Zenith601-List Archive Browser

Zenith601-Archive.digest.vol-aj
August 31, 2009 - October 29, 2009

-------- Sportsflyer Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=260481#260481 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Leroy Wheeler" <flyboy3847(at)onecommail.com>
Subject: 601XL/650 Cowling
Date: Aug 31, 2009
Dear Peter, I just finished my 601HD with the E-81 and we did have to cut 2 speed bumps in the lower cowl. It's not all that bad a job and I can tell you this is the set up to have. I'm running a Warp Drive 70" 3 blade prop set at 17 1/2 %. The numbers work on this very well. The engine starts immediately and runs very smoothly and quietly. Good luck, Flyboy3847 -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of LarryMcFarland Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:58 AM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 601XL/650 Cowling Hi Peter, The EA81 in the Stratus configuration is very close. The mount adapters attached to the engine were originally designed to duplicate the 0-200 mount pattern. The engine crank centerline is below the prop centerline by 7-inches, so the valve covers may bump into the 0-200 cowl width at that point. Otherwise the length, weight and fit on a 0-200 mount is the "same". Reiner Hoffmann originally replaced a 0-200 in a Cessna 150 with a EA81 and his conversion FWF package was sold and is now the Stratus Subaru package offered by Mykal Templeman. The Hoffmann Cessna looked very "stock" externally. The Stratus has become one of the better units out there and the belt redrive, my preference, is undoubtedly the best design I've seen. I've 142 hours on my Stratus EA81. To answer your question, you'd probably not be able to fit up the EA81 with absolutely no modification. That'd be a stretch. Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com special4 wrote: > > Does a Subaru EA81 fit in the Continental O-200 or Lycoming O-235 cowling without any modifications...??Any builder(s) out there with this setup...?? > Thanks > Peter Sonders > > -------- > Sportsflyer > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 06:36:00 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: UK LAA mods - official information
From: "Martin Pohl" <mpohl(at)pohltec.ch>
Date: Sep 01, 2009
Have a look at UK LAA's homepage: http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/engineering_updates.html Cheers Martin -------- Martin Pohl Zodiac XL QBK 8645 Jona, Switzerland http://www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL/Main.html Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=260821#260821 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: UK LAA mods - official information
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Sep 01, 2009
Paul... which LAA suggestions are you going to follow? What about this 35% reduced to 30% MAC... I have always seen/used 30% MAC... Even at 30% MAC, 1320, full aft CG, the airplane is squirrelly... Has anyone on this list conducted test flights at 35% MAC, 1320, full aft CG? How many of the crashes were 35% MAC aircraft? Am I reading the report correctly, they are removing their previously required elevator bias spring? Reducing aileron cable tension to as low as 15 pounds? (20 +/- 5) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=260901#260901 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 01, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: UK LAA mods - official information
Hi Sabrina, I was thinking of implementing the aileron balance change and looking at the spar carry-through reinforcement with no real idea about what it does or whether it is necessary or not. I called and talked to Sebastian Heintz a few days ago and learned that Chris is planning to issue comments on the LAA changes soon (a couple of weeks?). For now I intend to wait until we hear from Chris. I looked at the complete LAA document and learned their design change only applies to planes with hinged ailerons. My plane has hingeless ailerons, so it is doubtful the LAA changes would work well for me. Also, I got the idea that their changes were based on CZAW planes which are somewhat different from Zenith kits. My original reason for calling Sebastian was to see if he had the weird 20 x 20 mm square tube called out for the mass balance arm. I couldn't find any on the net and figured he might have some in stock. He said that when they issued the engineering change for the mass balance it would use materials readily available here. I want to implement aileron mass balance and install a fix for the control system oversensitivity. I understand Chris has developed a simple change to add some springs to the elevator controls, and I still don't know how to handle the aileron balance issue. Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 03:19 PM 9/1/2009, you wrote: >Paul... which LAA suggestions are you going to follow? > > >What about this 35% reduced to 30% MAC... > >I have always seen/used 30% MAC... > >Even at 30% MAC, 1320, full aft CG, the airplane is squirrelly... > >Has anyone on this list conducted test flights at 35% MAC, 1320, >full aft CG? > >How many of the crashes were 35% MAC aircraft? > >Am I reading the report correctly, they are removing their >previously required elevator bias spring? > >Reducing aileron cable tension to as low as 15 pounds? (20 +/- 5) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Shielded wire for LED strobe?
From: "dalemed" <dalemed(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 02, 2009
I'm in the process of installing an AveoFlash combination LED position light and strobe. I'm getting mixed signals on whether or not I should use shielded wire on the strobe line. Most "experts" say that shielding won't help because if there's a problem its conducted, not radiated. Initially, the factory said shielded wire isn't needed but they later came back and said that there are grounding issues with Zenith airplanes and therefore I should use shielded wire. I've asked them how the shield connection should be done. Do both ends need to be attached to the airframe or just one end? If one, which end? Does anyone have experience with the Aveoflash strobe? Thanks! -------- Dale Flying Cessna 170B Building Zenith CH650 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=261095#261095 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: LAA enginering
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 02, 2009
Jim, Thank you. That was a very well thought out and written post. -------- W.R. "Gig" Giacona 601XL Under Construction See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=261096#261096 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 02, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Shielded wire for LED strobe?
Hi Dale, I don't have experience with those units, but I was an electrical engineer for more years than I have fingers. Let me try to clear up the shielding and grounding issue. There are two different wired connections in a strobe unit. One is the 12 volt DC power wiring that goes from the battery to the strobe power supply. The other goes from the strobe box to the flash tube mounted on the wing. The regular 12 volt power wire probably doesn't need any special attention. The ground path completing the circuit from the strobe box to the battery must be at least as big as the power wire, but this isn't a difficult thing to do with either wire or the metal skin of the plane. You should include a switch and fuse or circuit breaker in this power circuit - just like any other device on the plane. The wire from the box to the flash tube is a different kettle of fish. It has high voltage (thousands of volts) and switches completely on and off as often as the tube lights up - possibly a lot more if it has an A/C signal. This path should be kept as short as possible and probably shielded with one of two methods. Either it should be shielded wire or twisted pair wire should be used between the tube and the box. There will be two wires going to the tube - these are the ones to twist. The problem is different if you have a central power supply for the tubes and long high voltage lines or separate supplies mounted near the flash tubes. In my plane (XL with Zenith supplied strobes) the power supply is mounted in the wing tip and the high voltage wires are only a foot or two long. Even if these are not twisted the wing skin will shield the RF noise anyway. All of this assumes you have a good electrical connection from the wing skin to the fuselage. This will happen automatically if you don't insulate all the metal to metal joints with zinc chromate or some other paint. If you do that then just include some bonding wires (usually braided copper) between the big wing and fuselage parts to make a solid electrical connection. I recommend you do this whether you use the skin as a ground for the strobes or not. Good luck, Paul XL awaiting engineering changes. At 01:55 PM 9/2/2009, you wrote: >I'm in the process of installing an AveoFlash combination LED >position light and strobe. I'm getting mixed signals on whether or >not I should use shielded wire on the strobe line. > >Most "experts" say that shielding won't help because if there's a >problem its conducted, not radiated. Initially, the factory said >shielded wire isn't needed but they later came back and said that >there are grounding issues with Zenith airplanes and therefore I >should use shielded wire. > >I've asked them how the shield connection should be done. Do both >ends need to be attached to the airframe or just one end? If one, which end? > >Does anyone have experience with the Aveoflash strobe? > >Thanks! > >-------- >Dale >Flying Cessna 170B >Building Zenith CH650 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 02, 2009
Subject: Re: Shielded wire for LED strobe?
From: Carlos Sa <carlossa52(at)gmail.com>
Hey, Paul, didn't you miss the point of the question? (If you didn't then I did...) My interpretation: The Aveo strobe is solid state based, so there is no high voltage at all - therefore the question is, does one STILL need shielding, given the low power of this type of strobe? Cheers Carlos 2009/9/2 Paul Mulwitz > > Hi Dale, > > I don't have experience with those units, but I was an electrical engineer > for more years than I have fingers. Let me try to clear up the shielding > and grounding issue. > > There are two different wired connections in a strobe unit. One is the 12 > volt DC power wiring that goes from the battery to the strobe power supply. > The other goes from the strobe box to the flash tube mounted on the wing. > > The regular 12 volt power wire probably doesn't need any special attention. > The ground path completing the circuit from the strobe box to the battery > must be at least as big as the power wire, but this isn't a difficult thing > to do with either wire or the metal skin of the plane. You should include a > switch and fuse or circuit breaker in this power circuit - just like any > other device on the plane. > > The wire from the box to the flash tube is a different kettle of fish. It > has high voltage (thousands of volts) and switches completely on and off as > often as the tube lights up - possibly a lot more if it has an A/C signal. > This path should be kept as short as possible and probably shielded with > one of two methods. Either it should be shielded wire or twisted pair wire > should be used between the tube and the box. There will be two wires going > to the tube - these are the ones to twist. The problem is different if you > have a central power supply for the tubes and long high voltage lines or > separate supplies mounted near the flash tubes. In my plane (XL with Zenith > supplied strobes) the power supply is mounted in the wing tip and the high > voltage wires are only a foot or two long. Even if these are not twisted > the wing skin will shield the RF noise anyway. > > All of this assumes you have a good electrical connection from the wing > skin to the fuselage. This will happen automatically if you don't insulate > all the metal to metal joints with zinc chromate or some other paint. If > you do that then just include some bonding wires (usually braided copper) > between the big wing and fuselage parts to make a solid electrical > connection. I recommend you do this whether you use the skin as a ground > for the strobes or not. > > Good luck, > > Paul > XL awaiting engineering changes. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 02, 2009
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Shielded wire for LED strobe?
