to final at
an airport en route to Oshkosh. A little more can be said about it.
The updated NTSB report (NYC00LA213) notes that the aircraft was equipped
with an angle of attack advisory system. I like the concept of AoA systems,
but this accident focuses attention on the possibility that whatever
distracts a pilot from noticing airspeed, buffet, stick position, or other
cues may also distract the pilot from noticing flashing lights or perhaps
buzzers -- much as pilots have done with gear-up warning horns.
The pilot was experienced, with 2000 hours and 110 in the accident airplane.
The accident report (and EAA article) mention that the aircraft was 21 lb
over gross, which is still manageable. The C of G was determined to be 3.1
inches aft of the aft limit. This seems almost impossibly far back to
achieve with a HDS that is 912 powered (80 lb of baggage stuffed in the
back of the turtledeck, with no fuselage fuel and full wing locker baggage
or fuel might just do it).
The NTSB does not mention that the 601 was an HDS, as reported by the
pilot/builder on this list. They might have been confused about the aft C
of G limit, using the 17.5" of the HD instead of the
not-always-clearly-stated 19.5" of the HDS. The C of G for the accident
would still have been aft of the limit, one which likely is further back
than would be allowed for a certificated aircraft.
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Frisby" <marslander(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Leaving it bare |
Doug,
There are aluminum nose bowls you can get from Wag Aero , etc. As far as
the rest of the cowl, Most of the old rag wing pipers had cowls made of flat
sheet stock, I built one for my Pacer. Fitting the baffling from the engine
to the cowling might be a cut and try operation.
Jim
>From: "Garrou, Douglas" <DGarrou(at)hunton.com>
>Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>To: "'zenith-list(at)matronics.com'"
>Subject: Zenith-List: Leaving it bare
>Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:47:58 -0400
>
>
>Hi all - we're contemplating leaving our 801 in "natural" aluminum rather
>than painting. So now we need to figure out what to do with the cowl.
>Leaving it in fiberglass white doesn't seem like much of an option.
>
>I've seen bare-aluminum aircraft with fiberglass bits painted "regular
>silver" (see, for example, the pictures at the very bottom of the page at
>http://homepage.mac.com/dugaru/PhotoAlbum5.html), but that doesn't seem
>like
>a good option. The silver just kind of "looks wrong."
>
>Does anybody know of a paint (or other process) that will match the look of
>polished 6061 aluminum? Barring that, how difficult do you think it would
>be to construct our own cowl out of aluminum? Do you think there there any
>metal cowls for certified aircraft that might work on an 801 (with a
>Lycoming 0-360)?
>
>Thanks
>Doug Garrou
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Austin" <daveaustin2(at)sprint.ca> |
I did not paint my 601 for two years and now have shorter fingers and arms
from polishing every two months. And even then oxidation set in underneath.
Not a good idea in my humble opinion.
Dave Austin 601HDS
To slip the surly bonds of earth and dance the sky on laughter-silver'd
wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Trying again.... |
Hi again,
I posted this question a few days ago and didn't get any response so I
thought I would try one more time.
I can't find in any of my readings reference to how tight to tighten castle
nuts when they are on top of moving parts such as the fork end of a cable
connection or, specific to our application, where the upper fork of the
master cylinder attaches to the steel extrusion on the brake pedal?
How much torque gets applied to a location like this? I understand that the
parts need to move about freely, so does that mean no torque at all? Or do
they get tightened all the way down, or something in-between?
Thanks for any help,
Steve Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rwilbers1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Radiator for Subaru Installs. |
Dear Chuck: I have noticed a number of entries that mentioned moving the
radiator to the rear "zee". I brought this up with Nick at Sun-n-fun, and he
said the larger VW radiator would not require this modification. Do you have
the Zenith firewall forward kit with the VW Golf radiator? Because of the
inlet and outlet tubes on the radiator, didn't this prove to be a problem
running the aluminum tubes to the radiator? I assume you used short lengths
of radiator hose to connect the aluminum tubes to the radiator.
What type of aluminum tubing did you use for the lengthening? Did you leave
the original radiator brackets riveted to the underbelly for a place to
anchor the tube extensions?
Also, what did you mean by saying to add support to the "upper shelf"?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Dick 601HDS w/Stratus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rwilbers1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: aeroelectric connection |
Thanks for the information. I know just enough about electrical wiring to get
myself in deep "do-do".
Dick 601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tom tiedman" <ttiedman(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: proper drilling of bolt holes |
Gary, I agree with Fred... I have various sizes of unibits and the skinny
ones with lots of space on the shank of each hole size work the best, but I
do have one unibit that is shaped more like a pyramid... looks like a small
spinning top sticking out of the drill. It has about 13 or 14 different hole
sizes in the space of not quite an inch. It works great on extremely thin
sheetmetal, but for most common everyday holes in sheetmetal we work with,
it is not much good at all because the next size hole starts cutting before
the previous hole is all the way through. Could this be the style of unibit
you have that's causing the sloppy holes? Mine proves worthless in all areas
of home use but one... it sure is a heck of a copper pipe reamer when used
in a cordless drill with 1/2, 3/4, and 1 inch copper pipe! (when I die and
go to hell, satan will force me to be a plumber! ;) Tom
>From: "fhulen" <fhulen(at)gabs.net>
>Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Zenith-List: proper drilling of bolt holes
>Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 21:39:38 -0500
>
>
> > Gary, I BOUGHT a unibit so I could drill those holes in the firewall for
> > throttle, primer, electrics, fuel. There must be some trick to using it
> > because all the holes came out really crummy. I had to file them down
>and
> > shove grommets into them to hide the mess. The unibit seems to work
> > perfectly on a drill press but in a handheld drill, I guess I couldn't
> > control it. I practiced on aluminum ok; maybe it's not supposed to be
>used
> > on galvanized sheet metal????? Yes, I backed it with plywood. stan.
>
>++ Stan, Since I didn't see any other replies to your posting about
>drilling
>holes in the firewall I'll offer a few comments. Some fellows mistakenly
>think they have a true "unibit" but in actuality have something else. The
>unibit is also called a "step drill" because it is a long series of ever
>increasing bit diameters, one after the other on a single drill shaft.
>Since the true unibit has no interrupted openings in it's diameter like a
>twist drill or paddle bit etc., it is virtually impossible to drill an out
>of round hole or to drill a really ragged hole. When you say you can't
>control it, that sounds like you have a "fly cutter" type drill, which in
>deed is really hard to use except in a drill press with the work clamped
>securely in place. My firewall has at least 8 holes that were drilled in it
>with the unibit and not one of them needed anything other than a few scrubs
>on the back side with a medium grit silicon sand paper. You stated that
>you
>backed the holes up with a piece of wood. This should not at all be a
>benefit or necessary with the unibit. It self centers, drills perfectly
>round holes, and does this increasingly bigger and bigger maintaining those
>wonderfuly smooth and round holes as the size of the hole gets larger and
>larger. Since there are so many of us experiencing consistently smooth
>holes all the time with it's use, it would seem to indicate that perhaps
>you
>don't have an actual "unibit step drill".
>Soft Landings..........
>Fred
>601LX working on the engine cowling
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | proper drilling of bolt holes |
| From: | "Tom Wood" <twood(at)ucf.k12.pa.us> |
Stan,
Slow the bit down and it will work OK in a hand held drill. I use my
battery operated Makita for that purpose.
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brook" <walruss(at)optushome.com.au> |
| Subject: | CAD drawings for the 701? |
You have a very good point here ken. As an engineer, if I got those plans
for anything in a professional capacity, I would reject them as being
totally unacceptable. There is no reason why the plans should not be autocad
except for the fact that Zenith makes more money from the 601 than they do
from the 701's and as such they aren't going to put the effort into
improving the 701's.
I wonder if it's occurred to anyone at zenith that if they had a good set of
clear CAD drawings, a manual that made sense and that gave clear
instructions, they might sell more 701's? Maybe not.
Mike 2 planes, 2 701's 775 hours working on engines and instruments.
>So how about the CH701, does it already have its drawings and manuals
>>drawn on AutoCAD? If not, there is a very good reason to wait with
>ordering the plans until they are CAD ones.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Weston, Jim" <Jim.Weston(at)delta.com> |
| Subject: | Subaru Engine Bolts |
Don,
As far as the choke/start goes, I purchased the BING manual on these carbs
and read up on them. The carbs have what is called a start circuit within
them. The start circuit is activated when the throttle is at idle and the
choke is pulled full on. In fact the choke being on advances the throttle
above idle automatically. If you try to start, particularly in chilly
weather, with the throttle partly open it can be really hard to start, since
your bypassing the start circuit. I had this problem during the winter a
few times until I learned to always close the throttle. She starts easily
every time then.
Hope this helps,
Jim Weston
CH601HDS, Stratus
McDonough, Ga.
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Honabach [mailto:don(at)pcperfect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Subaru Engine Bolts
Bill,
Thanks! That might explain why I have 4 pieces of ~2" tubing.
Do you recall if you just inserted them into the rubber engine mounts or did
you have to use some type of grease to get everything working?
Also I have another newbie type question. I'm assuming the I have to lift up
the choke mechanisms on the dual carbs when starting engine (cold). Does
anyone recall if you need to apply 1/2 choke, full choke, etc. during the
starting process?
Regards,
Don Honabach
Tempe, AZ
601HDS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Subaru Engine Bolts
>
> It was quite some time ago and I may be all wet but I seem to remember
that
> my Stratus engine mount bolts came with some sort of tubing that went over
> the bolts to make them fit the rubber mounts correctly. I can't find any
> reference to this in my build log either. Maybe another Stratus owner
could
> confirm this.
>
> Bill
>
>
> > Has any one else noticed that the engine bolts (engine mount to engine)
> > fit the engine mount just fine but are a bit undersized for the rubber
> > engine mounts for the Subaru engine?
> >
> > I'm worried that this will allow the engine too much play even if the
> > bolts are sandwhiched good and tight.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pinneo, George" <George.Pinneo(at)trw.com> |
| Subject: | Turnbuckles - 601HD |
My turnbuckles are all inside the aircraft; each cable has one to allow tensioning
and tuning. I have no Nicopress connections: every cable end has swaged eyes.
601HDS, tri, 300. hours.
GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clay Johnson <johnson_98466(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | For Sale: 701 Tail Kit and Plans $500 OBO |
Rudder partially assembled. Horizontal tail in crate.
Clay Johnson
Tacoma, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Sa <wings1(at)videotron.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: CAD drawings for the 701? |
> > FYI - update from Zenair:
> >
> > The 4th edition of the ZODIAC CH 601 HD Drawings and Manuals has now been
> > released. This latest edition of the drawings has all been drawn on AutoCAD
> > for maximum clarity.
>
> So how about the CH701, does it already have its drawings and manuals drawn on
AutoCAD? If not, there is a very good reason to wait with ordering the plans
until they are CAD ones.
>
> Ken
I don't know if they are "official" yet, but they certainly exist at the
builders' site.
I ordered the CH601 CAD upgrade today, should be shipped tomorrow. ZAC
says it is the same set of drawings available in their site.
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PHIL_PFOERTNER(at)udlp.com |
| Subject: | CAD drawings for the 701,YES |
ZA has an entire set of CAD plans for the 701, I drew them. FYI, zenith wanted
them drawn as exact reprints of the hand drawn ones. I asked if they wanted them
cleaned up and their response was that it forces the builder to study the plans.
Call Nick or look at their website, the web prints are missing (deleted) some
info but if you have the originals the CAD ones are easier to read.
Phil Pfoertner
Sr. M.E.
United Defense L.P.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RUSSELL JOHNSON" <entec1(at)pld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trying again.... |
> Hi again,
> I can't find in any of my readings reference to how tight to tighten
castle
> nuts when they are on top of moving parts such as the fork end of a cable
> connection or, specific to our application, where the upper fork of the
> master cylinder attaches to the steel extrusion on the brake pedal?
> Thanks for any help,
> Steve Freeman
Finger tight on the fork of the brake cylinder is enough. Any tighter and
the fork will deform.
Russell J. / 601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Weston, Jim" <Jim.Weston(at)delta.com> |
| Subject: | Trying again.... |
If I understand your description correctly, there would be no torque on
either of those applications. Just enough tightening to remove any slop.
They are just pivot points/linkages.
Jim Weston
McDonough, Ga.
-----Original Message-----
From: STEFREE(at)aol.com [mailto:STEFREE(at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 2:33 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Trying again....
Hi again,
I posted this question a few days ago and didn't get any response so I
thought I would try one more time.
I can't find in any of my readings reference to how tight to tighten castle
nuts when they are on top of moving parts such as the fork end of a cable
connection or, specific to our application, where the upper fork of the
master cylinder attaches to the steel extrusion on the brake pedal?
How much torque gets applied to a location like this? I understand that the
parts need to move about freely, so does that mean no torque at all? Or do
they get tightened all the way down, or something in-between?
Thanks for any help,
Steve Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Slaughter <mslaughter(at)interhop.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trying again.Castle Nuts... |
>Hi Steve,
I could never find the official A&P method either, but
I've always hand-tightened them until they snug down and lock the assembly
together, then back them off to the next hole alignment so the parts can
just rotate freely.
Cheers,
Mike S.
>I can't find in any of my readings reference to how tight to tighten castle
>nuts when they are on top of moving parts such as the fork end of a cable
>connection or, specific to our application, where the upper fork of the
>master cylinder attaches to the steel extrusion on the brake pedal?
>
>How much torque gets applied to a location like this? I understand that the
>parts need to move about freely, so does that mean no torque at all? Or do
>they get tightened all the way down, or something in-between?
>
>Thanks for any help,
>
>Steve Freeman
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Trying again.... |
Just touching of surfaces will do fine
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: STEFREE(at)aol.com [mailto:STEFREE(at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 11:33 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Trying again....
Hi again,
I posted this question a few days ago and didn't get any response so I
thought I would try one more time.
I can't find in any of my readings reference to how tight to tighten castle
nuts when they are on top of moving parts such as the fork end of a cable
connection or, specific to our application, where the upper fork of the
master cylinder attaches to the steel extrusion on the brake pedal?