Hi, Dale. I'm reasonably familiar with the AveoFlash units, since we sell Aveo products at my shop. The beauty of these units is that the "power supply" (such as it is), is molded into the wingtip unit itself. All you need to do is ground the units to the airframe with the black wire, provide power (red wire = nav lights, yellow = strobe), and connect the blue wires to each other if your want the strobes to be synchronized. If you're nervous about having a good electrical ground through your airframe, you could always run another conductor out to the wingtips from the battery ground, but I can't imagine this really being necessary on any metal Zenith that has good electrical continuity through the airframe. When compared to traditional strobe power supplies that send high voltage pulses to a xenon flash tube from a multivibrator type power supply, there's virtually no RF interference generated by the Aveo units. However, if you were to mount a wingtip or beacon unit right next door to your comm antenna or a microphone cable, you might pick up some noise from the internal flash power supply. These units use so little current and are so voltage tolerant that the amount of spurious RF energy generated is damn little. But you might be able to induce a bit into an antenna or mic cable if you really tried by putting the cable very close to the base of the Aveo unit. I just went out to the shop with my handheld and performed a little experiment. With both the strobes firing and the nav lights on, and tuned to the local tower freq, I could only pick up radiated noise (that coincided with the strobe pulse) when the handheld's whip antenna was within an inch of the base of the AveoFlash unit (where the circuit board dwells), or when the antenna was wrapped up in the power leads. It wouldn't break squelch on its own, but you can hear a faint "swish swish swish" in the background of other tower transmissions. When the antenna was moved a foot or more away, I could no longer detect any interference. Hardly scientific, I know, but it suggests that the RF noise generated is very minor and might only be an issue if you had your comm antenna mounted very close to the AveoFlash unit itself. Do you have any antennas in composite wingtips? Or an Aveo fuselage beacon near an antenna? I can't think of other scenarios where it would be an issue, other than very near a mic cable or power lead to an intercom or audio panel. But running a shielded power cable certainly wont hurt anything. If you ground only one end of the shield, it should be the one closest to battery ground. Just my $0.02. Hope it helps. Rick Lindstrom ZenVair N42KP -----Original Message----- >From: dalemed <dalemed(at)gmail.com> >Sent: Sep 2, 2009 4:55 PM >To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Zenith601-List: Shielded wire for LED strobe? > > >I'm in the process of installing an AveoFlash combination LED position light and strobe. I'm getting mixed signals on whether or not I should use shielded wire on the strobe line. > >Most "experts" say that shielding won't help because if there's a problem its conducted, not radiated. Initially, the factory said shielded wire isn't needed but they later came back and said that there are grounding issues with Zenith airplanes and therefore I should use shielded wire. > >I've asked them how the shield connection should be done. Do both ends need to be attached to the airframe or just one end? If one, which end? > >Does anyone have experience with the Aveoflash strobe? > >Thanks! > >-------- >Dale >Flying Cessna 170B >Building Zenith CH650 > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=261095#261095 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 02, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Shielded wire for LED strobe?
Hi Carlos, Apparently I did miss the point. If the device in question is just a bunch of LEDs powered by 12 volts then it seems unlikely that any special actions will be needed to prevent noise in the radio receiver. If anything is needed, a small filter on the power leads at the device would probably do just fine. It could be as simple as a small ceramic capacitor - probably 50 cents at Radio Shack. It all depends on whether the primary light "Bulb" is a flash tube or not. Best regards, Paul At 03:18 PM 9/2/2009, you wrote: >Hey, Paul, didn't you miss the point of the question? >(If you didn't then I did...) > >My interpretation: >The Aveo strobe is solid state based, so there is no high voltage at >all - therefore the question is, does one STILL need shielding, >given the low power of this type of strobe? > >Cheers > > >Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Shielded wire for LED strobe?
From: "dalemed" <dalemed(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 02, 2009
Thank you all very much! Since the factory is recommending shielded wire (probably just CYA) and because I have some, I'll just tolerate the added few ounces. The factory, like Rick, suggested connecting the shield as close to the battery negative as possible. -------- Dale Flying Cessna 170B Building Zenith CH650 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=261138#261138 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: LAA enginering
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Sep 03, 2009
great review of their reports.. Thanks.. I have hingless ailerons so I guess it does not mean much to me in the end.. But what of the elevator trim tab horn change? why was that done?? Chris Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=261174#261174 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: LAA enginering
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Sep 04, 2009
Any rumors out there with respect to the following from Zenith;Regarding the 600 KG Zodiac, Zenair has indeed recommended reduced speeds and weights to catch people's attention (we really, really need to stop these accidents due to over-loading the aircraft). We will come up with an officially sanctioned (unlike the UK one) "Zenair modification" in order for pilots to operate the aircraft up to the full LSA limits (i.e. MTOW of 1,320 lbs with a safety factor of 1.5+) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=261372#261372 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: UK LAA mods - official information
From: "Pete54" <peter.morris(at)optimusaberdeen.com>
Date: Sep 04, 2009
I can add a little info on the C of G and trimmer issues from the LAA. Back in February there was talk from them of slowing down the trimmer. The UK aircraft all have to have the large elevator trim tab. This gives a lot of trim authority and was 'necessary' for the initial UK acceptance. CZAW added the flap interconnect and many aircraft (like mine) have both. There was a flight test programme which extended the c of g range to 530mm from 455. During the recent trials the interaction between the interconnect and larger trim tab showed the potential for the longitudinal stability to be compromised. The quick and dirty solution is to de-power the trimmer by turning the horn around. Apparently removing the interconnect increases the longitudinal stability quite a bit. We'll find out when we get to test fly the aircraft. We'll have to carry out all the mods to get clearance to fly - that is just the way things are in the UK. Once we are flying there may be some potential for optimisation but after nearly 11 months of being grounded I'm just going to roll with it. I have flown my aircraft with the c of g at around 500mm, it felt pretty 'relaxed' and needed careful attention to pitch control. The rumour is that the UK aircraft modified so far need a little nose ballast to stay within the c of g limits. -------- Pete Morris Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=261375#261375 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: UK LAA mods - official information
From: "chuck_maggart" <cmaggart(at)sprintmail.com>
Date: Sep 05, 2009
Pete, I'm curious about where and how nose ballast is added to a 601XL. My weight and balance indicate that some nose weight might be desirable. Chuck Maggart Finished and ready to fly -------- Chuck Maggart Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=261587#261587 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: UK LAA mods - official information
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Sep 05, 2009
a metal prop moves that CG forward fairly well... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=261604#261604 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: UK LAA mods - official information
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 05, 2009
Where's your battery now? -------- W.R. "Gig" Giacona 601XL Under Construction See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=261622#261622 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: UK LAA mods - official information
From: "Pete54" <peter.morris(at)optimusaberdeen.com>
Date: Sep 06, 2009
The easiest choices seem to be the prop adapter or a heavier prop. I'm hopeful it will not be necessary on my aircraft (Warp Drive and prop extension) we'll see! -------- Pete Morris Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=261719#261719 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: UK LAA mods - official information
From: "chuck_maggart" <cmaggart(at)sprintmail.com>
Date: Sep 06, 2009
Sabrina wrote: > a metal prop moves that CG forward fairly well... Is there a metal prop for the Jabiru 3300? I would rather have a metal prop. Chuck Maggart -------- Chuck Maggart Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=261760#261760 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: UK LAA mods - official information
From: "chuck_maggart" <cmaggart(at)sprintmail.com>
Date: Sep 06, 2009
Gig Giacona wrote: > Where's your battery now? The battery is mounted on the firewall. Chuck Maggart -------- Chuck Maggart Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=261761#261761 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: UK LAA mods - official information
From: "chuck_maggart" <cmaggart(at)sprintmail.com>
Date: Sep 06, 2009
Thank you, Pete. I would like to have a metal prop, but don't know of a suitable one that would work on a Jabiru 3300. Chuck Maggart Pete54 wrote: > The easiest choices seem to be the prop adapter or a heavier prop. I'm hopeful it will not be necessary on my aircraft (Warp Drive and prop extension) we'll see! -------- Chuck Maggart Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=261762#261762 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: UK LAA mods - official information
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Sep 06, 2009
Chuck, Although not metal, the AP332 constant speed prop adds a few pounds up front. Could not use it as an LSA, but it would move your CG forward and you would not have to worry about ground adjusting. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=261769#261769 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "mccarthy" <mccarthy(at)jefnet.com>
Subject: looking for suggestions
Date: Sep 07, 2009
I have an older 601 HD kit that I built, s/n 6-1911 that I have been flying around for 3 1/2 years now, and would like to know if anyone has changed the rims and tires for more rough field use. I know this would also mean making wider forks, at least on the mains. Also, the kit came with thin aluminum 1 piece cast rims with x spoke pattern, that I was told came from an Italian motor scooter manufacturer, and that they might not hold up on rough fields? anyway if anyone has been through this I would like to hear what you did so I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel. Thanks Tom McCarthy Zenith 601HD, N514TM 200hours Kolb Firestar, N414TM 545 hours ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 10, 2009
From: LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>
Subject: new item for the hangar tool box
Hi guys, I just bought a new tool from Harbor Freight that is very interesting. It's a mechanics stethoscope for $3.99 (sale price) that really works well. It was originally purchased to open an old combination safe and I realized the amplification is extreme and when one learns to listen to it you can not only find tumbler pickups, but you can also detect bad bearings on your band saw or your redrive, wheel bearings, distributor, etc. There are probably a few more things this tool is good for, so it seemed a worthwhile mention. Fly Safe Guys, Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 11, 2009
From: Bill Shirley Mitchell <slandwcmitch(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Battery Location 601HD
Anyone with a 601HD, Cont O-200 with Sensenitch metal prop. Where have you placed your battery? I have the 8 gal header tank and wing locker tanks. Can't do a honest W&B yet. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 11, 2009
From: Lee Steensland <zenith-list(at)steensland.net>
Subject: fundamental question
Guys, I have been building for a little while now and I have something that has been nagging me for a while now. I noticed that the recommended pressure zenith suggests for pulling A5 and A4 rivets seems a little low to my riveter. If I set it to those values, it won't break the stem off. So I turn up the pressure a little until I can get it to break. So I guess my question is, how long from the time you squeeze the trigger until the stem breaks are people experiencing. I can wait 20 seconds down to almost instantly. When they break off instantly I get oddly shaped ends, so obviously that isn't correct. What say you, netizens? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: NYTerminat(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 11, 2009
Subject: Re: fundamental question
LEE, I used as much air as required to smoothly pull and break off the stem. If you use too much air, the rivet gun will jerk and bounce back onto the skin and leave marks. Bob Spudis N701ZX / 912S In a message dated 9/11/2009 6:43:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, zenith-list(at)steensland.net writes: --> Zenith601-List message posted by: Lee Steensland Guys, I have been building for a little while now and I have something that has been nagging me for a while now. I noticed that the recommended pressure zenith suggests for pulling A5 and A4 rivets seems a little low to my riveter. If I set it to those values, it won't break the stem off. So I turn up the pressure a little until I can get it to break. So I guess my question is, how long from the time you squeeze the trigger until the stem breaks are people experiencing. I can wait 20 seconds down to almost instantly. When they break off instantly I get oddly shaped ends, so obviously that isn't correct. What say you, netizens? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: fundamental question
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Sep 11, 2009
I set my pressure so I have time to hold the rivet to the surface, pull it tight, reverse my hold (so I'm pulling away) when it breaks the stem. Never timed it, but maybe 3 seconds. When I pull away as it pops the stem, it leaves no marks and doesn't bounce. -------- Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-) http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon Corvair Engine Prints: http://home.comcast.net/~rlendon/site/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=262661#262661 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jon Croke" <Jon(at)joncroke.com>
Subject: Open Hangar Day
Date: Sep 11, 2009
Zenith Aircraft Company's 18th Annual OPEN HANGAR DAY and Fly-In Gathering Saturday, September 19, 2009 Mexico Memorial Airport, Mexico, Missouri You're invited to Zenith Aircraft Company's 18th annual OPEN HANGAR DAY and Fly-In Gathering on Saturday, September 19, 2009, at the factory located at Mexico Memorial Airport in Mexico, Missouri. Aviation enthusiasts are welcome to drive or fly-in for the day. The Zenith Aircraft kit production facilities will be open for factory tours and Zenith's factory-demonstrator kit aircraft will be on display. Company staff will demonstrate kit production and fabrication techniques used in producing the all-metal kit aircraft parts made at the Zenith Aircraft factory. *** Click here to view scenes from the 2008 Open Hangar Day *** We have many activities planned, including a series of hands-on educational and informative workshops for existing Zenith aircraft owners and builders, as well as new builders just getting started (or just thinking of starting to build and fly their own aircraft). Beginning on Friday afternoon we'll present several workshops in the factory, including a workshop on Dynon avionics, scratch building, Jabiru engines, and seminar on pre-flighting your Zenith aircraft, continuing with shorter seminars on Saturday morning. Back by popular demand, we've scheduled an informal Zenith Banquet at the Mexico Country Club on Friday evening. Click here for the schedule of events. Saturday, September 19, activities: The Zenith Aircraft factory will be open from 8:00 am - 3:00 pm for self-guided factory tours, demonstrations, and more. Ongoing activities on Saturday include: Hands-on Workshop: Back by popular demand, visitors will be given the opportunity to build their own all-metal large format (11"x17") binder for the Zenith plans (drawings) set from aluminum parts fabricated in the Zenith factory. Garmin Avionics, the leader in light aircraft GPS and avionics systems, will be on hand to show the latest Garmin products for light sport aircraft including the new GSX flight deck. Tim Casey, Garmin's sales manager for portables, LSA, and Experimental Aviation Markets, will answer questions on installing and operating Garmin avionics in Zenith aircraft. William Wynne, Corvair engine guru and the man behind FlyCorvair.com is planning to attend to discuss the Corvair auto engine conversions in the STOL CH 750 and ZODIAC CH 650. Dynon Avionics will showcase the latest innovations and features available from Dynon, including their new SkyView system. Kirk Kleinholz and Mike Huff from the Dynon factory will be on hand to discuss installation and operation of the popular "glass panels" from Dynon Avionics. Scott Wicks of Wick's Aircraft Supplies will hand out catalogs and showcase some of the builder supplies offered by Wick's (a large selection of aircraft building materials and hardware, tools, and accessories). HomebuiltHelp.com offers a complete line of "how-to" videos available on DVD, and will have the DVDs available for preview and purchase. Jon Croke, editor of the "Zenair Newsletter," will be available to sell back issues of the newsletter, renew your subscription, and interview builders and suppliers for future issues. The official newsletter is published six times per year, and each issue comes with a companion DVD. AeroLED, the maker of new super-bright LED lights, will be on hand to show the latest LED (light emitting diode) aircraft lights, including wingtip mounted strobe / nav lights as well as an assortment of new landing lights. Gus Warren of FlyWithGus.net will attend with a lightweight ULpower engine, and will be on hand to discuss this modern new European aircraft engine. Geoff Downey will share information about EAA, the Experimental Aircraft Association, and the annual AirVenture fly-in convention held in Oshkosh... Jabiru Aircraft Engines: Jabiru USA will be on hand to show you why the Jabiru engines are popular with Zenith builders, and factory reps will be available to answer your engine installation, operation, and maintenance questions. a.. Kit aircraft fabrication demonstrations in the Zenith factory: Cutting and pre-drilling kit parts on the CNC router; Forming and hand finishing wing ribs and other kit parts; Aircraft aluminum welding demonstrations, and more. We'll also have complete aircraft kits and parts on hand. Factory demonstrator aircraft: The popular Zodiac, STOL CH 701, STOL CH 750 and STOL CH 801 factory demonstrator aircraft will be parked at the factory. Food and refreshments: Local EAA chapter 1225 will provide a hot lunch at noon on Saturday, September 19, sponsored by Zenith Aircraft Company. Zenith will also have complimentary coffee and donuts available in the morning. Hundreds of builders and enthusiasts attended last year's Open Hangar Day in Mexico, Missouri. The gathering is an excellent opportunity for owners and builders of Zenith Aircraft kits to meet each other and to tour the Zenith Aircraft facilities. Located in scenic mid-Missouri, all pilots and aviation enthusiasts are invited to drive or fly in to attend Zenith Aircraft Co.'s annual 'Open Hangar and Fly-In' day. For more information on attending, please call Zenith Aircraft at (573) 581-9000 or the Mexico Airport at (573) 581-0162. -------------------------------------------------------------- Following are a few photos from the 2008 Open Hangar Day. Click here for more Discussing engine installations. Thanks to great weather, several dozen Zeniths flew in to the Open Hangar day. Workshops and seminars kept builders busy all day. Local Mexico EAA chapter 1225 volunteers cooked pork steaks for lunch.... Owners of completed Zenith Aircraft flew in for the activities and to show off their completed projects to fellow builders. Friday evening Zenith banquet - the dinner buffet was enjoyed by more than 135 builders and Zenith employees on Friday evening prior to the Open Hangar Day. Builders and their planes pose in front of the Zenith factory for the traditional group photo: Join us and be part of our annual Zenith Group Photo at 10:30 on Saturday morning. We'll try to include as many Zeniths as possible in the group photo. Builders were given the opportunity to "build their own" all-metal large format (11x17) binder for the Zenith plans set. -------------------------------------------------------------------- More Info: a.. Register Now for the Open Hangar Day b.. Download flyer for the Open Hangar Day Related Info: a.. Visiting the factory (directions, accommodations, etc.) b.. Detailed Map | Download Map c.. About Zenith Aircraft Co. d.. Other Events e.. Scenes from last year's Open Hangar Day (2008) Note: All scheduled events and times are subject to cancellation or change without prior notice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Zenith Aircraft Company Mexico Memorial Airport, PO Box 650 Mexico, Missouri, 65265-0650 USA. Tel: 573-581-9000 (Mon - Fri, 8-5 Central), Fax: 573-581-0011 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Cof G - weight and balance
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Sep 12, 2009
OK I am thinking of the C of G movement aft on the envelope Why does the fwd line move aft of 18% when above 1080lb up to 23.3% at 1320lb? what causes that? Chris.. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=262687#262687 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 601 HD Aileron Fitting, Right wing installed-Photo Request
From: "MHerder" <michaelherder(at)beckgroup.com>
Date: Sep 12, 2009
Im looking for some help with the interface between the aileron and the center section on my HD. I am in the process of fitting up my wings, and have my right wing bolted up. Then I went to put my aileron on and found that it didn't fit, it was approximately 15 mm too long to fit between the center section trailing edge and the outboard trailing edge. After looking at the plans a little further it appears that I should have waited until the wing was installed before I installed center section trailing edge fairing (6e 1-1 if I recall correctly). The drawings poorly illustrate that the aileron aligns with the top skin which I now believe not to be the case. Yes my aileron is exactly 2400 mm long. Can someone please send me a photos from the top, rear, and bottom of this tricky interface. THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR HELP!!! Did anyone else have trouble with this??? -------- One Rivet at a Time! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=262713#262713 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cof G - weight and balance
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Sep 13, 2009
Thanks Bryan not many others responded with the answer, I wonder if they all have this reduction in C of G range in their flight manuals.. Maybe someone going to the Zenith get together could ask Seb? Chris Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=262820#262820 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 13, 2009
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: Cof G - weight and balance
Chris You raise an interesting point. The situation is bit more complex than a simple reduction in CG range. A year ago, I found a W&B data sheet on zenithair.com, called wb-xl-new.pdf, with the date 1/02 on it. I can no longer find that document on the site. Of course that doesn't mean it's not there. There's lots of stuff that I can't find on that site. The 1st attached jpg shows a figure from that pdf. Within that past year, I found an AMD POH dated 12/05 on the net which contained that same diagram, see 2nd attach. Those CG ranges are rectangles 20 to 30% of MAC. The AMD POH that was referenced in Zodiac Update of 7/27/09, contains the diagram shown in the 3rd attachment. I presume that shows the reduction you are referring to. Looking at the front of the range, one can see that it now extends forward of the former 20% (12 inch) envelope. But at a reduced take-off weight. The reduced take off weight also applies between 12" and 14". Bryan's explanation sounds plausible. You are right, somebody should ask the Zenair folks what is going on. Terry >Thanks Bryan >not many others responded with the answer, I wonder if they all have this >reduction in C of G range in their flight manuals.. > >Maybe someone going to the Zenith get together could ask Seb? >Chris >> >>Probably because you might not have enough margin in elevator >>authority in the region forward of that line. The higher the weight >>and more forward the CG, the more elevator is needed to keep the nose >>up. Terry Phillips ZBAGer ttp44~at~rkymtn.net Corvallis MT 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons are done; waiting on the wings http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cof G - weight and balance
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Sep 13, 2009
Spot on the money Terry I wonder what gives.??? I have the older W&B forms as well and that is why I am asking about the changes.. Someone must know the reasons why the change in the AMD manual, how about all you AMD owners, what did they tell you ??? Chris Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=262890#262890 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug - SportAviation" <Doug.Norman(at)sportaviation.aero>
Subject: Re: Cof G - weight and balance
Date: Sep 14, 2009
As explained in a previous response, it has to do with elevator authority at slower speeds during TO&L. Remember that the AMD airplanes use the O-200a engine which is fairly nose heavy. Doug AMD CH601XL N601DN -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris Sinfield Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:04 AM Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Cof G - weight and balance Spot on the money Terry I wonder what gives.??? I have the older W&B forms as well and that is why I am asking about the changes.. Someone must know the reasons why the change in the AMD manual, how about all you AMD owners, what did they tell you ??? Chris Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=262890#262890 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com>
Subject: Rotax 912XTRA ??????????