How much torque gets applied to a location like this? I understand that the
parts need to move about freely, so does that mean no torque at all? Or do
they get tightened all the way down, or something in-between?
Thanks for any help,
Steve Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)oregonfast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trying again.... |
Do not deform a fork by torqueing the nut on the bolt through it, you will
weaken it.
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: <STEFREE(at)aol.com>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 11:32 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Trying again....
>
> Hi again,
>
> I posted this question a few days ago and didn't get any response so I
> thought I would try one more time.
>
> I can't find in any of my readings reference to how tight to tighten
castle
> nuts when they are on top of moving parts such as the fork end of a cable
> connection or, specific to our application, where the upper fork of the
> master cylinder attaches to the steel extrusion on the brake pedal?
>
> How much torque gets applied to a location like this? I understand that
the
> parts need to move about freely, so does that mean no torque at all? Or do
> they get tightened all the way down, or something in-between?
>
> Thanks for any help,
>
> Steve Freeman
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Subaru Engine Bolts |
In contrast I use a primer solenoid, it really is very slick priming at the
touch of a finger.
Anyway, after priming I have to crack the throttle open about 1/4" and she
barks into life every time....won't start without throttle though!
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Weston, Jim [mailto:Jim.Weston(at)delta.com]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:33 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Subaru Engine Bolts
Don,
As far as the choke/start goes, I purchased the BING manual on these carbs
and read up on them. The carbs have what is called a start circuit within
them. The start circuit is activated when the throttle is at idle and the
choke is pulled full on. In fact the choke being on advances the throttle
above idle automatically. If you try to start, particularly in chilly
weather, with the throttle partly open it can be really hard to start, since
your bypassing the start circuit. I had this problem during the winter a
few times until I learned to always close the throttle. She starts easily
every time then.
Hope this helps,
Jim Weston
CH601HDS, Stratus
McDonough, Ga.
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Honabach [mailto:don(at)pcperfect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Subaru Engine Bolts
Bill,
Thanks! That might explain why I have 4 pieces of ~2" tubing.
Do you recall if you just inserted them into the rubber engine mounts or did
you have to use some type of grease to get everything working?
Also I have another newbie type question. I'm assuming the I have to lift up
the choke mechanisms on the dual carbs when starting engine (cold). Does
anyone recall if you need to apply 1/2 choke, full choke, etc. during the
starting process?
Regards,
Don Honabach
Tempe, AZ
601HDS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Subaru Engine Bolts
>
> It was quite some time ago and I may be all wet but I seem to remember
that
> my Stratus engine mount bolts came with some sort of tubing that went over
> the bolts to make them fit the rubber mounts correctly. I can't find any
> reference to this in my build log either. Maybe another Stratus owner
could
> confirm this.
>
> Bill
>
>
> > Has any one else noticed that the engine bolts (engine mount to engine)
> > fit the engine mount just fine but are a bit undersized for the rubber
> > engine mounts for the Subaru engine?
> >
> > I'm worried that this will allow the engine too much play even if the
> > bolts are sandwhiched good and tight.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Radiator for Subaru Installs. |
The VW rad is the 1500cc diesel (unless they changed it) I find the rad
marginal in hot weather in its current location. I do not think I could
maintain a continuous climb to say 7,000ft at 70mph (seems to be VY) at max
power.
I start levelling off at 215 to give it a rest.
Thinking about moving the rad!
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Rwilbers1(at)aol.com [mailto:Rwilbers1(at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Radiator for Subaru Installs.
Dear Chuck: I have noticed a number of entries that mentioned moving the
radiator to the rear "zee". I brought this up with Nick at Sun-n-fun, and he
said the larger VW radiator would not require this modification. Do you have
the Zenith firewall forward kit with the VW Golf radiator? Because of the
inlet and outlet tubes on the radiator, didn't this prove to be a problem
running the aluminum tubes to the radiator? I assume you used short lengths
of radiator hose to connect the aluminum tubes to the radiator.
What type of aluminum tubing did you use for the lengthening? Did you leave
the original radiator brackets riveted to the underbelly for a place to
anchor the tube extensions?
Also, what did you mean by saying to add support to the "upper shelf"?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Dick 601HDS w/Stratus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "g edward" <flyingbuz(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bracing upper shelf???? |
I added an "L" behind the leading edge as I use this edge to help me enter
the seat and found some movement along the edge.
>From: STEFREE(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Bracing upper shelf????
>Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 01:59:27 EDT
>
>
>In a message dated 6/2/01 9:47:44 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
>2408s@cox-internet.com writes:
>
>
> > Also as you will find in archives you must brace the upper shelf if you
> > have a trike.
> >
>
>How did you brace your upper shelf? I have to remake mine because of a
>dumbass mistake I made, so now would probably be the best time to do it.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Steve Freeman
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Subaru Engine Bolts |
Jim,
Thanks for the response.
I feel pretty darn 'silly', but I wasn't able to get my Subaru engine to
start because I had the primary coil connected to common point on the
horseshoe junction (sorry don't know it's formal name) that is used with the
backup ignition system. Just switched it to the right connector and the
engine started right up.
Also, thanks for the information on the carbs. Definitely something that
will help define an operators manual.
Regards,
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Weston, Jim
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:33 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Subaru Engine Bolts
Don,
As far as the choke/start goes, I purchased the BING manual on these carbs
and read up on them. The carbs have what is called a start circuit within
them. The start circuit is activated when the throttle is at idle and the
choke is pulled full on. In fact the choke being on advances the throttle
above idle automatically. If you try to start, particularly in chilly
weather, with the throttle partly open it can be really hard to start, since
your bypassing the start circuit. I had this problem during the winter a
few times until I learned to always close the throttle. She starts easily
every time then.
Hope this helps,
Jim Weston
CH601HDS, Stratus
McDonough, Ga.
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Honabach [mailto:don(at)pcperfect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Subaru Engine Bolts
Bill,
Thanks! That might explain why I have 4 pieces of ~2" tubing.
Do you recall if you just inserted them into the rubber engine mounts or did
you have to use some type of grease to get everything working?
Also I have another newbie type question. I'm assuming the I have to lift up
the choke mechanisms on the dual carbs when starting engine (cold). Does
anyone recall if you need to apply 1/2 choke, full choke, etc. during the
starting process?
Regards,
Don Honabach
Tempe, AZ
601HDS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Subaru Engine Bolts
>
> It was quite some time ago and I may be all wet but I seem to remember
that
> my Stratus engine mount bolts came with some sort of tubing that went over
> the bolts to make them fit the rubber mounts correctly. I can't find any
> reference to this in my build log either. Maybe another Stratus owner
could
> confirm this.
>
> Bill
>
>
> > Has any one else noticed that the engine bolts (engine mount to engine)
> > fit the engine mount just fine but are a bit undersized for the rubber
> > engine mounts for the Subaru engine?
> >
> > I'm worried that this will allow the engine too much play even if the
> > bolts are sandwhiched good and tight.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Radiator for Subaru Installs. |
I'm assuming if you move the radiator that you are adding extra weight
(hoses, extra coolant for hoses, etc.). Which if moved farther back on a
Subaru install is probably a good thing. On the other hand if you are going
to end up adding extra weight why not just get a slightly larger radiator so
you don't have to make any major modifications. I wonder if a different
scope design or something might help get more air over the radiator and
keeps things in general cooler.
I live in Arizona and it's going to be pretty hot when I fly.
FYI - Just thinking out load.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of HINDE,FRANK
(HP-Corvallis,ex1)
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 8:12 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Radiator for Subaru Installs.
The VW rad is the 1500cc diesel (unless they changed it) I find the rad
marginal in hot weather in its current location. I do not think I could
maintain a continuous climb to say 7,000ft at 70mph (seems to be VY) at max
power.
I start levelling off at 215 to give it a rest.
Thinking about moving the rad!
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Rwilbers1(at)aol.com [mailto:Rwilbers1(at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Radiator for Subaru Installs.
Dear Chuck: I have noticed a number of entries that mentioned moving the
radiator to the rear "zee". I brought this up with Nick at Sun-n-fun, and he
said the larger VW radiator would not require this modification. Do you have
the Zenith firewall forward kit with the VW Golf radiator? Because of the
inlet and outlet tubes on the radiator, didn't this prove to be a problem
running the aluminum tubes to the radiator? I assume you used short lengths
of radiator hose to connect the aluminum tubes to the radiator.
What type of aluminum tubing did you use for the lengthening? Did you leave
the original radiator brackets riveted to the underbelly for a place to
anchor the tube extensions?
Also, what did you mean by saying to add support to the "upper shelf"?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Dick 601HDS w/Stratus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trying again.... |
Thanks for all of the responses to the castle nut issue.
Previous to this I had gotten one response that had said to treat a castle
nut "the same as any other nut and tighten accordingly" This did not seem
like good advice so I appreciate the feed back this time around.
Steve Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Subaru Engine Bolts |
In a message dated 06/05/2001 8:07:54 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
frank_hinde(at)hp.com writes:
>
What primer solenoid did you get, how did you hook it up? Is the
documentation that comes with the unit satisfactory or do you have to know
what you are doing ahead of time?
Thanks,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Radiator for Subaru Installs. |
Thats not really solving the issue though and it will add more drag to go to
a larger rad.
The root of the problem is that 1) the airflow is going sidways at the rad
inlet...(I have proved this) due to the prop wash, rather than through it.
2) the heat of the exhaust is dumped straight into the mouth of the rad.
Moving the rad back solves both these issues and in fact the rad can be a
darn sight smaller, especially in a well designed scoop.
The problem is that the NSI system will cost you close to $800 to acheive
this.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Honabach [mailto:don(at)pcperfect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:01 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Radiator for Subaru Installs.
I'm assuming if you move the radiator that you are adding extra weight
(hoses, extra coolant for hoses, etc.). Which if moved farther back on a
Subaru install is probably a good thing. On the other hand if you are going
to end up adding extra weight why not just get a slightly larger radiator so
you don't have to make any major modifications. I wonder if a different
scope design or something might help get more air over the radiator and
keeps things in general cooler.
I live in Arizona and it's going to be pretty hot when I fly.
FYI - Just thinking out load.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of HINDE,FRANK
(HP-Corvallis,ex1)
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 8:12 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Radiator for Subaru Installs.
The VW rad is the 1500cc diesel (unless they changed it) I find the rad
marginal in hot weather in its current location. I do not think I could
maintain a continuous climb to say 7,000ft at 70mph (seems to be VY) at max
power.
I start levelling off at 215 to give it a rest.
Thinking about moving the rad!
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Rwilbers1(at)aol.com [mailto:Rwilbers1(at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Radiator for Subaru Installs.
Dear Chuck: I have noticed a number of entries that mentioned moving the
radiator to the rear "zee". I brought this up with Nick at Sun-n-fun, and he
said the larger VW radiator would not require this modification. Do you have
the Zenith firewall forward kit with the VW Golf radiator? Because of the
inlet and outlet tubes on the radiator, didn't this prove to be a problem
running the aluminum tubes to the radiator? I assume you used short lengths
of radiator hose to connect the aluminum tubes to the radiator.
What type of aluminum tubing did you use for the lengthening? Did you leave
the original radiator brackets riveted to the underbelly for a place to
anchor the tube extensions?
Also, what did you mean by saying to add support to the "upper shelf"?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Dick 601HDS w/Stratus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Subaru Engine Bolts |
Aircraft spruce primer solenoid...about $50.
No documentation necessary, goes in port #1 and out port #2.
Place on the firewall, take a tee from the pressurized fuel line (i.e the
discharge side of your electric fuel pumps), connect to port #1. Connect
port #2 to a screwed in tee and take a tygon (PVC clear flex hose) to each
primer port on the carbs.
Try to make each flex line roughly the same length.
Buy a momentary push button from Radio Shack. When you push the button the
solenoid enegizes. let it go and it shuts.
Very, very slick!
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: STEFREE(at)aol.com [mailto:STEFREE(at)aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Subaru Engine Bolts
In a message dated 06/05/2001 8:07:54 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
frank_hinde(at)hp.com writes:
>
What primer solenoid did you get, how did you hook it up? Is the
documentation that comes with the unit satisfactory or do you have to know
what you are doing ahead of time?
Thanks,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Subaru Engine Bolts |
Steve,
If you run the choke cables on the left side of the panel instead of in the
center as ZAC shows, the choke system works perfectly. I used a design done
by Brent Battles and the choke is easy to pull and the engine fires first
time every time. I have started the engine in 15 deg F weather with no
problem. If you like I can post some photos of the choke install to my web
site.
Regards,
Bill (N812BM - HDS - Tri - Stratus - Vermont)
web site -> http://homepages.together.net/~billvt/
> What primer solenoid did you get, how did you hook it up? Is the
> documentation that comes with the unit satisfactory or do you have to know
> what you are doing ahead of time?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Choke on Stratus |
I got ambitious and posted my Stratus choke setup on my web site already. As
I said earlier, the credit for this design goes to Brent Battles. It works
great!
I put this on the web quickly so if anyone notices any typos, please let me
know.
Regards,
Bill (N812BM - HDS - Tri - Stratus - Vermont)
web site -> http://homepages.together.net/~billvt/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rwilbers1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Radiator for Subaru Installs. |
Good thought. I live in Florida and the heat is a worry to me as well. But I
don't believe the extra hose and aluminum tubing required to shift the
radiator aft will add all that much weight. I will probably leave the forward
shroud for the radiator in place and just buy a couple more pieces for the
aft installation. I'll use the front radiator attachment pieces for a place
to attach the aluminum tubing.
Dick 601HDS/Stratus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rwilbers1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Subaru Engine Bolts |
Dear Bill: It would be terrific if you could put some pictures of the choke
and throttle arrangements for the Stratus on your web sight. I am installing
the choke cable on the left side of the panel, close to the throttle handle.
I'm afraid I am the world's worst plagerizer. I don't have many talents for
solving some of these problems, but I can recognize good ideas by someone
more talented than I am.
Thanks in advance.
Dick 601 HDS/Stratus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry McFarland" <larrymc(at)qconline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trying again.... |
Steve,
The castle nut, as you correcly describe using it, should only be finger
tightened
and then backed off a quarter turn. Perhaps there is a more appropriate
measure,
but in the case where they are used to promote some motion, there is no
torque.