Date: Sep 15, 2009
I have now seen a older Black Rocker box cover 912A, made back in the 90's, it has a kit installed that is called the 912xtra by Masterkraft. It is supposed to boost the HP by 10 to 15 hp. Does anyone have any experience with it, good or bad please speak up, if you want sent private email but please let me know some info if you have any. Thanks David M. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Graeme@cole" <graeme(at)coletoolcentre.com.au>
Subject: Re: Rotax 912XTRA ??????????
Date: Sep 16, 2009
I HAVE 912EXTRA PISTONS IN MY 701 MADE A GOOD INCREASE IN POWER WORTH DOING. ALSO AVAIL 912 SUPER EXTRA PISTONS FROM THE GUY WHO DOES THE INJECTED 912 CONVERSIONS http://www.extremeaircraftengines.com/ THEY COME WITH RINGS ETC FOR SIMILAR MONEY GRAEMECNS ----- Original Message ----- From: skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com ; zenith701801-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:27 AM Subject: Zenith601-List: Rotax 912XTRA ?????????? I have now seen a older Black Rocker box cover 912A, made back in the 90's, it has a kit installed that is called the 912xtra by Masterkraft. It is supposed to boost the HP by 10 to 15 hp. Does anyone have any experience with it, good or bad please speak up, if you want sent private email but please let me know some info if you have any. Thanks David M. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 09/15/09 20:00:00 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Removing those &()^^)^%$ paper part number stickers
From: "n85ae" <n85ae(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Sep 16, 2009
I squirt them with spray on goof off, wait a couple minutes and they peel right off with no effort. It absorbs right through the label and melts the glue. Jeff Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263333#263333 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Removing those &()^^)^%$ paper part number stickers
Hi Jim, I soak a small piece of a shop rag with paint thinner (Lacquer thinner works well) by holding the rag against the open can and shaking it a little and lay it on the label for a minute or so. The label gets soaked through and peels right off with the glue. Final clean up, if needed, is just a wipe with the thinner soaked rag. Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 09:32 AM 9/16/2009, you wrote: ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Aileron Servo Boost?
From: "Rexwinkle" <scottrexwinkle(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Sep 16, 2009
I have heard that aileron stick forces can be high in the 601XL especially while coming out of left turns. I have been told that you can duplicate the trim tab that is installed on the left aileron and install it on the right aileron as a servo boost tab to reduce the aileron stick force needed. Has anyone else had high aileron stick forces? Does anyone have any suggestions about an aileron servo boost tab? Thanks, Scott 601XL S/N: 6-7391 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263356#263356 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Aileron Servo Boost?
Hi Scott, I only have a little time in two different Zodiac XLs, so I might not really understand the situation. That said, I think there is a misunderstanding here about stick forces. The XL is very responsive to force applied to the stick in roll performance. The thing that bothers some people, particularly aviation magazine article writers, is the stick doesn't move much in response to the force applied - just the whole airplane moves. This could be described as a lack of control harmony. In my opinion, control harmony is lacking in most airplane designs and doesn't really play any role either positive or negative in the airplane's actual performance. It is just a pilot "Feel" thing that is normally forgotten after a few hours flying any particular design. For example, The Cessna-182 is incredibly heavy in pitch control and yet this is the second most popular plane in the history of aviation. I think the idea of adding "Power" to the aileron controls would be dangerous in this plane. If you really want to adjust the control harmony, I think the way to do it would be to reduce the size of the ailerons. Just to be clear, I do not recommend doing this. Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 11:15 AM 9/16/2009, you wrote: >I have heard that aileron stick forces can be high in the 601XL >especially while coming out of left turns. I have been told that you >can duplicate the trim tab that is installed on the left aileron and >install it on the right aileron as a servo boost tab to reduce the >aileron stick force needed. Has anyone else had high aileron stick >forces? Does anyone have any suggestions about an aileron servo boost tab? >Thanks, >Scott >601XL S/N: 6-7391 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "KARL POLIFKA" <jfowler120(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Aileron Servo Boost?
Date: Sep 16, 2009
We have 270 hours on our 601XL. I agree completely with Paul. The airplan e really flies just fine -- don't mess with it! Every airplane is differen t and, as Paul says, you'll quickly adjust to this one. I'd say 15 minutes ought to be enough. Karl Polifka ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Mulwitz To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:27 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Aileron Servo Boost? Hi Scott, I only have a little time in two different Zodiac XLs, so I might not really understand the situation. That said, I think there is a misunderstanding here about stick forces. The XL is very responsive to force applied to the stick in roll performance. The thing that bothers some people, particularly aviation magazine article writers, is the stick doesn't move much in response to the force applied - just the whole airplane moves. This could be described as a lack of control harmony. In my opinion, control harmony is lacking in most airplane designs and doesn't really play any role either positive or negative in the airplane's actual performance. It is just a pilot "Feel" thing that is normally forgotten after a few hours flying any particular design. For example, The Cessna-182 is incredibly heavy in pitch control and yet this is the second most popular plane in the history of aviation. I think the idea of adding "Power" to the aileron controls would be dangerous in this plane. If you really want to adjust the control harmony, I think the way to do it would be to reduce the size of the ailerons. Just to be clear, I do not recommend doing this. Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 11:15 AM 9/16/2009, you wrote: >I have heard that aileron stick forces can be high in the 601XL >especially while coming out of left turns. I have been told that you >can duplicate the trim tab that is installed on the left aileron and >install it on the right aileron as a servo boost tab to reduce the >aileron stick force needed. Has anyone else had high aileron stick >forces? Does anyone have any suggestions about an aileron servo boost ta b? >Thanks, >Scott >601XL S/N: 6-7391 =========== =========== =========== =========== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MaxNr(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 16, 2009
Subject: Re:Aileron Servo Boost? concentric bellcranks
That's how you make differential ailerons. More up range than down. A Zenith is a straight 11.5 deg up and 11.5 down. If you like the handling and there is not too much adverse yaw, you should leave it alone. Some designers make it so you can bank without rudder input and they mount the bellcrank aft end more outboard, fwd end more inboard. Sketch it out with full control throws and it will make sense to you. Make a paper mock up with pins. They sometime rake the aileron horn fwd a little and that has the same effect. Or maybe its raked aft, I forget. Good question. Bob Dingley 601XL 6-6791 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 601HD and Jabiru 2200
From: "ejohns" <atlanticsurvey(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Sep 17, 2009
What could I expect as real world performance from the 601 HD and the Jabiru 2200. I would like to hear from anyone who has tried this combination. I know that the cruise speed is lower than the HDS or the XL, but could a 90 knot cruise with this combination be expected? Ernie Johns Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263481#263481 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 2009
From: John Brumpton <jbrumpt(at)activ8.net.au>
Subject: 601XL/650 solid rivits required
Can any one confirm the total number of solid rivits and sizes for a 601xl/650 Who can supply these Regards John Brumpton ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 601XL/650 solid rivits required
From: "leinad" <leinad(at)hughes.net>
Date: Sep 17, 2009
John, I'm not positive about this as I'm using solid rivets in many places where they aren't called for on the plans, but I think for the most part the quantities (for the solid rivets) are called out on the drawings. For instance on my drawings for 6w3 (Wing Spar) the drawing says AN-470-AD-6-14 (RIVETS 142 Required). and AN-470-AD-5-9 (136 Required). There are 2 Spars so you have to double those numbers. The carry-through calls for 68 AN-470-AD-5-9. Of course you'd want to round up and have some to replace the ones you loose or mangle and have to drill out etc. Make sure you get AD rivets, as those are the hard ones. I know when I started my project one of the first things I did was to go through all the drawings and put notes on them for numbers of rivets and to convert metric to English units. Hope this helps. Dan jbrumpt(at)activ8.net.au wrote: > Can any one confirm the total number of solid rivits and sizes for a > 601xl/650 > Who can supply these > Regards > John Brumpton -------- Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263638#263638 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 601XL/650 solid rivits required
Date: Sep 18, 2009
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
John, In addition to the structural rivets Dan talks about, you are going to need a bunch of the small, soft, flush head rivets for attaching plate nuts.? The ones that ZAC supplied with the kit really weren't long enough, so I ordered a bunch from either Wicks or Spruce.? They sell by the pound, not by units.? I think I ordered 1/4 pound and got plenty. Jay Bannister John, I'm not positive about this as I'm using solid rivets in many places where they aren't called for on the plans, but I think for the most part the quantities (for the solid rivets) are called out on the drawings. For instance on my drawings for 6w3 (Wing Spar) the drawing says AN-470-AD-6-14 (RIVETS 142 Required). and AN-470-AD-5-9 (136 Required). There are 2 Spars so you have to double those numbers. The carry-through calls for 68 AN-470-AD-5-9. Of course you'd want to round up and have some to replace the ones you loose or mangle and have to drill out etc. Make sure you get AD rivets, as those are the hard ones. I know when I started my project one of the first things I did was to go through all the drawings and put notes on them for numbers of rivets and to convert metric to English units. Hope this helps. Dan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JohnDRead(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 18, 2009
Subject: Re: 601XL/650 solid rivits required
Zenith has all the rivets you will need, just give them a call. John Read CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300 Phone: 303-648-3261 Fax: 303-648-3262 Cell: 719-494-4567 In a message dated 9/17/2009 8:07:36 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jbrumpt(at)activ8.net.au writes: --> Zenith601-List message posted by: John Brumpton Can any one confirm the total number of solid rivits and sizes for a 601xl/650 Who can supply these Regards John Brumpton ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Scott E Bevier" <ke4hrh(at)comcast.net>
Subject: 601XL/650 solid rivits required
Date: Sep 18, 2009
John, and others >From the 601XL parts database on the Zenith web site, Excel counted this many. 3/32" BLIND RIVETS 68 1/8" BLIND RIVETS 4960 5/32" BLIND RIVETS 4340 You asked for confirmation on solid rivets. I would suggest you buy 1/2 lb. of each size that's listed on the drawings. Solid rivets are inexpensive. I buy most of my solid rivets from Genuine Aircraft Hardware. Zenith will sell you all the blind rivets you want. They claim to do QC checks on the rivets they sell. Regards, Scott Bevier 601XL ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Cabin fuel lines
From: "chuck960" <chuckde(at)roadrunner.com>
Date: Sep 18, 2009
I'm wondering what might be the best way to run fuel lines through the cabin. The plans don't specify material but Zenith supplies rubber hose with the kit. Would a solid material be better? Rubber should be ok as long as it is changed for new every so often. Aluminum or steel can crack from vibration. Rubber cad dry-rot and is easily cut. I want an easy way to disconnect the fuel line at the side skin in order to remove the wing. What about fittings? there are many types to choose from. How do I get through the firewall? Does anyone know where I can get a good explanation of all this? Chuck Dean Ch650 in progress. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263769#263769 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 19, 2009
From: Mark Hubelbank <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Subject: Re: Cabin fuel lines
I am a firm believer in using only the same grade of parts for fuel lines as a normal "certified/production" aircraft would use. I have used all metal tubing and factory made flexible hose with AN fittings for the fuel lines. The pictures are posted on: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jabiruengines/photos/album/0/list non members may have to create a sign in listing to view them. There are also some pictures on photo.hubbles.com On 9/18/2009 10:36 PM, chuck960 wrote: > > I'm wondering what might be the best way to run fuel lines through the cabin. The plans don't specify material but Zenith supplies rubber hose with the kit. Would a solid material be better? Rubber should be ok as long as it is changed for new every so often. Aluminum or steel can crack from vibration. Rubber cad dry-rot and is easily cut. > I want an easy way to disconnect the fuel line at the side skin in order to remove the wing. What about fittings? there are many types to choose from. How do I get through the firewall? Does anyone know where I can get a good explanation of all this? > Chuck Dean > Ch650 in progress. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263769#263769 > > > -- Mark Hubelbank NorthEast Monitoring 2 Clock Tower Place Suite 555 Maynard, MA, 01754 - USA mhubel(at)nemon.com 978-443-3955 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 19, 2009
From: Mark Hubelbank <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Subject: Re: Cabin fuel lines
I am a firm believer in using only the same grade of parts for fuel lines as a normal "certified/production" aircraft would use. I have used all metal tubing and factory made flexible hose with AN fittings for the fuel lines. The pictures are posted on: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jabiruengines/photos/album/0/list The album is "N708HU" non members may have to create a sign in listing to view them. There are also some pictures on photo.hubbles.com -- Mark Hubelbank NorthEast Monitoring 2 Clock Tower Place Suite 555 Maynard, MA, 01754 - USA mhubel(at)nemon.com 978-443-3955 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 19, 2009
From: Terry Turnquist <ter_turn(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: throttle set-up
It looks like the dual throttle set up shown on 6-E-5 is a "pull " system. Does anyone have such a set up and has it caused any problems as opposed to the standard push throttle? I realize a person can get used to anything, but this seems counter intuitive. Yes, No? Terry Turnquist 601XL ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 19, 2009
From: LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>
Subject: Re: throttle set-up
Terry, The pull type system is absurd and one should do all things practical that sets the throttle to push to open. I would also eliminate the spring action that provides no safety or intuitive motion or resolution if one spring breaks. It's not as hard to do a type certified example if you really set your mind to it. When ever would you allow someone to fly your aircraft if it were different from the expected thing. That becomes a safety issue, big time. Yes, counter intuitive is incorrect! Best regards, Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com Terry Turnquist wrote: > It looks like the dual throttle set up shown on 6-E-5 is a "pull " > system. Does anyone have such a set up and has it caused any problems > as opposed to the standard push throttle? I realize a person can get > used to anything, but this seems counter intuitive. Yes, No? > > Terry Turnquist > 601XL > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Geoff Eather" <geather(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: throttle set-up
Date: Sep 20, 2009
All Whilst on the duel throttle system - does anyone have any ideas on how to overcome the friction in the standard kit supplied by Jabiru USA. The thickness of the inner throttle cable and the arc through which it is required to operate make opening (and closing) the throttle difficult. Geoff 601 XL (Nearly finished) -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of LarryMcFarland Sent: 20 September, 2009 1:31 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: throttle set-up Terry, The pull type system is absurd and one should do all things practical that sets the throttle to push to open. I would also eliminate the spring action that provides no safety or intuitive motion or resolution if one spring breaks. It's not as hard to do a type certified example if you really set your mind to it. When ever would you allow someone to fly your aircraft if it were different from the expected thing. That becomes a safety issue, big time. Yes, counter intuitive is incorrect! Best regards, Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com Terry Turnquist wrote: > It looks like the dual throttle set up shown on 6-E-5 is a "pull " > system. Does anyone have such a set up and has it caused any problems > as opposed to the standard push throttle? I realize a person can get > used to anything, but this seems counter intuitive. Yes, No? > > Terry Turnquist > 601XL > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 20, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: throttle set-up
Hi Geoff, I didn't like the feel of the included dual throttle kit from JabiruUSA either. I decided the problem was the fact that the torque tube was mounted on the shelf above the nose gear and the control path is even higher at that point because of the direction of the arms on the torque tube. This is natural since it was part of the firewall forward package and that was the only place forward of the firewall to mount the torque tube. On my plane I decided to move the torque tube to aft of the firewall. I mounted it at three points - two side skins and below the center channel that runs between the firewall and instrument panel. Also I faced the arms downward to keep the control path at the same level as the throttle connection on the carburetor. Rather than using the supplied torque tube, I reproduced the design with longer arms. I also mounted the throttle knobs and carb heat knob on the side skin -- my arms aren't long enough to reach the instrument panel while leaning back in the seat. The result is a very smooth dual throttle implementation. If you look in the archives you will probably find some pictures I posted of this design. The bad news is it took me a couple of months to implement this along with a redirection of the carb heat control. Good luck, Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 09:00 PM 9/19/2009, you wrote: >Whilst on the duel throttle system - does anyone have any ideas on how to >overcome the friction in the standard kit supplied by Jabiru USA. The >thickness of the inner throttle cable and the arc through which it is >required to operate make opening (and closing) the throttle difficult. > >Geoff 601 XL (Nearly finished) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Geoff Eather" <geather(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: throttle set-up
Date: Sep 20, 2009
Paul Thanks for the reply - sounds like a great idea. Any chance of reposting the pictures of your design? I found your previous comments in the archives but am unable to access the pictures. Geoff -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz Sent: 20 September, 2009 7:13 PM Subject: RE: Zenith601-List: throttle set-up Hi Geoff, I didn't like the feel of the included dual throttle kit from JabiruUSA either. I decided the problem was the fact that the torque tube was mounted on the shelf above the nose gear and the control path is even higher at that point because of the direction of the arms on the torque tube. This is natural since it was part of the firewall forward package and that was the only place forward of the firewall to mount the torque tube. On my plane I decided to move the torque tube to aft of the firewall. I mounted it at three points - two side skins and below the center channel that runs between the firewall and instrument panel. Also I faced the arms downward to keep the control path at the same level as the throttle connection on the carburetor. Rather than using the supplied torque tube, I reproduced the design with longer arms. I also mounted the throttle knobs and carb heat knob on the side skin -- my arms aren't long enough to reach the instrument panel while leaning back in the seat. The result is a very smooth dual throttle implementation. If you look in the archives you will probably find some pictures I posted of this design. The bad news is it took me a couple of months to implement this along with a redirection of the carb heat control. Good luck, Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 09:00 PM 9/19/2009, you wrote: >Whilst on the duel throttle system - does anyone have any ideas on how to >overcome the friction in the standard kit supplied by Jabiru USA. The >thickness of the inner throttle cable and the arc through which it is >required to operate make opening (and closing) the throttle difficult. > >Geoff 601 XL (Nearly finished) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 20, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: throttle set-up
Hi Geoff, I'm not really sure I ever posted the pictures to the group site. I'm sure I sent them out, but perhaps it was only to a few people who asked. In any event, here they are. I hope they help . . . Paul [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Note: the picture file names give a clue about what is contained. Good luck, Paul At 03:48 AM 9/20/2009, you wrote: >Paul > >Thanks for the reply - sounds like a great idea. Any chance of reposting the >pictures of your design? I found your previous comments in the archives but >am unable to access the pictures. > >Geoff ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Removing those &()^^)^%$ paper part number stickers
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: Sep 20, 2009
Lacquer thinner - wet the paper and it peels right off. A quick wipe with a towel removes the residue. Also does a nice job removing magic marker. Tim -------- ______________ CFII Champ L16A flying Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A Working on fuselage Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=263958#263958 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: throttle set-up
From: "DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher(at)ge.com>
Date: Sep 21, 2009
Geoff, I installed the Jabiru FWF supplied dual throttle system as intended by Jabiru. Initially it did have a lot of inherent friction and hysteresis. I worked at reducing friction at all the movement points. I put doublers on the instrument panel and firewall where the throttle cable passes through to eliminate flexing. I also pre-bent the solid throttle wire where it passes through the firewall and flared up the opening that the wire passes through. This and some teflon lube has resulted in very satisfactory operation. I worked on it quite a bit and, admittedly at one point, was near to scrapping the system outright, but persistence paid off. I has been operating very well in flight for over a year and 100+ hours now. Good luck on yours, -------- David Gallagher 601 XL/Jabiru 3300 First flight 7/24/08 100 hours and climbing! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264091#264091 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 21, 2009
From: LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>
Subject: A bloody safety note for annual inspection
Hi Guys, I nearly qualified for the Darwin award today while removing my propeller. Id put wrenches on both ends of the prop bolts and had my head in the path of the propeller struggling with the torqued nuts on the back face. As each nut was loosened, the prop rotated backward a few degrees toward me. On the 5^th bolt, I was so focused that I pulled on the wrench with my chin tucked in and the prop, only two feet away, moved a few more degrees and the compression released to spin the rear edge of the prop onto the side of my skull. The force made a 5-inch mark on the side of my head and the centerfold in my ear was cut clear through. Wrenches and I hit the floor and then I walked from the hangar bleeding pretty good. An airport employee saw my bloody towel in hand and called the airport emergency team and soon medics in fire trucks arrived to offer assistance. It could have been worse, but my mistake was not removing the spark plugs before removing prop bolts. No ignition was involved, but with a re-drive reduction of 2 to1, the force released was a surprise and could well have been deadly. I signed a refusal of medical care as my ear had quit bleeding and was very appreciative of their arriving so quickly. They say confession is good for the soul and that its never too late to learn something, Larry McFarland 601HDS Stratus Subaru at www.macsmachine.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LHusky(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 21, 2009
Subject: Re: A bloody safety note for annual inspection