Can't think of a use where movement is required that one would be inclined
to use any frictional values, because they would constantly be loosing from
wear or galling and binding up.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: <STEFREE(at)aol.com>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 1:32 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Trying again....
>
> Hi again,
>
> I posted this question a few days ago and didn't get any response so I
> thought I would try one more time.
>
> I can't find in any of my readings reference to how tight to tighten
castle
> nuts when they are on top of moving parts such as the fork end of a cable
> connection or, specific to our application, where the upper fork of the
> master cylinder attaches to the steel extrusion on the brake pedal?
>
> How much torque gets applied to a location like this? I understand that
the
> parts need to move about freely, so does that mean no torque at all? Or do
> they get tightened all the way down, or something in-between?
>
> Thanks for any help,
>
> Steve Freeman
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CAD drawings for the 701? |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
on 6/6/01 9:15 AM, Michael Brook at walruss(at)optushome.com.au wrote:
...
> As an analogy, Grant, I want to sell you a car that 15 years old, you will
> have make 242 alterations to the car to make it work,
Hey Mike -- I had a car just like that one time.... ;-)
All good points. I too would like to see the plans and construction manuals
improved.
I guess my summary point is just that I'm glad the Zenair folks put their
primary efforts into making the aircraft and company viable. I have lots of
flashy pamphlets of the BD5; BD12/14..... but.....
Thanks for filling me in about CAD etc.
If you ever get to this side of the globe give me a call. I'd enjoy having a
coffee together and taking you for a ride in my Zodiac... (hope I got all
the rivets in ;-)
Grant
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 912 on 701 shim or not? |
The middle plates welded to my ZAC engine mount ride up over the .063 upper
shelf flange for the entire width of that flange.
Nicholas checked their 701 demonstrator and said it didn't appear that ZAC
used any shim. He also said I could if I wanted to.
Seems to me it's not a good idea to bolt the engine mount to the firewall
without an even mating of the parts. I'm too inexperienced to make my own
decision. Couldn't the bolt hole eventually be distorted by flexing?
Since EVERYONE with a 701/912 combination had, has, or will have this same
problem (but of course the plans/manual say nothing.....) I'd like to know
what some other builders have done - shim or not?
stan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)oregonfast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 on 701 shim or not? |
The difference may have come from a slightly different alignment of the
firewall vers the horizontal reference line.
Shim to get the angle of the engine bed right.
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: <Sjl219(at)aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 5:36 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: 912 on 701 shim or not?
>
> The middle plates welded to my ZAC engine mount ride up over the .063
upper
> shelf flange for the entire width of that flange.
>
> Nicholas checked their 701 demonstrator and said it didn't appear that ZAC
> used any shim. He also said I could if I wanted to.
>
> Seems to me it's not a good idea to bolt the engine mount to the firewall
> without an even mating of the parts. I'm too inexperienced to make my own
> decision. Couldn't the bolt hole eventually be distorted by flexing?
>
> Since EVERYONE with a 701/912 combination had, has, or will have this same
> problem (but of course the plans/manual say nothing.....) I'd like to know
> what some other builders have done - shim or not?
>
> stan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Fleming <jfleming(at)cofc.edu> |
| Subject: | Official Word on CH-701 AutoCad Drawings Vers 4 |
-----Original Message-----
From: Zenith Aircraft Company [mailto:info(at)zenithair.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Zenith-List: CAD drawings for the 701,YES
Thanks for your message to Zenith Aircraft Company. You wrote us:
> I hesitate to purchase the 701 plans...isn't version 4 AutoCad plans
available for the 701?
We are still planning on having the new edition, with full updates,
available by the end of this month.
Nick Heintz
Zenith Aircraft Company
support(at)zenithair.com
http://www.zenithair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | New CH701 Autocad Drawings |
Send a check for $50 (U.S.) to ZAC in Mexico, Missouri. Include a letter
requesting the new autocad plans as an "update" to your existing plans,
include your builder number, and include your full name and mailing address.
ZAC expects to start mailing them out an the end of this month, June.
Stan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | XL aileron attachment |
| From: | "Tom Wood" <twood(at)ucf.k12.pa.us> |
Good morning fellow builders,
I notice when drilling the aileron to the wing that the control horn
strikes the rear channel preventing down deflection. I tried to file the
horn but I believe it should be drilled out and repositioned. Did
anyone else have to reposition the horn?
Thanks,
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: July 2000 CH 601 stall/spin accident followup |
| From: | zoe johnson <zoejohnson(at)juno.com> |
Fellows,
Just had the exact same thing happen to me, on base to final..at
Branson,Mo. a few days ago..had aborted leaving due to marginal weather
on T/O, came back around pattern and was making tight turn..strip has
Fall off each end..anyway,slowed down on steep turn, and suddenly, left
wing stalled completely..nasty..full power,and a little room due to
falloff and my usual high approach was only thing that saved me and
wife..keep that airspeed up, especially in a steep turn...I have spun
mine and recogonized what was happening...
B.T.W. Other than a couple of bouts with bad weather, We had a great
cross country trip of a few less than 2000 miles,72 gals of gas ( ranged
from$2.09 to $2.70 per gal.)..11.2 hrs each way...amazing what this HDS,
with N.S.I suber will carry... watch those black clouds..got caught by
one, trying to get around it..was seeing 118 knts G.S. and 2000-3000 fpm
climb while I was pushing almost full elev. trying to get to side..talk
about a high speed up elevator!
Jackie N5JZ
writes:
>
>
> The June issue of Sport Aviation uses the G. Schwarz accident of
> July 29,
> 2000 as an example in a safety article. This was the accident where
> a list
> member & wife died because of a stall/spin while turning base to
> final at
> an airport en route to Oshkosh. A little more can be said about it.
>
> The updated NTSB report (NYC00LA213) notes that the aircraft was
> equipped
> with an angle of attack advisory system. I like the concept of AoA
> systems,
> but this accident focuses attention on the possibility that whatever
>
> distracts a pilot from noticing airspeed, buffet, stick position, or
> other
> cues may also distract the pilot from noticing flashing lights or
> perhaps
> buzzers -- much as pilots have done with gear-up warning horns.
>
> The pilot was experienced, with 2000 hours and 110 in the accident
> airplane.
>
> The accident report (and EAA article) mention that the aircraft was
> 21 lb
> over gross, which is still manageable. The C of G was determined to
> be 3.1
> inches aft of the aft limit. This seems almost impossibly far back
> to
> achieve with a HDS that is 912 powered (80 lb of baggage stuffed in
> the
> back of the turtledeck, with no fuselage fuel and full wing locker
> baggage
> or fuel might just do it).
>
> The NTSB does not mention that the 601 was an HDS, as reported by
> the
> pilot/builder on this list. They might have been confused about the
> aft C
> of G limit, using the 17.5" of the HD instead of the
> not-always-clearly-stated 19.5" of the HDS. The C of G for the
> accident
> would still have been aft of the limit, one which likely is further
> back
> than would be allowed for a certificated aircraft.
>
> Peter Chapman
> Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Maxson <pmaxson1(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: XL aileron attachment |
Where did it hit the rear channel? I noticed that my aileron horns
brushed the edge of the hole drilled into the channel. I haven't yet
installed the push rod, but I assumed I would have to file the edge of
the hole to be a little larger. I'll do that later when I permanently
attach the aileron to the wing.
Phil Maxson
601XL
Tom Wood wrote:
> I notice when drilling the aileron to the wing that the control horn
> strikes the rear channel preventing down deflection.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Steer" <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | Seat side panels - 601HD |
How have folks placed the arm rest side panels 6F16-1 - inside the L angles
or outside them? That is, does the vertical flange of the L angle show
after the panels are installed? The directions aren't clear and the plans
seem to contradict themselves. Or is it just a matter of appearance? Also,
what rivet pitch is used to ribet those panels to the L angles? Couldn't
find that, either.
Thanks very much.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Meiste's" <meiste(at)essex1.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Seat side panels - 601HD |
> How have folks placed the arm rest side panels 6F16-1 - inside the L
angles
> or outside them? That is, does the vertical flange of the L angle show
> after the panels are installed?
I installed mine with the panels on the outside so the L's flange will not
show. Seems to look nicer, and less likely to snag you with a sharp edge.
Also, what rivet pitch is used to ribet those panels to the L angles?
I show about 25mm on mine, probably more rivet's than actually required.
Seems I usually error on the shorter rivet pich side.
Good Luck!
Kelly
601HD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pinneo, George" <George.Pinneo(at)trw.com> |
| Subject: | Seat side panels - 601 HDS |
If you upholster over the sides, and you might do this for both sound absorption
and appearance, it doesn't matter.
Pinneo's Rule: many things are arbitrary!
GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pinneo, George" <George.Pinneo(at)trw.com> |
| Subject: | July 2000 CH 601 stall/spin accident followup |
A comment about steep turns to final etc. Some aerobatics time is a really good
investment once you get out of keep-the-wings-level planes like Cessnas and
Pipers. A RobinSport is a great trainer, with parachutes and an instructor.
I do a lot of short approaches where I pull power to idle at the numbers on downwind,
call 'short approach' and turn base from 1,000 feet or so, cranking in
60-70 degree bank angle (I couldn't admit to more than that and it's unnessary)
and then continue on around, doing my best to pretend I have two wings like
a WACO or Stearman. We're NOT driving commercial jetliners: a stabilized approach
is fine, but it doesn't get me paid extra!
I keep the NOSE DOWN so I know I've got more, rather than less airspeed. If you
practice this, it's not only fun, but when you REALLY need it, i.e., engine failure
or fire or whatever, you can do it without thinking about it. You can
land the HDS at speeds from 95 to 55, so carrying extra momentum doesn't matter
as long as you have even 2000' runway, even if you don't slip a foot. Try it,
but KEEP THE NOSE DOWN.
GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kent Brown" <kbplanner(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Leading edge tanks |
I realize this is a belated comment (I haven't had the time to catch up on
the listings), but I had the same reaction from the VDO gages with water in
the tank.
All was fine when later tested with fuel, though, with the gages giving
accurate readings. And I was VERY careful to get all the water out, and dry
the tank thoroughly before putting fuel in.
Kent
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry McFarland <larrymc(at)qconline.com>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 1:46 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Leading edge tanks
>
> Fellow scratch builders,
>
> I've been working thru LE tank leak testing and VDO sender installation
> and have had a curious time of it. Because water conducts and gasoline
> insulates like air, the full-range readings are different when the tank
> is empty than when filled with water. The gage reads full range when
> rotating an empty tank or with the sender in my hand. When water is
> added to the tank to check volume/float accuracy, the same wet float
> positions only read to =BE full. The second tank confirmed water would
> cause electrical leakage at the gage so perhaps this is the rationale.
>
> Leaving red colored water in the tank longer than overnight became
> another problem. On draining the tank, fuel sender surfaces were covered
> with red stain. The sender to gage reading was erratic. The food
> coloring dye had shorted the printed contacts on the rheostat board. I
> disassembled the sender, took a toothbrush with powdered soap to it to
> remove red stain and dull finish. It took two cleanings to regain a
> steady gage response. Full float travel was adjusted to less than
> 1/2-inch float clearance top and bottom. The tank was assembled again
> and filled with plain water. It read =BE-full on the gage. It was left
> overnight to again to check for leaks. None were found. The next step is
> to make outlet strainers #16 mesh, but examples most described, show
> brass bushings and screen screwed into an aluminum tank.
>
> My questions are,
>
> Does the tank ultimately read full with gasoline in place of water?
>
> Anyone have a better solution to this corrosive combination of brass
> fitting to aluminum tank?
>
> Thanks for any comment
>
> Larry C. McFarland 601HDS (completing wings)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dean Fournier" <headdown(at)home.com> |
Has anyone out there installed 2 wing tanks per wing in the 701 in order
to eliminate the main tank in the cockpit? I'm not comfortable with
having a fuel tank in the cockpit, but I don't want to sacrifice range.
Thanks for any help.
Dean Fournier
Ottawa, Ontario
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | XL aileron attachment |
| From: | "Tom Wood" <twood(at)ucf.k12.pa.us> |
zenith-list(at)matronics.com writes:
>
>Where did it hit the rear channel
Thanks for responding Phil,
The control horn strikes the rear channel on the bottom flange. It
strikes the channel square. So much so that filing the horn will not work
because I will violate the edge distance for the actuating rod hole. I
checked my plan dimensions for the horn and they seem right. I horn will
have to be moved up 1/4 inch.
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Thompson <rcav8r(at)chorus.net> |
| Subject: | Rivet clarification |
In searching the archives on the rivet types, it was pointed out there
were 2 different numbers involving the Avex rivets, one being the 1682
rivets which are the ones listed on the Crafword website, and the ones
provided by ZAC and aircraft spruce, 01604 series.
So are both acceptable?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Golovich" <john(at)golovich.com> |
| Subject: | Position of White Light on Tail |
I am building a CH-801..
I made the mistake of a little bend in the rear skin of the tail just above
the 4th rear rib. Does anyone have any opinions on moving the white light
from between the 5th and 4th rib to between the 4th and 3rd rib?
By moving it, I can position it where the slight bend is.
Thanks in advance.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fothergill <mfothergill(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Rivet clarification |
ZAC prefers the ones made in England for their closer tolerance. Those
are the ones supplied by ZAC. Your local supplier might be able to order
them in for you. Our Toronto supplier can get them.
Mike
UHS Spinners
John Thompson wrote:
>
>
> In searching the archives on the rivet types, it was pointed out there
> were 2 different numbers involving the Avex rivets, one being the 1682
> rivets which are the ones listed on the Crafword website, and the ones
> provided by ZAC and aircraft spruce, 01604 series.
>
> So are both acceptable?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A good day at the airport... |
Grant,
Do you (or does ZAC) have any plans, information, drawings or whatever for
making and attaching a sportster windshield.
Regards,
Bill (N812BM - HDS - Tri - Stratus - Vermont)
web site -> http://homepages.together.net/~billvt/
> My goal is to fly in there next year with the 'sportster' open
> cockpit/windscreen installed on our 601!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "zackly" <zackly(at)megalink.net> |
I have my CH 701 in a hanger at the local airport and have given up on
the idea of building my own airfield. A CH 701 belongs in someone's
private strip, where its STOL capabilities can be put to a good use.