Glad your alright Larry. I just put that little note down on my list. Be safe and quit using your head so much! LOL! Larry Husky Madras, Oregon 601/XL / Corvair In a message dated 9/21/2009 5:20:23 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, larry(at)macsmachine.com writes: --> Zenith601-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland Hi Guys, I nearly qualified for the Darwin award today while removing my propeller. I=99d put wrenches on both ends of the prop bolts and ha d my head in the path of the propeller struggling with the torqued nuts on the back face. As each nut was loosened, the prop rotated backward a few degrees toward me. On the 5^th bolt, I was so focused that I pulled on the wrench with my chin tucked in and the prop, only two feet away, moved a few more degrees and the compression released to spin the rear edge of the prop onto the side of my skull. The force made a 5-inch mark on the side of my head and the centerfold in my ear was cut clear through . Wrenches and I hit the floor and then I walked from the hangar bleeding pretty good. An airport employee saw my bloody towel in hand and called the airport emergency team and soon medics in fire trucks arrived to offer assistance. It could have been worse, but my mistake was not removing the spark plugs before removing prop bolts. No ignition was involved, but with a re-drive reduction of 2 to1, the force released was a surprise and could well have been deadly. I signed a refusal of medical care as my ear had quit bleeding and was very appreciative of their arriving so quickly. They say confession is good for the soul and that it=99s never too late to learn something, Larry McFarland 601HDS Stratus Subaru at www.macsmachine.com ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alain Ouellet" <aouellet(at)icecanada.com>
Subject: Re: A bloody safety note for annual inspection
Date: Sep 22, 2009
One of our mechanic friend lost and eye when the prop he was holding escaped during a cylinder compression check. Not too much fun. We cannot be too careful. Alain ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Austin" <daveaustin2(at)primus.ca>
Subject: Re: throttle set-up
Date: Sep 22, 2009
Spitfires were "push to open" for sure. Dave Austin 601HDS - 912 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Wanted Zenith 601xl Decal
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Sep 24, 2009
Anyone know where I could get a L/H and R/H Zenith 601xl Decal [With the logo] about 6"ht for aircraft identification.Or just a Zenith aircraft logo about 4-6" ht Cheers [sent a email to Zenith but no reply to date] Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264801#264801 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Floyd" <fwilkes(at)gvtc.com>
Subject: Re: Wanted Zenith 601xl Decal
Date: Sep 24, 2009
Call Craig Douglas at Allegra prints and imaging 800-975-3188 If you have a graphic you want on disk, they can print anything. This is a link to pics of my 601 they did the graphics for. http://picasaweb.google.com/floyd.wilkes/Sep309Zodiac?authkey=Gv1sRgCKax_dvFtqqhCw# Floyd Wilkes 601XL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:22 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Wanted Zenith 601xl Decal > > > Anyone know where I could get a L/H and R/H Zenith 601xl Decal [With the > logo] about 6"ht for aircraft identification.Or just a Zenith aircraft > logo about 4-6" ht Cheers [sent a email to Zenith but no reply to date] > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264801#264801 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Flap position Indicator
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Sep 25, 2009
Anyone used a ELECTRONIC FLAP CONTROLLER The Flap Controller is a combination drive unit for the flap actuator, and an indicator of flap position. It features momentary push button switches with built in green LED lights, providing settings for 4 flap positions. Each switch can be user pro- grammed to a specific flap position. Once calibrated, momentarily pushing any switch, will then automatically drive the flaps to the pre selected position and stop.The flap controller can work with any actuator that draws less than 7 amps current at 12 volts when operating. It requires that the system have a 5K or 10K resistive position sensor that provides feedback of flap position. Many actuators incorporate this type of sensor in the unit, or separate linear resistive sensors are available from equipment suppliers. Cheers Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264890#264890 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 25, 2009
Subject: Re: Wanted Zenith 601xl Decal
I can cut them for you... I did the vinyl for my plane. I am changing where the ZODIAC 601XL is on the wing tip I don't like how it looks. Jeff ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Wanted Zenith 601xl Decal
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 25, 2009
ACS has a couple -------- W.R. "Gig" Giacona 601XL Under Construction See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=264910#264910 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Instrument panel files for CH601XL
From: "mhubel" <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Date: Sep 25, 2009
I have posted a set of turbocad files that were used for the CH601XL. These are on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jabiruengines/files/ you may need to register to access them. The files are under the file name turbocad_CH601_instrument_panel_N708HU.zip Included in the files are three layers (options->layers) that are the actual holes, the part outlines and the space guidelines. Only the first (black) layer is to be used for fabrication. The instrument panel was actually made by Rapid Sheet Metal Inc Kristen Spratt 603-821-5300 603-889-4266 fax customerservice(at)rapidsheetmetal.com This design was $390 (quantity 1) including painting. The cost won't vary much with the layout. It was 0.090 thick and was painted by Rapid Sheet Metal. It was put on top of the sheet metal already there. All openings in he existing panel were made slightly oversize for ease of alignment. If you use these drawings and this vendor, I suggest not using any countersunk screw holes as these are 2D drawings and the countersunk holes really don't make it look any better. -------- Mark Hubelbank Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265005#265005 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Wanted Zenith 601xl Decal
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Sep 25, 2009
Afterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote: > I can cut them for you... I did the vinyl for my plane. > > I am changing where the ZODIAC 601XL is on the wing tip I don't like how it looks. > > Jeff Thank you for the offer but I'm after the Zenith Logo Cheers Alan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265007#265007 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/zac_logo_117.gif ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Throttle quadrant - Question
From: "Scotsman" <james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za>
Date: Sep 26, 2009
Morning list, I have the dual stick option on the XL that I am building and I wanted to know whether anyone has installed a throttle quadrant in the centre console as opposed to the push pull plunger variety usually installed in the instrument panel. On Zenith's website I saw one photo of an installation like this (see attachment) but I have not seen any more. If anyone has already done this installation I would appreciate a couple of pictures and advice on how best to do this avoiding any interference with the elevator controls in the centre console. Cheers James -------- Cell +27 83 675 0815 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265080#265080 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/ph_hve2_199.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Throttle quadrant - Question
From: "Scotsman" <james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za>
Date: Sep 26, 2009
Hi Jim, I am quite keen on the idea as I have previously flown aircraft in this configuration. My forward fuselage is all cleco'd up at the minute so once I have riveted it and put it on its gear I was thinking of mocking up the arrangement to see if it fits correctly to hand. I like the idea of having hands on throttle and stick in comfort. It seems that, looking at the picture, that the revised centre console would have to come directly out from the base of the instrument panel to intersect the existing armrest area at a different angle to avoid conflicting with the elevator horn etc. It would be nice if I could get at least some more pictures of the above aircraft's cabin to see exactly how it intersects. Let's see if anyone else on the list has any experience. James -------- Cell +27 83 675 0815 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265114#265114 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Flap position Indicator
From: "Stephen Smith" <sRoydSmith(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Sep 27, 2009
Hello Thruster87, My brother and I have a flap computer from Aircraft Extras installed on our 601Xls. We are very happy with it. It adjusts elevator trim as the flaps come in. You can set up to 10 flap stops. Here is the web page: http://www.aircraft-extras.com/FPS-Plus-Tech.htm Aircraftspruce sells it. Steve -------- Steve Smith N601WF Zenair Zodiac XL Jabiru 3300 550+ hours Sensenich composite - ground adjustable Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265252#265252 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Subject: Re: Flap position Indicator
Date: Sep 27, 2009
If somebody really wants one I have one that I won't be using. I have the "plus" model. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Smith Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 6:46 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Flap position Indicator Hello Thruster87, My brother and I have a flap computer from Aircraft Extras installed on our 601Xls. We are very happy with it. It adjusts elevator trim as the flaps come in. You can set up to 10 flap stops. Here is the web page: http://www.aircraft-extras.com/FPS-Plus-Tech.htm Aircraftspruce sells it. Steve -------- Steve Smith N601WF Zenair Zodiac XL Jabiru 3300 550+ hours Sensenich composite - ground adjustable Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265252#265252 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LHusky(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 28, 2009
Subject: Re: Flap position Indicator
Craig, what are you asking for it? I am interested. Email me offline. Larry Husky Madras, Oregon In a message dated 9/27/2009 6:39:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, craig(at)craigandjean.com writes: --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" If somebody really wants one I have one that I won't be using. I have the "plus" model. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Smith Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 6:46 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Flap position Indicator Hello Thruster87, My brother and I have a flap computer from Aircraft Extras installed on our 601Xls. We are very happy with it. It adjusts elevator trim as the flaps come in. You can set up to 10 flap stops. Here is the web page: http://www.aircraft-extras.com/FPS-Plus-Tech.htm Aircraftspruce sells it. Steve -------- Steve Smith N601WF Zenair Zodiac XL Jabiru 3300 550+ hours Sensenich composite - ground adjustable Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265252#265252 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 30, 2009
From: LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>
Subject: Tire wear at annual
Hi Guys, During the annual inspection, I found the center-tread on the left main tire at 1/32-inch, the right main tread at 1/16-inch and the nose tread at 5/32-inch or no perceptible wear. I purchased 3 more tires at $35.00 ea, but this may not have been the best decision. I could have just rotated the left main with the nose tire. There were 150 hours and 300 plus landings on them and theyd have gone another 100 hours and 200 landings just with the rotation. The tubes were in excellent condition and the elephant washers that were put on the stems have kept them in good shape too. The old tires will be individually Saran-wrapped and shelved for spares and, will probably not be needed for a long time. They are the S-83 Michelin 3.5 x 8.0s fit onto 4.0 x 8.0 Matco wheels. They are marked for 400 lb capacity at 33 psi, which means about 600 lbs max each. I really like these tires on the Zenith 8-inch wheels and because more than some of you have these too, I thought you might like this conditional report. Fly safe guys, Larry McFarland (1150 lb average flight weight) 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Weights and Balances
From: "Ianrat" <ianrat(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: Oct 04, 2009
I have found a number of programs that will work out the weights and balances of the 601 XL. But they are all in pounds and mm. Is there any difference in just using Kilos instead of pounds or is there some other formula to use. We have submit our findings to the RAA here in OZ in Kilos and mm [Question] Thank you Ianrat CH601XL Australia. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266359#266359 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Weights and Balances
Date: Oct 04, 2009
Ian, A W&B calculation is a measurement of ratios. The weight of four bananas, one cucumber length from a pivot will balance eight bananas, one half of a cucumber length from the pivot (assuming the weight of the bananas and the lengths of the cucumber are similar). Just use the same parameters throughout the calculation. Cheers Peter Wonthaggi Australia http://zodiac.cpc-world.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ianrat Sent: Sunday, 4 October 2009 6:35 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Weights and Balances I have found a number of programs that will work out the weights and balances of the 601 XL. But they are all in pounds and mm. Is there any difference in just using Kilos instead of pounds or is there some other formula to use. We have submit our findings to the RAA here in OZ in Kilos and mm [Question] Thank you Ianrat CH601XL Australia. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266359#266359 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Weights and Balances
Date: Oct 04, 2009
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Ian, Numbers is numbers.? I used the same spreadsheet to run W&B in pounds and mm (for me); and in pounds and inches (for the FAA). I don't think your program will know the difference, unless you make an issue of it. Of course, your numbers will be upside down? (;>) Jay Bannister I have found a number of programs that will work out the weights and balances of the 601 XL. But they are all in pounds and mm. Is there any difference in just using Kilos instead of pounds or is there some other formula to use. We have submit our findings to the RAA here in OZ in Kilos and mm [Question] Thank you Ianrat CH601XL Australia. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 04, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Weights and Balances
Hi Ian, I'm not sure the responses to your weight and balance question were really clear. I agree with all of the ones I've seen, but they don't tell you what to do. I believe you can use any set of units for your calculations and you will still get the correct CG result. The key is to convert ALL measurements to the same new units. This includes the empty weight and moment for your plane and the weight and location of all added items. Good luck, Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 12:35 AM 10/4/2009, you wrote: >I have found a number of programs that will work out the weights and >balances of the 601 XL. But they are all in pounds and mm. Is there >any difference in just using Kilos instead of pounds or is there >some other formula to use. We have submit our findings to the RAA >here in OZ in Kilos and mm > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuselage Side Skins (Front)
From: "aussiech650" <greg@gas-n-go.com.au>
Date: Oct 04, 2009
Hi, I have just reached this stage on my CH650 fuselage and my front side skins dont appear to be correct either. Have the factory made a change to these skins to rectify this issue? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266397#266397 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601a(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Flange on seat bottom
Date: Oct 04, 2009
I'm wondering if anyone else has encountered this, and has a response from Zenith. If not, I'll ring their bell tomorrow. Drawing 6B15 shows the seat bottom, 6B15-4. On my copy of the drawings, it's flat sheet of metal. Ditto for the image on the "Homebuilt Help" DVD. A photo of what I received is attached. There's a flange, not shown on 6B15, or the "Homebuilt Help" DVD, that would connect to the fuselage side. Drawing 6B18, at the upper right, shows an "L" angle closeout between the seat bottom, 6B15-4, and 6B11-2. It looks like this flange may obviate the need for this "L" angle. I'm guessing some others have received the seat bottoms with the added flange. Did you install the "L" angle, or did you omit it? ============================================ ============================================ Jim B Belcher BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science A&P/IA Retired aerospace technical manager Mathematics and alcohol do not mix. Do not drink and derive. ============================================ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Weights and Balances
Date: Oct 04, 2009
Like others have said, just plug in kilos and mm into the program and the result will be in kilos and mm regardless of what the output from the program says. If you are using an Excel spreadsheet for your calculations, you can change the text labels from pounds to kilos and then everything will look right. It won't change the calculations one bit. > > I have found a number of programs that will work out the weights and > balances of the 601 XL. But they are all in pounds and mm. Is there > any difference in just using Kilos instead of pounds or is there > some other formula to use. We have submit our findings to the RAA > here in OZ in Kilos and mm > > [Question] > > Thank you > > Ianrat > CH601XL > Australia. -- Bryan Martin N61BM, CH 601 XL, RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan and Brenda" <alsmith(at)olemac.net>
Subject: Re: Flange on seat bottom
Date: Oct 04, 2009
Jim, We have Kit # 7517 we have the flange as shown the Center Console now has flanges that eliminate the need for L angles. It does appear that your access openings should be much higher near the small angle at the top. It appears that it was made incorrectly. We have found several items that are not well documented for the 650 version. Brenda and AL Smith ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Belcher" <z601a(at)anemicaardvark.com> Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 11:53 AM Subject: Zenith601-List: Flange on seat bottom > I'm wondering if anyone else has encountered this, and has a response from > Zenith. If not, I'll ring their bell tomorrow. > > Drawing 6B15 shows the seat bottom, 6B15-4. On my copy of the drawings, > it's > flat sheet of metal. Ditto for the image on the "Homebuilt Help" DVD. > > A photo of what I received is attached. There's a flange, not shown on > 6B15, > or the "Homebuilt Help" DVD, that would connect to the fuselage side. > > Drawing 6B18, at the upper right, shows an "L" angle closeout between the > seat > bottom, 6B15-4, and 6B11-2. It looks like this flange may obviate the need > for this "L" angle. > > I'm guessing some others have received the seat bottoms with the added > flange. > Did you install the "L" angle, or did you omit it? > ============================================ > > ============================================ > Jim B Belcher > BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science > A&P/IA > Retired aerospace technical manager > > Mathematics and alcohol do not mix. > Do not drink and derive. > ============================================ > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan and Brenda" <alsmith(at)olemac.net>
Subject: Re: Futter Mods in UK
Date: Oct 04, 2009
We thought this would be an interesting read for the Zodiac Community. http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/Zenair%20Docs... LAA issues mod pack for grounded Zenair CH 601 XL - Sept 2009 In October 2008 the CAA issued an MPD (Mandatory Permit Directive) which grounded the popular CH601 XL, due to concerns over structural integrity of the wing attachments and possible aileron flutter. The LAA has just released a modification to the wing attachments, adds aileron mass balances, alters the elevator trim system and weight and cg range. Incorporating this modification allows individual CH601 XL aircraft to be cleared once more for flight. " ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Belcher" <z601a(at)anemicaardvark.com> Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 11:53 AM Subject: Zenith601-List: Flange on seat bottom > I'm wondering if anyone else has encountered this, and has a response from > Zenith. If not, I'll ring their bell tomorrow. > > Drawing 6B15 shows the seat bottom, 6B15-4. On my copy of the drawings, > it's > flat sheet of metal. Ditto for the image on the "Homebuilt Help" DVD. > > A photo of what I received is attached. There's a flange, not shown on > 6B15, > or the "Homebuilt Help" DVD, that would connect to the fuselage side. > > Drawing 6B18, at the upper right, shows an "L" angle closeout between the > seat > bottom, 6B15-4, and 6B11-2. It looks like this flange may obviate the need > for this "L" angle. > > I'm guessing some others have received the seat bottoms with the added > flange. > Did you install the "L" angle, or did you omit it? > ============================================ > > ============================================ > Jim B Belcher > BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science > A&P/IA > Retired aerospace technical manager > > Mathematics and alcohol do not mix. > Do not drink and derive. > ============================================ > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Futter Mods in UK
Date: Oct 04, 2009
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Allen and Brenda, When I clicked on the "interesting read", I got the following error message: FORBIDDEN You tried to access a document for which you don't have privileges. What "privileges" do I need to read it ? Jay Bannister -----Original Message----- From: Alan and Brenda <alsmith(at)olemac.net> Sent: Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:33 pm Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Futter Mods in UK ? We thought this would be an interesting read for the Zodiac Community.? ? http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/Zenair%20Docs...? ? LAA issues mod pack for grounded Zenair CH 601 XL - Sept 2009? ? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "fgantt(at)texaviation.com" <fgantt(at)texaviation.com>
Subject: Flange on seat bottom
Date: Oct 04, 2009
JimI am building a CH 650 and I installed with the preformed set bottom with Flange and omitted the L angle. Floyd ---------------------------------------- From: "Jim Belcher" <z601a(at)anemicaardvark.com> Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 12:02 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Flange on seat bottom I'm wondering if anyone else has encountered this, and has a response from Zenith. If not, I'll ring their bell tomorrow. Drawing 6B15 shows the seat bottom, 6B15-4. On my copy of the drawings, it's flat sheet of metal. Ditto for the image on the "Homebuilt Help" DVD. A photo of what I received is attached. There's a flange, not shown on 6B15, or the "Homebuilt Help" DVD, that would connect to the fuselage side. Drawing 6B18, at the upper right, shows an "L" angle closeout between the seat bottom, 6B15-4, and 6B11-2. It looks like this flange may obviate the need for this "L" angle. I'm guessing some others have received the seat bottoms with the added flange. Did you install the "L" angle, or did you omit it? ============================================ ============================================ Jim B Belcher BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science A&P/IA Retired aerospace technical manager Mathematics and alcohol do not mix. Do not drink and derive. ============================================ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 04, 2009
Subject: Re: Futter Mods in UK
From: Carlos Sa <carlossa52(at)gmail.com>
Try the following address: http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/engineering_updates.html Carlos ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 04, 2009
Subject: Re: Futter Mods in UK
From: Iberplanes IGL <iberplanes(at)gmail.com>
None, the link was published broken. -- Alberto Martin www.iberplanes.es Igualada - Barcelona - Spain ---------------------------------------------- Zodiac 601 XL Builder Serial: 6-7011 Tail Kit: Finished Wings: Not Started Fuselage: Started Engine: Jabiru 3300 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 04, 2009
Subject: Re: Futter Mods in UK
From: Iberplanes IGL <iberplanes(at)gmail.com>
hi, I believe this is the doc. *http://tinyurl.com/nwoxss * bye Alberto Martin www.iberplanes.es Igualada - Barcelona - Spain ---------------------------------------------- Zodiac 601 XL Builder Serial: 6-7011 Tail Kit: Finished Wings: Not Started Fuselage: Started Engine: Jabiru 3300 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Flange on seat bottom
Date: Oct 05, 2009
Jim, I had the same thing. I also found that the seat bottom didn't fit with the plans dimensions. I cut off the flange and added the L angle. I emailed Zenith about it and that was their suggestion. Cheers Peter Wonthaggi Australia http://zodiac.cpc-world.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Belcher Sent: Monday, 5 October 2009 3:54 AM Subject: Zenith601-List: Flange on seat bottom I'm wondering if anyone else has encountered this, and has a response from Zenith. If not, I'll ring their bell tomorrow. Drawing 6B15 shows the seat bottom, 6B15-4. On my copy of the drawings, it's flat sheet of metal. Ditto for the image on the "Homebuilt Help" DVD. A photo of what I received is attached. There's a flange, not shown on 6B15, or the "Homebuilt Help" DVD, that would connect to the fuselage side. Drawing 6B18, at the upper right, shows an "L" angle closeout between the seat bottom, 6B15-4, and 6B11-2. It looks like this flange may obviate the need for this "L" angle. I'm guessing some others have received the seat bottoms with the added flange. Did you install the "L" angle, or did you omit it? ============================================ ============================================ Jim B Belcher BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science A&P/IA Retired aerospace technical manager Mathematics and alcohol do not mix. Do not drink and derive. ============================================ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Cox" <greg@gas-n-go.com.au>
Subject: Parts that do not fit.