Therefore, I have decided to sell my 701 and have started "scratch
building" a CH 601 XL.
Pictures of my 701 can be seen at the following sites: (1)
http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-testim.html my 701 is the second
one down, with the eagle murals. (2
http://www.zenithair.com/bldr/7-bldrs.htm#G then scroll down to
"Gurschick" for more detailed photos.
I would like to advertise this plane on the net for $21,500.00 Are
there any of you folks who can recommend "aircraft for sale"
sites/links for this purpose?
Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.------ I can be reached by
phone, in the evening (eastern time), at (207) 966-3135--- Fritz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Croke" <jon(at)joncroke.com> |
Greetings,
I am progressing slowly but surely on my 1st kit for the 701 (tail section)
and recently ordered a 2X4 sheet of 6061 from Aircraft Spruce to replace
some messups that I made on some of the original skin material I got with
the kit.
What is surprising is that the sheet I got is almost as shiny as a polished
mirror!! This does not compare to the material recieved with the kit, which
is much duller in appearance. Can anyone tell me why the same material can
look so different?? Frankly the whole plane made from this very shiny stock
would look awfully great! BTW the sheet has the 6061 stamped on the back so
I think I got the right stuff.
Thanks
Jon
near Green Bay, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim & Diane Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rivet clarification |
John,
The 1882-0412 and the 1682-0514 ( A4 and A5) both have the identical
specifications listed in Zeniths builder manual. I've said it before that
if these rivets are so suspect that they have to be made in a particular
plant or retested then we shouldn't be using them. Since we are I just buy
mine from Crawford Products.
Tim Shankland
John Thompson wrote:
>
> In searching the archives on the rivet types, it was pointed out there
> were 2 different numbers involving the Avex rivets, one being the 1682
> rivets which are the ones listed on the Crafword website, and the ones
> provided by ZAC and aircraft spruce, 01604 series.
>
> So are both acceptable?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A good day at the airport... |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
on 10/6/01 5:50 PM, Bill Morelli at billvt(at)together.net wrote:
>
> Grant,
>
> Do you (or does ZAC) have any plans, information, drawings or whatever for
> making and attaching a sportster windshield.
Bill,
Check with Nick. I've seen the photo on their site and I think it was Nick
who flew it.
We can make it a formation!
Grant
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Meiste's" <meiste(at)essex1.com> |
Hi Jon,
My 601 kit came the same way (dull finish). Once I had to order a new skin
from ZAC, it
arrived the way you described (like a mirror). I asked Nick about that, & he
said it was do to the supplier using a new roller in the manufacturing
process. It probably starts out highly polished but after years of rolling
it will start looking like the normal skins we are used to seeing (unless it
is re-polished regularly).
Kelly
601 HD
> What is surprising is that the sheet I got is almost as shiny as a
polished
> mirror!! This does not compare to the material recieved with the kit,
which
> is much duller in appearance. Can anyone tell me why the same material
can
> look so different?? Frankly the whole plane made from this very shiny
stock
> would look awfully great! BTW the sheet has the 6061 stamped on the back
so
> I think I got the right stuff.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jon
> near Green Bay, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)oregonfast.net> |
| Subject: | Construction pics |
>
> http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/build/index.html
>
Thankyou thankyou thankyou for finding that link and thanks to Zenith for
making it. I had been unable to get much out of the old arrangement and
this looks really helpfull.
Richard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Falcon Hawk" <falconhk(at)mcmedia.com.au> |
| Subject: | another ch 601 flying. |
I have flown my kit built ch 601 this week, here are some specs.
Powrerd by a rotax 912 / 80 HP.
cruise Indicated 90 mph at 5000 rpm
stall indicated at MAUW 45 MPH
Speed indicated at full revs 105 MPH
Empty weight 260 KG each wheel weighing 86.6 KG this weight includes
upholstery, full paint job in 2 pack , instruments and wheel spats.
when I settle down and lower the adrenalin levels I will post more info and
pictures.
the indicated speed matched the GPS speed, it was a very calm morning!!
regards to all from Jim & Kay
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Seibert <pwseib(at)micron.net> |
| Subject: | 701 to fly around the world |
Listers,
Spotted this in "Northern Pilot" magazine. Thought some of you might be
interested.
http://www.worldtranssiberia.com/
Paul S
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | another ch 601 flying. |
Awesome job,
Congratulations...Fun isn't it.
This W/E I went to an open hangar day where my friend had just finished his
RV6. Ahh yes I recognise the totally focussed (can't think or talk about
anything else) look that I had a couple of years back!
Well done, watch the aft CG limit!
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Falcon Hawk [mailto:falconhk(at)mcmedia.com.au]
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 4:23 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: another ch 601 flying.
I have flown my kit built ch 601 this week, here are some specs.
Powrerd by a rotax 912 / 80 HP.
cruise Indicated 90 mph at 5000 rpm
stall indicated at MAUW 45 MPH
Speed indicated at full revs 105 MPH
Empty weight 260 KG each wheel weighing 86.6 KG this weight includes
upholstery, full paint job in 2 pack , instruments and wheel spats.
when I settle down and lower the adrenalin levels I will post more info and
pictures.
the indicated speed matched the GPS speed, it was a very calm morning!!
regards to all from Jim & Kay
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi List,
Does anyone have suggestions, ideas, thoughts on how to make a template or
how to properly trim the fiberglass saddle that goes on the rear fuselage?
Mine is not really even close to fitting the body of the airframe.
Does anyone have any construction photos or a web site detailing this area?
Thanks for everyone's help. I finally mounted my tail feathers and
everything is square, plumb and true! Looks like an airplane with no wings!
Steve Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | doogie rugg <doogie_o(at)yahoo.com> |
Zackly, I don't know much about computers so please
forgive me if I replied to your message the wrong way.
this is a web site I have been looking at for buying a
plane.
http://www.ooigui.com/AdPlace.asp
What can you tell me about your CH 701? I have just
recently started lesson and should solo soon if all
goes well. I am thinking about buying a CH 701 I have
heard alot of good things about them. Thank you,
Doogie
From: "zackly" <zackly(at)megalink.net>
Subject: Zenith-List: CH 701 for sale
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:11:00 -0700
I have my CH 701 in a hanger at the local airport and
have given up on
the idea of building my own airfield. A CH 701
belongs in someone's
private strip, where its STOL capabilities can be
put to a good use.
Therefore, I have decided to sell my 701 and have
started "scratch
building" a CH 601 XL.
Pictures of my 701 can be seen at the following
sites: (1)
http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-testim.html my
701 is the
second
one down, with the eagle murals.
(2
http://www.zenithair.com/bldr/7-bldrs.htm#G then
scroll down to
"Gurschick" for more detailed photos.
I would like to advertise this plane on the net for
$21,500.00 Are
there any of you folks who can recommend "aircraft
for sale"
sites/links for this purpose?
Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.------ I
can be reached
by
phone, in the evening (eastern time), at (207)
966-3135--- Fritz
through
http://www.matronics.com/zenith-list
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim & Diane Shankland <tshank(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Forward fuselage |
Help!!
I asked a question last week about the angle on incidence of the wing, I
think I've got that all right now. Now when cutting the fuselage side
skin 6-F-5-1 nothing seems to fit right. According to the instructions
I should fit the F-F line to the spar and "pick up the angles" . The
problem is that although the F-F line is at 3 degrees with reference to
the upper longeron the front lower section of the skin ( the 810
measurement) is only at a 1 degree. that means that it will not be
parallel with the flat bottom part of the wing.
To fit the skin I have set the wing on the bench with the 3 degree up
angle and then place the skin with the F-F line on the spar. The upper
part of the skin is level as it should be but the rear portion is
probably 20 mm above the rear Z. When I take the dimension of the skin
and the wing and do a little trig it doesn't appear that it will fit.
But since others have been this way before that either means that I made
a mistake somewhere or there is something I should disregard.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Tim Shankland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Keith Maloney <kmaloney(at)lsil.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Forward fuselage |
Tim & Diane,
I had the exact same problem when I did my side skins a couple of months
ago. I also posted the question on what angle I should end up with. In the end
I was able to hold almost 2.5 degrees. Ohters that replied to my question also
said they got about the same angle. I just did my best to make every thing fit.
There is allot of damn work in the center section! Good luck.
Keith Maloney
Scratch 601HD
Tim & Diane Shankland wrote:
>
> Help!!
>
> I asked a question last week about the angle on incidence of the wing, I
> think I've got that all right now. Now when cutting the fuselage side
> skin 6-F-5-1 nothing seems to fit right. According to the instructions
> I should fit the F-F line to the spar and "pick up the angles" . The
> problem is that although the F-F line is at 3 degrees with reference to
> the upper longeron the front lower section of the skin ( the 810
> measurement) is only at a 1 degree. that means that it will not be
> parallel with the flat bottom part of the wing.
>
> To fit the skin I have set the wing on the bench with the 3 degree up
> angle and then place the skin with the F-F line on the spar. The upper
> part of the skin is level as it should be but the rear portion is
> probably 20 mm above the rear Z. When I take the dimension of the skin
> and the wing and do a little trig it doesn't appear that it will fit.
> But since others have been this way before that either means that I made
> a mistake somewhere or there is something I should disregard.
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>
> Tim Shankland
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Saddle 601 HDS |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
on 11/6/01 8:28 PM, STEFREE(at)aol.com at STEFREE(at)aol.com wrote:
...
> Boy, don't I know that one! Can't wait to try and fit the cowling and canopy!
I got lots of exercise lifting my canopy and cowling into place to mark
that next 5 mm trim! ;-)
Have fun and good luck!
--
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
Zodiac 601hds/CAM100
C-GHTF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Radiator - Options |
Awhile back someone posted that there was a radiator solution for Subaru
installs that was better than the standard used by ZAC, but mentioned
that it costs $800 or something. Does any one remember what this was
about? Has any one come up with a solution that puts the radiator inside
the cowling?
Thanks,
Don Honabach
http://www.pcperfect.com/zodiac
601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Radiator - Options |
It was the NSI setup that was a smaller rad inside a premolded scoop.
No rad I know of will go in the cowl on the Soob.
But think about it...Instead of putting it in the cowl, sling the rad
underneath and close off all the ventilation into the cowl (you just need
carb air and enough flow to remove exhaust heat, you could even insulate the
exhaust).
I.e you pay for the drag of the rad but you save it by stopping the cooling
air going through the cowl.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Honabach [mailto:don(at)pcperfect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:57 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Radiator - Options
Awhile back someone posted that there was a radiator solution for Subaru
installs that was better than the standard used by ZAC, but mentioned
that it costs $800 or something. Does any one remember what this was
about? Has any one come up with a solution that puts the radiator inside
the cowling?
Thanks,
Don Honabach
http://www.pcperfect.com/zodiac
601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Radiator - Options |
I intend to put my radiator in the cowling as did a
few of my friends. (See my "Other Projects" page on
my web site).
The radiator they installed is a VW Rabbit or Fox and
his mounted between the firewall and the engine. I
had my engine mount made so there is space for the
radiator (the prop flange is 36" from firewall). I
did not receive the mount yet to verify.
Michel
--- "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)"
wrote:
> (HP-Corvallis,ex1)"
>
> It was the NSI setup that was a smaller rad inside a
> premolded scoop.
>
> No rad I know of will go in the cowl on the Soob.
>
> But think about it...Instead of putting it in the
> cowl, sling the rad
> underneath and close off all the ventilation into
> the cowl (you just need
> carb air and enough flow to remove exhaust heat, you
> could even insulate the
> exhaust).
>
> I.e you pay for the drag of the rad but you save it
> by stopping the cooling
> air going through the cowl.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Honabach [mailto:don(at)pcperfect.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:57 AM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Radiator - Options
>
>
>
>
> Awhile back someone posted that there was a radiator
> solution for Subaru
> installs that was better than the standard used by
> ZAC, but mentioned
> that it costs $800 or something. Does any one
> remember what this was
> about? Has any one come up with a solution that puts
> the radiator inside
> the cowling?
>
> Thanks,
> Don Honabach
> http://www.pcperfect.com/zodiac
> 601HDS
>
>
>
> through
>
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
> Matronics!
>
>
>
>
>
=====
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
http://www.pcperfect.com/mthobby/ch601
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Bertrand" <cgbrt(at)mondenet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Throttle Cables |
Hi Greg,
I had the same problem with my 701.
To rectify I added an extra pipe to the left side of the bell crank and ran
the left cable from it making both cables the same.
Happy landings,
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Ferris <ferret(at)forbin.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 10:48 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Throttle Cables
>
> I installed the throttle cables yesterday and have a question. Due to
> the fact that the throttle stop is off-center, the cable to one carb is
> longer than the other, and has a couple of gentle bends in it (I made
> the cable longer than it had to be to make sure the bends were as gentle
> as possible). When I push the throttle in somewhat rapidly, the carb
> with the longer cable moves slower than the other carb (the carbs would
> be way out of sync.) What happens is the cable pushes through the hole
> in the bolt on the bellcrank during movement.
>
> Obviously, this can not be a good thing. I wonder why this would be
> different on any plane though. Have others seen this? Could there be
> something wrong with my carbs?
>
> Thank you,
> Greg Ferris
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Weston, Jim" <Jim.Weston(at)delta.com> |
| Subject: | Radiator - Options |
Don,
The $800 solution was to purchase the package from NSI.
Jim Weston
McDonough, Ga.
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Honabach [mailto:don(at)pcperfect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:57 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Radiator - Options
Awhile back someone posted that there was a radiator solution for Subaru
installs that was better than the standard used by ZAC, but mentioned
that it costs $800 or something. Does any one remember what this was
about? Has any one come up with a solution that puts the radiator inside
the cowling?
Thanks,
Don Honabach
http://www.pcperfect.com/zodiac
601HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Sa <wings1(at)videotron.ca> |
| Subject: | CH 601 HD CAD Plans |
Hi, Listers
I received today a copy of the new CAD plans for the 601. Cost was US$50
+ 10 S&H.
What you get: CAD plans printed in the same format as the old ones (11"
x 17").
The drawings are high quality, as the samples on the web. In the HD
plans, all the parts that are HD-only are so identified (e.g., 6V4-6HD,
6V7-1HD, etc.). All "options" remain options, and are not in the plans:
conventional canopy, trike, regular trim tab, etc.
The plans are marked "4th edition, 04/01", and are DIFFERENT from those
on the web (date 02/11/98). Note that they removed the dates from the
web page - I interpret that as "we are not updating these anymore".
The new plans contain clarifications and corrections that make it worth
the $ - as if the CAD clarity wasn't enough (ex: the old plans and the
web CAD plans do not give complete info on 6T4-5; the new plans do). I
did not check the plans end to end, but believe most (if not all)
corrections issued before April have been incorporated - MY SPECULATION,
CHECK FOR YOURSELF!
I called Z, and asked about the Construction Manuals (on the web, they
imply you get it with the plans). Sebastian says they are still working
on it, and will be posted on the web when ready.
***Question*** for scratch builders: the coordinates for the wing rib
forming blocks have the following annotation: "Coordinates of the
finished rib" (as opposed to coordinates of the forming block). The
coordinates did not change.
My question is, when cutting the forming blocks, did you reduce the
block's size to make sure the rib would come out in the size prescribed?
If not, did that cause a problem??
Cheers
Carlos
(A bunch of parts cut, but no two parts joined yet)
Montreal, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CH 601 HD CAD Plans |
My forming blocs were made as specified on the plan
(which seems to be wrong by the annotation you've
got). I don't believe that it would change things
very much as I had to "pull" the flange in some
location and "push" it in others (ex. pull on rear end
of rear ribs, push the upper flange of nose rib).
Michel
=====
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
http://www.pcperfect.com/mthobby/ch601
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Steer" <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | 601HD - engine mount |
I'm putting the stiffeners on the firewall of my 601HD. I plan to use the
Rotax 912 engine. The question is - how much room do I need to leave
between the holes in stiffener 6F7-5 and the side flange, so there's enough
room for the engine mount? The original plans show the hole centered, but
the CAD drawings show it offset toward the flange. I'd believe it should be
offset, to leave enough room for the stiffener on the firewall, but don't
know how far I can offset it.
Thanks for any help.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Steer" <bsteer(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | Firewall top stiffener - 601HD |
Another question about the firewall stiffeners. I don't see any mention of
rivets through the back flange of the top firewall stiffener 6F8-2 and the
firewall. Is the only thing holding the center of the stiffener to the
firewall the 520mm "L" angle?
Thanks.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry McFarland" <larrymc(at)qconline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CH 601 HD CAD Plans |
Carlos,
I used the coordinates given for blocks and have completed the wings
faithful to dimensions without problems. Everything seems to fit without
frustration.
Larry McFarland - 601HDS wings, LE Tanks, center section and tail feathers
completed. Beginning the rear fuselage.
----- Original Message -----
From: Carlos Sa <wings1(at)videotron.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 4:04 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: CH 601 HD CAD Plans
>
> Hi, Listers
>
>
> I received today a copy of the new CAD plans for the 601. Cost was US$50
> + 10 S&H.
> What you get: CAD plans printed in the same format as the old ones (11"
> x 17").
>
> The drawings are high quality, as the samples on the web. In the HD
> plans, all the parts that are HD-only are so identified (e.g., 6V4-6HD,
> 6V7-1HD, etc.). All "options" remain options, and are not in the plans:
> conventional canopy, trike, regular trim tab, etc.
>
> The plans are marked "4th edition, 04/01", and are DIFFERENT from those
> on the web (date 02/11/98). Note that they removed the dates from the
> web page - I interpret that as "we are not updating these anymore".
> The new plans contain clarifications and corrections that make it worth
> the $ - as if the CAD clarity wasn't enough (ex: the old plans and the
> web CAD plans do not give complete info on 6T4-5; the new plans do). I
> did not check the plans end to end, but believe most (if not all)
> corrections issued before April have been incorporated - MY SPECULATION,
> CHECK FOR YOURSELF!
>
> I called Z, and asked about the Construction Manuals (on the web, they
> imply you get it with the plans). Sebastian says they are still working
> on it, and will be posted on the web when ready.
>
>
> ***Question*** for scratch builders: the coordinates for the wing rib
> forming blocks have the following annotation: "Coordinates of the
> finished rib" (as opposed to coordinates of the forming block). The
> coordinates did not change.
> My question is, when cutting the forming blocks, did you reduce the
> block's size to make sure the rib would come out in the size prescribed?
> If not, did that cause a problem??
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Carlos
> (A bunch of parts cut, but no two parts joined yet)
> Montreal, Canada
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
I have the standard ZAC radiator install for the Stratus (under the fuse up
front). I had always meant to plug the large air leaks that prevent all of
the air entering the front of the radiator from going through the radiator.
There is a plate in the back to block air but it does a poor job and there
are significant spaces at the sides between the side mounts and the radiator
where the air simply bypasses the radiator.
Today I duct taped the back (temporary test) and stuffed foam strips in to
block the leaks all along both sides.
Went flying. Ground temp 83 deg F, humidity > 80 %. Made a steady climb
starting at 800 fpm and climbed to 9000 feet. Climb was down to 500 fpm by
then. The oil temp was just over 210 and the engine temp (water) was right
at 210. This is the lowest I have ever had at that ambient temperature.
Blocking these leaks has made a significant difference in the cooling. I
should also mention that I have a VW fox heater core for my cabin heat. Of
course I don't use the cabin heat now but the air is still blows through the
heater core and spills out the bottom of the cowl. This I'm sure also helps
my cooling as the water has additional cooling.
I went up to 10,500 today over and was over a beautiful scattered cloud
layer. What a site. When I get a few minutes, I'll post some photos to my
web site.
Regards,
Bill (N812BM - HDS - Tri - Stratus - Vermont)
web site -> http://homepages.together.net/~billvt/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)oregonfast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Throttle Cables |
That is an excelent solution
I also found that if I pushed the cables too fast, slack could develop at
the carburettor end and the end of the cable cover could pop out of the
adjuster screw keeping that carburettor from going all the way down to idle.
Long story short, I put a short length of hose over the fitting with a hose
clamp on the cable and another on the screw adjuster. Now it cannot pop
out.
Richard
> I had the same problem with my 701.
> To rectify I added an extra pipe to the left side of the bell crank and
ran
> the left cable from it making both cables the same.
> Happy landings,
> Carl
> > I installed the throttle cables yesterday and have a question. Due to
> > the fact that the throttle stop is off-center, the cable to one carb is
> > longer than the other, and has a couple of gentle bends in it (I made
> > the cable longer than it had to be to make sure the bends were as gentle
> > as possible). When I push the throttle in somewhat rapidly, the carb
> > with the longer cable moves slower than the other carb (the carbs would
> > be way out of sync.) What happens is the cable pushes through the hole
> > in the bolt on the bellcrank during movement.
> >
> > Obviously, this can not be a good thing. I wonder why this would be
> > different on any plane though. Have others seen this? Could there be
> > something wrong with my carbs?
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Greg Ferris
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Ferris <ferret(at)forbin.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Throttle Cables |
Thanks for all who have posted on this one. I was surprised to find that after
the plane sat for a week, the problem with the cables was gone. My only thought
is that I added a little grease to the cable inside the sleeve to ensure it
would never rust and cause binding. It seems like after it sat for a while and
was cycled several times, the longer cable now moves right with the shorter
one. I'm not clear on whether this is permanent or not (hey...it is exactly to
the plans!).
Greg
HOLCOMBE wrote:
>
> That is an excelent solution
> I also found that if I pushed the cables too fast, slack could develop at
> the carburettor end and the end of the cable cover could pop out of the
> adjuster screw keeping that carburettor from going all the way down to idle.
> Long story short, I put a short length of hose over the fitting with a hose
> clamp on the cable and another on the screw adjuster. Now it cannot pop
> out.
> Richard
>
> > I had the same problem with my 701.
> > To rectify I added an extra pipe to the left side of the bell crank and
> ran
> > the left cable from it making both cables the same.
> > Happy landings,
> > Carl
>
> > > I installed the throttle cables yesterday and have a question. Due to
> > > the fact that the throttle stop is off-center, the cable to one carb is
> > > longer than the other, and has a couple of gentle bends in it (I made
> > > the cable longer than it had to be to make sure the bends were as gentle
> > > as possible). When I push the throttle in somewhat rapidly, the carb
> > > with the longer cable moves slower than the other carb (the carbs would
> > > be way out of sync.) What happens is the cable pushes through the hole
> > > in the bolt on the bellcrank during movement.
> > >
> > > Obviously, this can not be a good thing. I wonder why this would be
> > > different on any plane though. Have others seen this? Could there be
> > > something wrong with my carbs?
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Greg Ferris
> > >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org> |
>
>In an attempt to keep you builders motivated, I added some photos of a
>flight I made yesterday to over 10,000 feet.
>
>Take a look
It works for me. I gotta get up there! Congrats on your plane.
Gary Liming, 801
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "P. Owens" <owensp(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Position of White Light on Tail |
Dear John,
If you still have the tail open and can make the change and the wiring
along with it I don't see any reason why not. It would place the light
higher in the vertical stabuilizer.
Hope this helps but if you really need a definative answer best to check
with Nick at ZAC.
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Golovich" <john(at)golovich.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 12:54 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Position of White Light on Tail
>
> I am building a CH-801..
>
> I made the mistake of a little bend in the rear skin of the tail just
above
> the 4th rear rib. Does anyone have any opinions on moving the white
light
> from between the 5th and 4th rib to between the 4th and 3rd rib?
>
> By moving it, I can position it where the slight bend is.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> John
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Norris <rnorris4(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Saddle 601 HDS |
The saddle looks like it will need only a little trimming, but I ended
up trimming off quite a bit before it fit well (ok would be a better
term). Make sure you fit it with the rudder in place, and don't forget
about the interference with the elevator horn. Hardest part was the
repeated removing and installing of the rudder until the saddle would
fit underneath the leading edge. I set the saddle on the HS and scribed
a sharpie line around the base, about 10mm wide at first, aiming the top
leading edge of the saddle's angle to match the rudder leading edge
bottom. Trim to the line and try again until it fit under both the
rudder and the back of the upper fuselage skin. Trim less each pass when
it gets close. It helps to use a belt sander (the curved part) to trim,
but messy. You can heat the fiberglas with a hair dryer and bend it a
little if needed also. I had to cut 2 small slots in the back to get the
elevator horn to clear. I made 2 small L brackets in the back, riveted
to the horizontal stab, with nutplates on them, and nutplates inside the
saddle in the front so I could remove it easily.
Rob Norris
STEFREE(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Hi List,
>
> Does anyone have suggestions, ideas, thoughts on how to make a template or
> how to properly trim the fiberglass saddle that goes on the rear fuselage?
> Mine is not really even close to fitting the body of the airframe.
>
> Does anyone have any construction photos or a web site detailing this area?
>
> Thanks for everyone's help. I finally mounted my tail feathers and
> everything is square, plumb and true! Looks like an airplane with no wings!
>
> Steve Freeman
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks Bill, great motivation. Love those bare AL wings at 10k. Are you going
to keep it silver? What is your polishing process?
Also, interested to see and would like your thoughts on the Taskem altimeter..
Regards and thanks again...
Chris Carey601 HDS N601BZ
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Dillon <flightco(at)swbell.net> |
I've been considering a 601XL vs an RV9 for about a year now and just can't
make up my mind, so I'm looking for direction from the Zenith List.
Here's what I have so far:
RV9 Pros:
Fast, easy to fly airplane
RV builders seem extremely happy with the quality of the kits, especially
now that almost all holes are pre-punched.
Uses Lycoming engines - reliability & performane
As to the kit price - about the same as the XL, but a lot more for the money
(makes me wonder how they came up with the XL kit price). The overall price
to build a RV9 will probably be $20,000 more
RV9 Cons:
2 to 3 times as long to build as the XL
The noise of drivng rivets
Uses Lycoming engines - expensive to purchase, maintain and overhaul.
601XL Pros:
Fast build (is this for real?)
Blind rivets
Uses Rotax engine - lower acquisition cost
Good safety record
Mexico MO is close to me
601 Cons:
Within $1,000 of the kit cost of a RV9
Rotax Engines - half the TBO of a Lycoming 235. (I know you can use the 235
in the XL, but the weight penalty is too high).
Slow - any completed XL's besides the factory model? What cruse do you get
at 75%?
Kit Quality?
Kit quality is probably my single biggest concern. I've been lurking on
this list (and the RV list) for over a year, and it seems there is very
little quality in the Zenith kits. Seems I hear a lot about things that
just don't fit.
I will be making a decision where to spend my money shortly after Osh. What
I really want to do is build the XL because it builds faster and overall
costs are less than the RV9. What I am hoping for is to be convinced that
the kits really are high quality (I've flown in the demo and loved the way
it flew). Builders, please help this lost kit-builder newbee out and send
my your honest opinion. Anyone in Kansas, Missouri (besides the factory) or
S. IL building (or completed) that wouldn't mind a visit?
Thanks,
Mike Dillon
Kansas City
flightconn(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 601XL or RV9? |
In a message dated 6/15/01 10:10:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
flightco(at)swbell.net writes:
<< Anyone in Kansas, Missouri >>
Fred Hulen?? Lee's Summit ..is an HDS not an XL though (w/Jab 3300)
Also consider Jabiru 3300 for the XL little more $ than 912 and simpler
install I would think, and other simplicity.
Been thinking for a year?...with a Zodiac you could have been well over half
way done or more depending on your time availability.
Plans and instructions are good..require study and thinking rather than just
bolt 'n go in some places but for me the intellectual stimulation time makes
me understand the plane better. I like Zenith company but gather all is good
with RV too. Can't speak from experience on the RVs though. I know I would
have a tough time using bucked rivets in my building conditions.
Both are beautiful planes. Good luck...
Chris Carey
601HDS N601BZ
Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Wood <mawood(at)zoo.uvm.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: 601XL or RV9? |
I would second the what is said by Chris below, especially the part about
"Plans and instructions are good..require study and thinking rather than just
bolt 'n go in some places but for me the intellectual stimulation time makes
me understand the plane better."
This thinking process has made the building process much more fun than I
expected, and has been an addition to the process rather than a detractor.
Mark Wood
601 HD 80% done 90% to go.
>
>In a message dated 6/15/01 10:10:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>flightco(at)swbell.net writes:
>
><< Anyone in Kansas, Missouri >>
>
>Fred Hulen?? Lee's Summit ..is an HDS not an XL though (w/Jab 3300)
>
>Also consider Jabiru 3300 for the XL little more $ than 912 and simpler
>install I would think, and other simplicity.
>
>Been thinking for a year?...with a Zodiac you could have been well over half
>way done or more depending on your time availability.
>
>Plans and instructions are good..require study and thinking rather than just
>bolt 'n go in some places but for me the intellectual stimulation time makes
>me understand the plane better. I like Zenith company but gather all is good
>with RV too. Can't speak from experience on the RVs though. I know I would
>have a tough time using bucked rivets in my building conditions.
>
>Both are beautiful planes. Good luck...
>
>Chris Carey
>601HDS N601BZ
>Richmond, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HOLCOMBE" <holcombe(at)oregonfast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 601XL or RV9? |
How many of all those solid rivits in an RV require a helper with a bucking
bar. It is not just trwice as long to build, its twice as long times two
people. What you should do is build a Zenith to get yourself into the air,
then build a show stopper RV timed for completion about the time you are too
old to fly it.
Richard (happy with sky jeep fit and finish)
----- Original Message -----
From: <SEAL2CC(at)aol.com>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 601XL or RV9?
>
> In a message dated 6/15/01 10:10:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> flightco(at)swbell.net writes:
>
> << Anyone in Kansas, Missouri >>
>
> Fred Hulen?? Lee's Summit ..is an HDS not an XL though (w/Jab 3300)
>
> Also consider Jabiru 3300 for the XL little more $ than 912 and simpler
> install I would think, and other simplicity.
>
> Been thinking for a year?...with a Zodiac you could have been well over
half
> way done or more depending on your time availability.
>
> Plans and instructions are good..require study and thinking rather than
just
> bolt 'n go in some places but for me the intellectual stimulation time
makes
> me understand the plane better. I like Zenith company but gather all is
good
> with RV too. Can't speak from experience on the RVs though. I know I would
> have a tough time using bucked rivets in my building conditions.
>
> Both are beautiful planes. Good luck...
>
> Chris Carey
> 601HDS N601BZ
> Richmond, VA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
Well, at the risk of ticking off the list again I have the following to
offer based on my experience of the HDS and having helped a number RV
builders.
The HDS kit is WAY BEHIND the quality and fit of the quickbuild RV
kits...Note however the quickbuilds cost more money.
All this about CNC hole drilling (from ZAC) made me wonder why they
bothered...the holes I drilled are more in line than the ones ZAC did as
part of the kit.
My cowling fit is appalling with the Stratus Subaru. I bet I have another
100 hours of work ahead of me to make a new nose cone and/or cut and shut
the existing cowl.
The HDS is VERY slow, nowhere near the performance claimed and from what I
have seen RV numbers are honest (one or too are slow vs ALL of the HDS's are
slow and by a big margin)
I think overall you can get more gear in the HDS 'cos of the wing baggage
lockers. You don't have that advantage with the XL.
One big surprise is that the HDS even with the nose gear is a pretty darned
good STOL airplane and will land on some really bad plough rut and boulder
strips....
Now of course the XL may have improved over the HDS but can you even get a
full kit yet?
I really think the RVs are hard to beat, the only con is driving the bucked
rivets.
Remember also the airframe is less than half the work, the fit up of engine
and wires/fuel lines is the same in either case. Zacs build times are also
fairy tale in my opinion.... Yeah sure you could build in 400 hours but I
think the plane would be a mess! Mine took 950 hours and every (one of my)
rivets are perfectly aligned...In the RV this is done for you!
Oh yes, there are one or two RV's with Subaru engines as well, there are
some very good EJ 22 and 25 based kits around, the EJ 25 will produce about
180HP from Subielyc.
Remember the RV airframe is at least as good if not better at fuel
economy...my friends RV 4 will cruise at 200mph at 8 gallons per hour.....
mine barely does 100mph if I throttle back to 4GPH.
If you use a soob you get to run auto gas as well.
Frank HDS Stratus, flying, 167 hours and I get used as drone target practice
by my RV friends!
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Dillon [mailto:flightco(at)swbell.net]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 7:06 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: 601XL or RV9?
I've been considering a 601XL vs an RV9 for about a year now and just can't
make up my mind, so I'm looking for direction from the Zenith List.
Here's what I have so far:
RV9 Pros:
Fast, easy to fly airplane
RV builders seem extremely happy with the quality of the kits, especially
now that almost all holes are pre-punched.
Uses Lycoming engines - reliability & performane
As to the kit price - about the same as the XL, but a lot more for the money
(makes me wonder how they came up with the XL kit price). The overall price
to build a RV9 will probably be $20,000 more
RV9 Cons:
2 to 3 times as long to build as the XL
The noise of drivng rivets
Uses Lycoming engines - expensive to purchase, maintain and overhaul.
601XL Pros:
Fast build (is this for real?)
Blind rivets
Uses Rotax engine - lower acquisition cost
Good safety record
Mexico MO is close to me
601 Cons:
Within $1,000 of the kit cost of a RV9
Rotax Engines - half the TBO of a Lycoming 235. (I know you can use the 235
in the XL, but the weight penalty is too high).
Slow - any completed XL's besides the factory model? What cruse do you get
at 75%?
Kit Quality?
Kit quality is probably my single biggest concern. I've been lurking on
this list (and the RV list) for over a year, and it seems there is very
little quality in the Zenith kits. Seems I hear a lot about things that
just don't fit.
I will be making a decision where to spend my money shortly after Osh. What
I really want to do is build the XL because it builds faster and overall
costs are less than the RV9. What I am hoping for is to be convinced that
the kits really are high quality (I've flown in the demo and loved the way
it flew). Builders, please help this lost kit-builder newbee out and send
my your honest opinion. Anyone in Kansas, Missouri (besides the factory) or
S. IL building (or completed) that wouldn't mind a visit?
Thanks,
Mike Dillon
Kansas City
flightconn(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry McFarland" <larrymc(at)qconline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 601XL or RV9? |
Mike,
We have several RVs being built in our chapter and I'm pleased
the plane is so well received. But as a scratch build project or kit, It'll
take
considerably more time. Frank, you could well ask the RV flyers
to slow down to 100 and get 4 gallons per hour, and I'd bet they wish
they could. The finished RV will weigh a lot more and cost half again the
price of a 601HDS.
And, after the project is done the hourly/monthly price of flying an RV is
fixed
by design at a higher rate. They are nice, and fast, and are nearly always
well made. But
the workmanship is up to you on any plane. I sat in an RV6 once and flew
the 601hds once
but liked the seating posture and view from the 601 better.
The 601 is not terribly hard to plans-build either.
Larry McFarland - Scratch building a 601 is great fun.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Dillon <flightco(at)swbell.net>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 9:06 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: 601XL or RV9?
>
> I've been considering a 601XL vs an RV9 for about a year now and just
can't
> make up my mind, so I'm looking for direction from the Zenith List.
>
> Here's what I have so far:
>
> RV9 Pros:
> Fast, easy to fly airplane
> RV builders seem extremely happy with the quality of the kits, especially
> now that almost all holes are pre-punched.
> Uses Lycoming engines - reliability & performane
> As to the kit price - about the same as the XL, but a lot more for the
money
> (makes me wonder how they came up with the XL kit price). The overall
price
> to build a RV9 will probably be $20,000 more
>
> RV9 Cons:
> 2 to 3 times as long to build as the XL
> The noise of drivng rivets
> Uses Lycoming engines - expensive to purchase, maintain and overhaul.
>
> 601XL Pros:
>
> Fast build (is this for real?)
> Blind rivets
> Uses Rotax engine - lower acquisition cost
> Good safety record
> Mexico MO is close to me
>
> 601 Cons:
> Within $1,000 of the kit cost of a RV9
> Rotax Engines - half the TBO of a Lycoming 235. (I know you can use the
235
> in the XL, but the weight penalty is too high).
> Slow - any completed XL's besides the factory model? What cruse do you
get
> at 75%?
> Kit Quality?
>
> Kit quality is probably my single biggest concern. I've been lurking on
> this list (and the RV list) for over a year, and it seems there is very
> little quality in the Zenith kits. Seems I hear a lot about things that
> just don't fit.
>
> I will be making a decision where to spend my money shortly after Osh.
What
> I really want to do is build the XL because it builds faster and overall
> costs are less than the RV9. What I am hoping for is to be convinced that
> the kits really are high quality (I've flown in the demo and loved the way
> it flew). Builders, please help this lost kit-builder newbee out and send
> my your honest opinion. Anyone in Kansas, Missouri (besides the factory)
or
> S. IL building (or completed) that wouldn't mind a visit?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Dillon
> Kansas City
> flightconn(at)earthlink.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 601XL or RV9? |
In a message dated 6/15/01 10:29:42 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
frank_hinde(at)hp.com writes:
> mine barely does 100mph if I throttle back to 4GPH.
>
>
Hi Frank,
Just out of curiosity, other HDS builders are reporting much faster cruise
numbers than you claim. (albeit not the fantasy numbers ZAC publishes) Do
you think the other builders are fudging their numbers or do you think there
is something wrong with the construction of your airplane that is causing so
much extra drag? I am wondering why your airplane is 25% slower than other
builders on this list. I don't think any of us are going to see the 135
cruise, but many are reporting in the low to mid 120s.
A few months ago I rode in a RV-6. Great plane. We cruised IAS of 172kts.
The builder is someone I know in my EAA chapter. It took him 3 years to
build his plane. He states he worked a minimum of 5 hours a day, 5 days a
week on his project. That equals almost 4,000 hours. I personally wonder if
his guess is high or low. Either way, his airplane is absolutely beautiful
and cannot be faulted.
Happy building everyone! I'm off to the airport to finish fitting the
fiberglass saddle. What a joke the fit on that piece is! Oh well, even with
all of its faults, I truly love my hobby and wonder if I will one day have
the b**ls to actually fly it.
Steve Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
Your absolutly right Mike. In the end it comes down to what you want in an
airplane. What I forgot to mention was the rough field capability of the HDS
is so good that I now charge into back country strips without a care in the
world and know that I could not do that in an RV.
I love this feature and now wish I'd built it as a taildragger as it would
be even better. The HDS is a damn good little plane but the comparison with
an RV 9 is a poor one as they do different jobs. The trouble is ZAC sold the
HDS as a fast cruiser hence it demands comparison with the RV's. It is not a
fast cruiser though and hence it looks awful in comparison.
Now what I really want to know is why RVs cost less to insure? Maybe a lot
more of them and hence a better track record?
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry McFarland [mailto:larrymc(at)qconline.com]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 601XL or RV9?
Mike,
We have several RVs being built in our chapter and I'm pleased
the plane is so well received. But as a scratch build project or kit, It'll
take
considerably more time. Frank, you could well ask the RV flyers
to slow down to 100 and get 4 gallons per hour, and I'd bet they wish
they could. The finished RV will weigh a lot more and cost half again the
price of a 601HDS.
And, after the project is done the hourly/monthly price of flying an RV is
fixed
by design at a higher rate. They are nice, and fast, and are nearly always
well made. But
the workmanship is up to you on any plane. I sat in an RV6 once and flew
the 601hds once
but liked the seating posture and view from the 601 better.
The 601 is not terribly hard to plans-build either.
Larry McFarland - Scratch building a 601 is great fun.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Dillon <flightco(at)swbell.net>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 9:06 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: 601XL or RV9?
>
> I've been considering a 601XL vs an RV9 for about a year now and just
can't
> make up my mind, so I'm looking for direction from the Zenith List.
>
> Here's what I have so far:
>
> RV9 Pros:
> Fast, easy to fly airplane
> RV builders seem extremely happy with the quality of the kits, especially
> now that almost all holes are pre-punched.
> Uses Lycoming engines - reliability & performane
> As to the kit price - about the same as the XL, but a lot more for the
money
> (makes me wonder how they came up with the XL kit price). The overall
price
> to build a RV9 will probably be $20,000 more
>
> RV9 Cons:
> 2 to 3 times as long to build as the XL
> The noise of drivng rivets
> Uses Lycoming engines - expensive to purchase, maintain and overhaul.
>
> 601XL Pros:
>
> Fast build (is this for real?)
> Blind rivets
> Uses Rotax engine - lower acquisition cost
> Good safety record
> Mexico MO is close to me
>
> 601 Cons:
> Within $1,000 of the kit cost of a RV9
> Rotax Engines - half the TBO of a Lycoming 235. (I know you can use the
235
> in the XL, but the weight penalty is too high).
> Slow - any completed XL's besides the factory model? What cruse do you
get
> at 75%?
> Kit Quality?
>
> Kit quality is probably my single biggest concern. I've been lurking on
> this list (and the RV list) for over a year, and it seems there is very
> little quality in the Zenith kits. Seems I hear a lot about things that
> just don't fit.
>
> I will be making a decision where to spend my money shortly after Osh.
What
> I really want to do is build the XL because it builds faster and overall
> costs are less than the RV9. What I am hoping for is to be convinced that
> the kits really are high quality (I've flown in the demo and loved the way
> it flew). Builders, please help this lost kit-builder newbee out and send
> my your honest opinion. Anyone in Kansas, Missouri (besides the factory)
or
> S. IL building (or completed) that wouldn't mind a visit?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Dillon
> Kansas City
> flightconn(at)earthlink.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: 601XL or RV9? |
We also have several flying RVs in Chapter 75. Several built by Lyle Hefel,
a prize winner by Dave Wilson and an other nice one by Keith Williams. As
Larry says we have several under construction as well. Two RV-4s, 3 RV-6s, 2
RV-8s, and 2 RV-9s. At the other end, Larry and my chapter has 9 AirBikes,
two flying and the others well on their way. But knowing Chris, the 601 is
also a nice plane.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry McFarland" <larrymc(at)qconline.com>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 601XL or RV9?
Mike,
We have several RVs being built in our chapter and I'm pleased
the plane is so well received. But as a scratch build project or kit, It'll
take
considerably more time. Frank, you could well ask the RV flyers
to slow down to 100 and get 4 gallons per hour, and I'd bet they wish
they could. The finished RV will weigh a lot more and cost half again the
price of a 601HDS.
And, after the project is done the hourly/monthly price of flying an RV is
fixed
by design at a higher rate. They are nice, and fast, and are nearly always
well made. But
the workmanship is up to you on any plane. I sat in an RV6 once and flew
the 601hds once
but liked the seating posture and view from the 601 better.
The 601 is not terribly hard to plans-build either.
Larry McFarland - Scratch building a 601 is great fun.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Dillon <flightco(at)swbell.net>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 9:06 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: 601XL or RV9?
>
> I've been considering a 601XL vs an RV9 for about a year now and just
can't
> make up my mind, so I'm looking for direction from the Zenith List.
>
> Here's what I have so far:
>
> RV9 Pros:
> Fast, easy to fly airplane
> RV builders seem extremely happy with the quality of the kits, especially
> now that almost all holes are pre-punched.
> Uses Lycoming engines - reliability & performane
> As to the kit price - about the same as the XL, but a lot more for the
money
> (makes me wonder how they came up with the XL kit price). The overall
price
> to build a RV9 will probably be $20,000 more
>
> RV9 Cons:
> 2 to 3 times as long to build as the XL
> The noise of drivng rivets
> Uses Lycoming engines - expensive to purchase, maintain and overhaul.
>
> 601XL Pros:
>
> Fast build (is this for real?)
> Blind rivets
> Uses Rotax engine - lower acquisition cost
> Good safety record
> Mexico MO is close to me
>
> 601 Cons:
> Within $1,000 of the kit cost of a RV9
> Rotax Engines - half the TBO of a Lycoming 235. (I know you can use the
235
> in the XL, but the weight penalty is too high).
> Slow - any completed XL's besides the factory model? What cruse do you
get
> at 75%?
> Kit Quality?
>
> Kit quality is probably my single biggest concern. I've been lurking on
> this list (and the RV list) for over a year, and it seems there is very
> little quality in the Zenith kits. Seems I hear a lot about things that
> just don't fit.
>
> I will be making a decision where to spend my money shortly after Osh.
What
> I really want to do is build the XL because it builds faster and overall
> costs are less than the RV9. What I am hoping for is to be convinced that
> the kits really are high quality (I've flown in the demo and loved the way
> it flew). Builders, please help this lost kit-builder newbee out and send
> my your honest opinion. Anyone in Kansas, Missouri (besides the factory)
or
> S. IL building (or completed) that wouldn't mind a visit?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Dillon
> Kansas City
> flightconn(at)earthlink.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
120mph...not at 4 gallons per hour they're not!
My plane is no more draggy than other aoround and the speeds we have
compered are within 5mph or so.
Yeah maybe 120 wide open throttle at lower altitudes, with lots of speed
mods this can get to 125 or so AT ALTITUDE of 7500 feet.
Trouble is I don't think 7500 feet is really 75% power at wide open
throttle. I think there is a huge ram effect ('cos the cowl holes are so
big) that compresses the air. Note the Bing carbs are altitude compensating
and you can see the fuel consumption drop off with altitude on the fuel
totalizer (wonderful device). The sea level full fuel flow is 7.8 GPH on the
Stratus so we should see 75% of that number at 7500 feet or so.... well it
only drops to 6.7GPH so I think these planes are running at higher than 75%
to get the 125+mph.
Of course I maybe wrong...:-)...I just hope my carbs are working.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: STEFREE(at)aol.com [mailto:STEFREE(at)aol.com]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 601XL or RV9?
In a message dated 6/15/01 10:29:42 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
frank_hinde(at)hp.com writes:
> mine barely does 100mph if I throttle back to 4GPH.
>
>
Hi Frank,
Just out of curiosity, other HDS builders are reporting much faster cruise
numbers than you claim. (albeit not the fantasy numbers ZAC publishes) Do
you think the other builders are fudging their numbers or do you think there
is something wrong with the construction of your airplane that is causing so
much extra drag? I am wondering why your airplane is 25% slower than other
builders on this list. I don't think any of us are going to see the 135
cruise, but many are reporting in the low to mid 120s.
A few months ago I rode in a RV-6. Great plane. We cruised IAS of 172kts.
The builder is someone I know in my EAA chapter. It took him 3 years to
build his plane. He states he worked a minimum of 5 hours a day, 5 days a
week on his project. That equals almost 4,000 hours. I personally wonder
if
his guess is high or low. Either way, his airplane is absolutely beautiful
and cannot be faulted.
Happy building everyone! I'm off to the airport to finish fitting the
fiberglass saddle. What a joke the fit on that piece is! Oh well, even
with
all of its faults, I truly love my hobby and wonder if I will one day have
the b**ls to actually fly it.
Steve Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 601XL or RV9? |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
on 15/6/01 3:35 PM, STEFREE(at)aol.com at STEFREE(at)aol.com wrote:
...
> A few months ago I rode in a RV-6. ... That equals almost 4,000 hours.
Let's say that the RV whatever will take only 500 hours more to build than
the Zodiac (although from the numbers being kicked around, I think this is
optimistic). Let's say that the Zodiac only cruises 100 mph ... certainly a
worst case scenario!!???
Assume 2 people start their aicraft building at the same day and work at the
same rate...i.e x hours per day.... whatever.
The Zodiac is finished and flying 500 hours sooner, so he's 50,000 miles
down the road before the RV even launches. (500 * 100 mph = 50,000 miles)
What's that? About twice around the world?
How long will it take for the RV to catch up?
(only partly tongue-in-cheek) I KNOW that if I had started an RV (assuming I
had the place to build where the noise wasn't an issue, and I had the extra
hands available when needed to work on it etc, etc) I KNOW WITHOUT DOUBT
that it would join the high percentage of unfinished kitplanes kicking
around out there!
I am getting pretty weary of the building by now, but at least I've
accomplished my final inspection, and the FIRST FLIGHT is realistically now
in sight!
It comes down to this - do you want to build and fly! Or BUILD, and BUILD,
and BUILD, and BUILD, and FLY!
imho
--
Grant (man - it taxis nice!) Corriveau
Montreal
Zodiac 601hds/CAM100
C-GHTF
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 601XL or RV9? |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
on 15/6/01 4:31 PM, HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1) at frank_hinde(at)hp.com
wrote:
> ... but the comparison with
> an RV 9 is a poor one as they do different jobs. The trouble is ZAC sold the
> HDS as a fast cruiser hence it demands comparison with the RV's. It is not a
> fast cruiser though and hence it looks awful in comparison.
Frank you make an excellent point. I agree with you. When I was doing my
research, I put the RV series into a grouping simlar to the 'heavy metal'
produced by Clyde Cessna and Mr. Piper.
I classed the Zenith models at a niche somewhere below this but well above
the 'ultralight' rag wings, etc. etc. in terms of duarbility, 'real'
airplane qualities vs. snowmobile-with-wings... etc.
I will never put my aircraft on show - my lack of craftsmanship is only too
evident to the informed observer. BUT I AM GOING TO FINISH IT! And every
time I scan people's posted photos (i.e. Bruce Bokias (sorry if the spelling
is wrong), and Bill Morelli (likewise?), or read your flying adventures, or
go back to read Bernie Gunn's adventures (where's Bernie?), I can almost
taste the sense of just plane (sic) FUN this aircraft is going to be.
> Now what I really want to know is why RVs cost less to insure? Maybe a lot
> more of them and hence a better track record?
I wonder if it's because a lot of people who will 'take on' the challenge of
a Zodiac are raw beginners as pilots (i.e. it's not so intimidating?),
whereas those dedicated and able to finish an RV are also the
more-accomplished/experienced pilots on average? Just thinking....
--
Grant (2 items 'down' and only 20 more to go!) Corriveau
(on the final inspection report, that is)
Montreal
Zodiac 601hds/CAM100
C-GHTF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "patrick walsh" <pwalsh4539(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 601XL or RV9? |
..Kits are high-quality.....minimal problems...this list is to discuss those problems
so....it looks as if there are many...but not really......in my opinion.
Patrick Walsh
601 HD....200+ hours....400 to build
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Dillon
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 9:20 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: 601XL or RV9?
I've been considering a 601XL vs an RV9 for about a year now and just can't
make up my mind, so I'm looking for direction from the Zenith List.
Here's what I have so far:
RV9 Pros:
Fast, easy to fly airplane
RV builders seem extremely happy with the quality of the kits, especially
now that almost all holes are pre-punched.
Uses Lycoming engines - reliability & performane
As to the kit price - about the same as the XL, but a lot more for the money
(makes me wonder how they came up with the XL kit price). The overall price
to build a RV9 will probably be $20,000 more
RV9 Cons:
2 to 3 times as long to build as the XL
The noise of drivng rivets
Uses Lycoming engines - expensive to purchase, maintain and overhaul.
601XL Pros:
Fast build (is this for real?)
Blind rivets
Uses Rotax engine - lower acquisition cost
Good safety record
Mexico MO is close to me
601 Cons:
Within $1,000 of the kit cost of a RV9
Rotax Engines - half the TBO of a Lycoming 235. (I know you can use the
235
in the XL, but the weight penalty is too high).
Slow - any completed XL's besides the factory model? What cruse do you get
at 75%?
Kit Quality?
Kit quality is probably my single biggest concern. I've been lurking on
this list (and the RV list) for over a year, and it seems there is very
little quality in the Zenith kits. Seems I hear a lot about things that
just don't fit.
I will be making a decision where to spend my money shortly after Osh. What
I really want to do is build the XL because it builds faster and overall
costs are less than the RV9. What I am hoping for is to be convinced that
the kits really are high quality (I've flown in the demo and loved the way
it flew). Builders, please help this lost kit-builder newbee out and send
my your honest opinion. Anyone in Kansas, Missouri (besides the factory) or
S. IL building (or completed) that wouldn't mind a visit?
Thanks,
Mike Dillon
Kansas City
flightconn(at)earthlink.net
=
=
=
=
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 601XL or RV9? |
| From: | wizard-24(at)juno.com |
When deciding between the RV and the Zodiac, one other factor to consider
is resale value. In that department, the RV wins hands down.
The other thing I wonder about is since the skins are thinner on the
Zodiacs...do they have the same solid "feel" as an RV? Maybe someone who
has flown in both can comment.
I chose the Zodiac 'cause of the simplicity and the lower build time
(which, because of kit availability, may not matter in the end), and the
fact that I am a low time pilot. But you should certainly consider all
factors when choosing, so that you're not disappointed later.
Mike Fortunato
601XL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Meiste's" <meiste(at)essex1.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 601XL or RV9? |
I went to the Sonex workshop before purchasing my Zodiac kit and found the
biggest problem to be shoulder room with two aboard.
In my opinion (unless both pilot & pass are under 150 lb) the Sonex is only
a single passenger plane.
Kelly
> Now if the Sonex could just carry anyone taller than John Monnett.
> I too am attracted to the Sonex but be sure to see if you fit--I
> don't.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fiberglass repair |
Hi List,
Can anyone reccomend an epoxy or a putty to fill/repair a small hall in
fiberglass. I accidentally drilled one hole in my saddle that doesn't
belong. I did everything else perfect but this one one (A4) hole is making
me insane!
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Steve Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Norris <rnorris4(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fiberglass repair |
Put some tape on the outside and fill with any 5 minute epoxy from the
hardware store. If you have any other epoxy laying around, use that
instead. You're only filling a hole. No need to get fancy. It just needs
to fill the hole and stay there. Ask around the neighborhood if you need
to - it's almost not worth the effort to go out and buy something just
for that.
STEFREE(at)aol.com wrote:
> Can anyone reccomend an epoxy or a putty to fill/repair a small hall in
> fiberglass. I accidentally drilled one hole in my saddle that doesn't
> belong. I did everything else perfect but this one one (A4) hole is making
> me insane!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Patrick Killion <pkillion(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | For Sale: Zodiac Horizontial Tail Kit / Plans |
Hello all,
I am sorry to bother you with this request. Approximately 6 months ago I began
my Zodiac XL. I purchased the tail kit (Rudder / Horizontal Stab). Due to
recent changes in my finances, I am unable to complete the project.
If anyone on this list is interested or knows of someone that would be
interested in purchasing untouched parts for the horizontal tail, I would be
very interesting in getting those parts to them at a very low price. I will
even include the constructed rudder if interested.
Additionally, I am interested in selling my complete set of XL plans.
(Very low price, too).
These parts are located in Austin, TX.
Please feel free to email and good luck to all of you on your projects!
Patrick Killion
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Honabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com> |
| Subject: | Fiberglass repair |
Steve,
Is it in a place where you can just put a rivet there?
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
STEFREE(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 10:18 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Fiberglass repair
Hi List,
Can anyone reccomend an epoxy or a putty to fill/repair a small hall in
fiberglass. I accidentally drilled one hole in my saddle that doesn't
belong. I did everything else perfect but this one one (A4) hole is
making
me insane!
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Steve Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Brigman" <jbrigman(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | To Sonex, or Not to Sonex? |
Hey guys;
I saw Tony Spicer's (From Wilmington, NC) Sonex with the Jabiru 3300 in it
at Sun 'n Fun this year. Saw it up close with the cowling off and saw it
come screaming over the crowds (straight piped) during the fly-by.
Guys, that little Sonex is a beauty, and the flight specifications are
straight-on, if maybe a little conservative. It's got dual sticks, a
hershey-bar airfoil that's gorgeous, and the spring-aluminum gear appear
very simple and straightforward. It's a great little plane, cheap, and
possibly as fast or faster to build than the 601. That year I first saw the
601 at SnF, I admit I DID feel a twinge of "buyer remorse".
But be clear: this has been a plans-only plane for some time, and kit parts
have been available only recently, in the last year or so. Visit Mr.
Spicer's website to get a taste of what it was like to build the plane: he
bent his own sheetmetal in a nifty homemade bending brake. As for the plane
itself, the Sonex is smaller than the 601's in several ways: cockpit width,
instrument panel and baggage areas
But it is foolish to argue that one plane is "better" than the other. The
bottom line is that for any of us, to complete and fly a kitplane is a
monumental achievement. The Sonex is a beautiful plane and we must welcome
this design into our 6061-T6, blind-riveted aluminum "family" of aircraft
designs.
The "xxx vs. yyy" question may not be relevant. Choosing what plane to build
is a personal-fit decision: what goes with the mission, what fits the type
of flying, the size of your body, etc. The key to making the right choice is
to focus on the differences of each plane and make sure those differences
fit what's important to you. Like someone on the list pointed out, you see
Bill Morelli's and others pics about flying in the 601, and you tremble with
anticipation to get yours done.
If the speed range of the HD(S) is bothersome, then the XL is a good option,
and with the 3300 Jabiru (like the Sonex) oughta be a great choice. And
after having experienced the excellent ZAC customer support, would you
really want to go with anything else? :-)
JKB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Walker" <dwalk3dw(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: To Sonex, or Not to Sonex? |
I've enjoyed my HDS for two years now. It is noted for its climb, cabin width.
good looks and solid handling. I have acquaintances up the road who are building
a pair of Sonexes. I visited them Saturday. It is clear that the Sonex is
a faster and sturdier design than the 601. The wings and
aerodynamic fuselage produce much less drag than ours. More substantial
bulkheads and thicker skins, along with a substantial spar give it good strength.
It is not going to climb like mine or have the room. I anticipate that the
TD version will be a little touchier to handle on the ground. The flight envelope
is larger with a lower stall speed and higher cruise than the HDS. It will
be a very efficient plane. I wasn't impressed with them as seen in magazine
and still don't like the looks as well as the
601, but I am impressed with the design engineering. I'm not ready to build again,
but the Sonex is a good choice for a lot of reasons. Don Walker
----- Original Message -----
From: James Brigman
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 12:39 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: To Sonex, or Not to Sonex?
Hey guys;
I saw Tony Spicer's (From Wilmington, NC) Sonex with the Jabiru 3300 in it
at Sun 'n Fun this year. Saw it up close with the cowling off and saw it
come screaming over the crowds (straight piped) during the fly-by.
Guys, that little Sonex is a beauty, and the flight specifications are
straight-on, if maybe a little conservative. It's got dual sticks, a
hershey-bar airfoil that's gorgeous, and the spring-aluminum gear appear
very simple and straightforward. It's a great little plane, cheap, and
possibly as fast or faster to build than the 601. That year I first saw the
601 at SnF, I admit I DID feel a twinge of "buyer remorse".
But be clear: this has been a plans-only plane for some time, and kit parts
have been available only recently, in the last year or so. Visit Mr.
Spicer's website to get a taste of what it was like to build the plane: he
bent his own sheetmetal in a nifty homemade bending brake. As for the plane
itself, the Sonex is smaller than the 601's in several ways: cockpit width,
instrument panel and baggage areas
But it is foolish to argue that one plane is "better" than the other. The
bottom line is that for any of us, to complete and fly a kitplane is a
monumental achievement. The Sonex is a beautiful plane and we must welcome
this design into our 6061-T6, blind-riveted aluminum "family" of aircraft
designs.
The "xxx vs. yyy" question may not be relevant. Choosing what plane to build
is a personal-fit decision: what goes with the mission, what fits the type
of flying, the size of your body, etc. The key to making the right choice is
to focus on the differences of each plane and make sure those differences
fit what's important to you. Like someone on the list pointed out, you see
Bill Morelli's and others pics about flying in the 601, and you tremble with
anticipation to get yours done.
If the speed range of the HD(S) is bothersome, then the XL is a good option,
and with the 3300 Jabiru (like the Sonex) oughta be a great choice. And
after having experienced the excellent ZAC customer support, would you
really want to go with anything else? :-)
JKB
=
=
=
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | 601XL or RV9?..Insurance |
Just to add fuel to the fire,
Avemco has nailed a hefty 20% increase to my premium this year...gone up to
$1900 for full coverage. 250 hours total time, no claims. HDS with a Stratus
Subaru.
Last year my friends RV8, 200HP, 150 hours total time, 10 hours in type cost
950 for the same coverage.
Liability only this year I think!
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 601XL or RV9?..Insurance |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <gfcorriv(at)total.net> |
on 18/6/01 9:48 AM, HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1) at frank_hinde(at)hp.com
wrote:
>
>
> Just to add fuel to the fire,
>
> Avemco has nailed a hefty 20% increase to my premium this year...gone up to
Wow, what a price differential. Do they have any explanation?
--
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
Zodiac 601hds/CAM100
C-GHTF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pinneo, George" <George.Pinneo(at)trw.com> |
| Subject: | 601XL or RV9?..Insurance |
I'm switching to AOPA/AIG; my insurance drops $600. for the same coverage!
GGP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | 601XL or RV9?..Insurance |
I havent spoken to them but I had a lot of trouble last year 'cos my engine
was not a Lycont or a Rotax!
Not trying to worry you or anything...:-)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Corriveau [mailto:gfcorriv(at)total.net]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 601XL or RV9?..Insurance
on 18/6/01 9:48 AM, HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1) at frank_hinde(at)hp.com
wrote:
>
>
> Just to add fuel to the fire,
>
> Avemco has nailed a hefty 20% increase to my premium this year...gone up
to
Wow, what a price differential. Do they have any explanation?
--
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
Zodiac 601hds/CAM100
C-GHTF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew P. Cummings" <cummings(at)stingray.net> |
| Subject: | 601XL or RV9?..Insurance |
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1) wrote:
> Liability only this year I think!
Do any other companies insure experimentals? I haven't called Falcon but
if any other company would insure them, they would.
Avemco is the root cause of all the aviation insurance problems, they
single handedly (sp) put an FBO around here out of the maintenance and
rental business by dropping commercial coverage, and caused rates to
skyrocket in the ones left.
If a person can, tell Avemco to take their insurance and go fly.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 601 sportster windshield |
| From: | Glen.Worstell(at)seagate.com |
06/18/2001 10:45:31 AM
>My goal is to fly in there next year with the 'sportster' open
cockpit/windscreen installed on our 601!
I have one I never use, and it will be almost given away to
anyone who wants to pick it up near Oklahoma City.
Or, buy my plane and you can have it for "free"!
g.
http://home.earthlink.net/~worstelg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 601XL or RV9?..Insurance |
Frank,
Stop jerking around with AVEMCO. Join AOPA if you are not a member ($40 /
year with lots of benefits) and go through them for insurance. You will
spend $40 and save $600. A no brainer!!!! I have an HDS, STRATUS and pay
$1070 for FULL coverage!
Bill
> I havent spoken to them but I had a lot of trouble last year 'cos my
engine
> was not a Lycont or a Rotax!
>
> Not trying to worry you or anything...:-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Philip Polstra" <ppolstra(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 601XL or RV9?..Insurance |
I hear lots of people telling me to join AOPA, which I consider to be the
rich man's flying club as opposed to EAA which is the common mans club.
What exactly are the benefits to joining AOPA that I don't see as an EAA
member?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 601XL or RV9?..Insurance
>
> Frank,
>
> Stop jerking around with AVEMCO. Join AOPA if you are not a member ($40 /
> year with lots of benefits) and go through them for insurance. You will
> spend $40 and save $600. A no brainer!!!! I have an HDS, STRATUS and pay
> $1070 for FULL coverage!
>
> Bill
>
>
> > I havent spoken to them but I had a lot of trouble last year 'cos my
> engine
> > was not a Lycont or a Rotax!
> >
> > Not trying to worry you or anything...:-)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew P. Cummings" <cummings(at)stingray.net> |
| Subject: | 601XL or RV9?..Insurance |
"Philip Polstra" wrote:
>
> I hear lots of people telling me to join AOPA, which I consider to be the
> rich man's flying club as opposed to EAA which is the common mans club.
> What exactly are the benefits to joining AOPA that I don't see as an EAA
> member?
Well, the insurance is cheaper, but for me, Falcon got the best coverage and
it's by USAIG. About 1/2 the price of Avemco, and $100 cheaper than AOPA. We
went from close to $1000 to around $600 with AOPA and $500 with USAIG.
Other than that, I didn't see much else to brag about. They do have an
extensive database of information of use to pilots, got questions on your
medical, medicine, etc, they have the answers. They got a nice website for
members as well.
As to rich man vs common, look at what each charges to be a member... Yes, I
belong to both and enjoy them both for what they do for me, and GA as a whole.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 601XL or RV9?..Insurance |
| From: | "Mark Sandidge" <MSandidge(at)PeabodyEnergy.com> |
06/19/2001 06:14:59 AM
The AOPA was a great help with my 3ed class medical. I screwed around with
the FAA for almost a year before joining and they got my application
processed in two weeks.
"Philip Polstra" To:
cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Zenith-List:
601XL or
owner-zenith-list-server@mat RV9?..Insurance
ronics.com
06/18/2001 09:41 PM
Please respond to
zenith-list
I hear lots of people telling me to join AOPA, which I consider to be the
rich man's flying club as opposed to EAA which is the common mans club.
What exactly are the benefits to joining AOPA that I don't see as an EAA
member?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Morelli" <billvt(at)together.net>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 601XL or RV9?..Insurance
>
> Frank,
>
> Stop jerking around with AVEMCO. Join AOPA if you are not a member ($40 /
> year with lots of benefits) and go through them for insurance. You will
> spend $40 and save $600. A no brainer!!!! I have an HDS, STRATUS and pay
> $1070 for FULL coverage!
>
> Bill
>
>
> > I havent spoken to them but I had a lot of trouble last year 'cos my
> engine
> > was not a Lycont or a Rotax!
> >
> > Not trying to worry you or anything...:-)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "HINDE,FRANK (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <frank_hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | 601XL or RV9?..Insurance |
Yup I think your right!
I will
Thanks
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Morelli [mailto:billvt(at)together.net]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 601XL or RV9?..Insurance
Frank,
Stop jerking around with AVEMCO. Join AOPA if you are not a member ($40 /
year with lots of benefits) and go through them for insurance. You will
spend $40 and save $600. A no brainer!!!! I have an HDS, STRATUS and pay
$1070 for FULL coverage!
Bill
> I havent spoken to them but I had a lot of trouble last year 'cos my
engine
> was not a Lycont or a Rotax!
>
> Not trying to worry you or anything...:-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg P Jannakos <gpjann(at)juno.com> |
Greg Jannakos
Zenith 601HDS
Scratch building, emphanage and center wing section completed.
Two major reason for selecting the Zenith 601HDS over the Sonex were the
fire-wall-forward figures and Payload weights.
The Sonex FWF figure is 200lbs while the HDS' is 265lbs. This allows more
engine selection and maybe even a Lyc or Continental. Sonex is pretty
well limited to Jabiru, and a VW with accessories will be pushing the
envelop.
Also the Zenith's payload fits my requirements, providing I can keep it
light.
Is any 601HDS driver using a VW? If so, I'de like to hear from you...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Tarabocchia" <zodiac.builder(at)verizon.net> |
Several months ago I had an alternator gear break off and spray some metal
in my 0-200. Since then I disassemble the motor. Cleaned all internal
parts and checked for damage. From the advice from many listers and my A&P
friend. Just last week I finished re-assembling the engine with new
Cylinder assemblies and new magnetos. I started the engine up for the first
time a week ago. Since then I have run the motor for about 1-1/2 hours. I
didn't get any oil leaks at all. It also started up right away. But, I
have to nagging problems that I can't figure out.
First , there is oil somehow seeping into the induction tubes from the
intake port and into the carb venuri, then dripping onto the floor. It is
only a few drops and onlyseems to drip for several moments after the motor
is shut down. I can't for the life of me figure out how it is getting into
the induction tubes.
Secondly, the motor startes right up and I made the proper adjustments to
the mags and carb mixture. Yet as it is running, every 10 to 20 seconds the
motor will sputter or shake for a second or two. Then it will do it again
in another 10 to 20 seconds.
Without tearing everything apart, does anyone have any ideas as to the
possible cause to these two problems?
Thanks in advance.
John W. Tarabocchia
601hds N6042T Web Site: http://hometown.aol.com/zodiacbuilder/Home.html
Airframe 100% Complete...
0-200 Overhauled...Completing finishing touches.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russ and Brenda" <rbee797(at)mnsi.net> |
| Subject: | Fiberglass repair |
To repair the hole in the fiberglass saddle, purchase a small amount of
epoxy from hobby shop you can also buy a small amount of fiber glass cloth.
Cut a piece of the cloth about one inch square. Sand the area around the
hole on the back of the saddle about one inch square. Then mix some of the
epoxy according to the directions, mix only about one half tea spoon of the
epoxy you won't need much. Then put the epoxy thinly on the area that was
sanded place the patch cloth over the epoxy, then use the rest of the epoxy
to wet out the cloth patch. Mack sure the patch is stretched out tight. This
will cover the hole, but you will still see the hole from front side. Use an
automotive spot putty to fill this indent. sand the spot putty when it dries
and then paint the saddle if done right the repair will be invisible. But
this is a lot of trouble to cover up such a small mistake. Or you could just
drill anther hole on the opposite side of the saddle and put rivets in each
hole, then when some other 601 builder asks you what the rivets in the
saddle is for you can tell him it was an A&D directive from the FAA.
==================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tom tiedman" <ttiedman(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi John. I don't know about the second problem, but the O-200 in the C-150 I
trained in would leak a little bit of oil onto the ground after each flight
like you describe yours doing. My instructor would say "don't worry, that's
just residual oil... perfectly normal". I never quite believed that, but the
engine never failed us, so I guess I would contact Teledyne Continental and
ask them the real deal on the O-200 leaking a bit like they're prone to do.
I'm betting they know all about that problem from having answered millions
of questions about it over the past half century... I hope it's nothing
major for you... I'd like to see photos of that pretty blue 601 in flight!
Tom
May 28, 2001 - June 19, 2001
Zenith-Archive.digest.vol-cg