Date: Oct 05, 2009
I am building a CH650 in Australia and have found that my center wing spar is the wrong angle (XL601) and that the front fuselage side skins are also wrong (a mix of XL601 outer dimensions and CH650 pre drilled holes). As it will take some time for replacement parts to arrive down under, I would be interested to hear from anyone that is further along with the build (either CH650 or late XL601) that may be able to advise of other parts that are not correct so that I may have them all sent to me in one shipment. I believe that there may be an issue with the seat bottom? and maybe the top skin? Regards, Greg Cox Zenith Zodiac CH650, VH-ZDC Sydney, Australia (Cecil Hills) Email - greg@gas-n-go.com.au Mobile - 0430002333 Fax - (02) 9823 9977 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan and Brenda" <alsmith(at)olemac.net>
Subject: Re: Futter Mods in UK
Date: Oct 04, 2009
http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/Zenair%20Docs/Zenai %20CH%20601%20XL%20-%20MPD%20release%20Modification%20Instructions%20-%20 fourth.pdf ----- Original Message ----- From: Iberplanes IGL To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 2:39 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Futter Mods in UK None, the link was published broken. -- Alberto Martin www.iberplanes.es Igualada - Barcelona - Spain ---------------------------------------------- Zodiac 601 XL Builder Serial: 6-7011 Tail Kit: Finished Wings: Not Started Fuselage: Started Engine: Jabiru 3300 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan and Brenda" <alsmith(at)olemac.net>
Subject: Re: Futter Mods in UK
Date: Oct 04, 2009
http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/Zenair%20Docs/Zenai %20CH%20601%20XL%20-%20MPD%20release%20Modification%20Instructions%20-%20 fourth.pdf ----- Original Message ----- From: jaybannist(at)cs.com To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 12:47 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Futter Mods in UK Allen and Brenda, When I clicked on the "interesting read", I got the following error message: FORBIDDEN You tried to access a document for which you don't have privileges. What "privileges" do I need to read it ? Jay Bannister -----Original Message----- From: Alan and Brenda <alsmith(at)olemac.net> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:33 pm Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Futter Mods in UK We thought this would be an interesting read for the Zodiac Community. http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/Zenair%20Docs... LAA issues mod pack for grounded Zenair CH 601 XL - Sept 2009 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan and Brenda" <alsmith(at)olemac.net>
Subject: Re: Futter Mods in UK
Date: Oct 04, 2009
If the link I sent does not work send me a email and I will send to you. This works for me. AL ----- Original Message ----- From: jaybannist(at)cs.com To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 12:47 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Futter Mods in UK Allen and Brenda, When I clicked on the "interesting read", I got the following error message: FORBIDDEN You tried to access a document for which you don't have privileges. What "privileges" do I need to read it ? Jay Bannister -----Original Message----- From: Alan and Brenda <alsmith(at)olemac.net> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:33 pm Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Futter Mods in UK We thought this would be an interesting read for the Zodiac Community. http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/Zenair%20Docs... LAA issues mod pack for grounded Zenair CH 601 XL - Sept 2009 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan and Brenda" <alsmith(at)olemac.net>
Subject: Re: Futter Mods in UK
Date: Oct 04, 2009
Try this http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/engineering.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Iberplanes IGL To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 2:39 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Futter Mods in UK None, the link was published broken. -- Alberto Martin www.iberplanes.es Igualada - Barcelona - Spain ---------------------------------------------- Zodiac 601 XL Builder Serial: 6-7011 Tail Kit: Finished Wings: Not Started Fuselage: Started Engine: Jabiru 3300 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 04, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Parts that do not fit.
Hi Greg, I found I was very unhappy with the pre-drilled holes from Zenith on just about all the parts. When ordering replacements I ordered them without the holes drilled. They were very happy to comply. I found it much easier to drill the holes myself. You might consider replacing some of the parts with scratch built ones. I don't know about your market, but I suspect you can get sheets of 6061-T6 where you are. It might not be very satisfying from a financial point of view, but I predict you will feel just fine about the accomplishment of building your own parts from scratch. You already have the advantage of seeing what "Nearly" correct parts look like and you have all the dimensions on your drawings. The spar carry-through is one of those places I would demand a correct part from Zenith. It is the heaviest load bearing part (along with the wing spars) on the plane. You may find you can bend it a little to match up with the rest of your plane. Good luck, Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 03:52 PM 10/4/2009, you wrote: >I am building a CH650 in Australia and have found that my center >wing spar is the wrong angle (XL601) and that the front fuselage >side skins are also wrong (a mix of XL601 outer dimensions and CH650 >pre drilled holes). As it will take some time for replacement parts >to arrive down under, I would be interested to hear from anyone that >is further along with the build (either CH650 or late XL601) that >may be able to advise of other parts that are not correct so that I >may have them all sent to me in one shipment. I believe that there >may be an issue with the seat bottom? and maybe the top skin? > >Regards, > > >Greg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Weights and Balances
From: "Ianrat" <ianrat(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: Oct 04, 2009
Thank you all for your responses. I will use the one i have and just change the wording. Ianrat :P Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266533#266533 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan and Brenda" <alsmith(at)olemac.net>
Subject: Re: Parts that do not fit.
Date: Oct 05, 2009
http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/engineering.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm(at)att.net> Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 6:57 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Parts that do not fit. > > Hi Greg, > > I found I was very unhappy with the pre-drilled holes from Zenith on > just about all the parts. When ordering replacements I ordered them > without the holes drilled. They were very happy to comply. I found > it much easier to drill the holes myself. > > You might consider replacing some of the parts with scratch built > ones. I don't know about your market, but I suspect you can get > sheets of 6061-T6 where you are. It might not be very satisfying > from a financial point of view, but I predict you will feel just fine > about the accomplishment of building your own parts from > scratch. You already have the advantage of seeing what "Nearly" > correct parts look like and you have all the dimensions on your drawings. > > The spar carry-through is one of those places I would demand a > correct part from Zenith. It is the heaviest load bearing part > (along with the wing spars) on the plane. You may find you can bend > it a little to match up with the rest of your plane. > > Good luck, > > Paul > XL awaiting engineering changes > > > At 03:52 PM 10/4/2009, you wrote: > >>I am building a CH650 in Australia and have found that my center >>wing spar is the wrong angle (XL601) and that the front fuselage >>side skins are also wrong (a mix of XL601 outer dimensions and CH650 >>pre drilled holes). As it will take some time for replacement parts >>to arrive down under, I would be interested to hear from anyone that >>is further along with the build (either CH650 or late XL601) that >>may be able to advise of other parts that are not correct so that I >>may have them all sent to me in one shipment. I believe that there >>may be an issue with the seat bottom? and maybe the top skin? >> >>Regards, >> >> >>Greg > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan and Brenda" <alsmith(at)olemac.net>
Subject: Re: Parts that do not fit.
Date: Oct 05, 2009
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm(at)att.net> Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 6:57 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Parts that do not fit. > > Hi Greg, > > I found I was very unhappy with the pre-drilled holes from Zenith on > just about all the parts. When ordering replacements I ordered them > without the holes drilled. They were very happy to comply. I found > it much easier to drill the holes myself. > > You might consider replacing some of the parts with scratch built > ones. I don't know about your market, but I suspect you can get > sheets of 6061-T6 where you are. It might not be very satisfying > from a financial point of view, but I predict you will feel just fine > about the accomplishment of building your own parts from > scratch. You already have the advantage of seeing what "Nearly" > correct parts look like and you have all the dimensions on your drawings. > > The spar carry-through is one of those places I would demand a > correct part from Zenith. It is the heaviest load bearing part > (along with the wing spars) on the plane. You may find you can bend > it a little to match up with the rest of your plane. > > Good luck, > > Paul > XL awaiting engineering changes > > > At 03:52 PM 10/4/2009, you wrote: > >>I am building a CH650 in Australia and have found that my center >>wing spar is the wrong angle (XL601) and that the front fuselage >>side skins are also wrong (a mix of XL601 outer dimensions and CH650 >>pre drilled holes). As it will take some time for replacement parts >>to arrive down under, I would be interested to hear from anyone that >>is further along with the build (either CH650 or late XL601) that >>may be able to advise of other parts that are not correct so that I >>may have them all sent to me in one shipment. I believe that there >>may be an issue with the seat bottom? and maybe the top skin? >> >>Regards, >> >> >>Greg > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Zodiac 601 Flutter Modifications UK
From: "alsmith" <alan.smith(at)nutreco.com>
Date: Oct 05, 2009
Thought this link would be interesting to the community. http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/engineering.html Al Smith KEOS Building a CH-650 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266554#266554 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 05, 2009
Subject: Mods in the UK
From: Frank Derfler <fderfler(at)gmail.com>
I was reading the UK mods with great interest. In the section describing the brackets the text says: "9. The additional stiffening angles are manufactured per figure 2. Note that the stiffeners are handed." Could I please admit total ignorance and get a translation from the British? "Stiffners are handed." means what? Frank Derfler, Islamorada, FL ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 05, 2009
Subject: Re: Mods in the UK
From: Carlos Sa <carlossa52(at)gmail.com>
Here's a wild guess: they are different, left from right...? Carlos CH601-HD, plans 2009/10/5 Frank Derfler > I was reading the UK mods with great interest. In the section describing > the brackets the text says: > > "9. The additional stiffening angles are manufactured per figure 2. Note > that the stiffeners are handed." > > Could I please admit total ignorance and get a translation from the > British? "Stiffners are handed." means what? > > Frank Derfler, Islamorada, FL > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Mods in the UK
From: "alsmith" <alan.smith(at)nutreco.com>
Date: Oct 05, 2009
I believe the angles are positioned to match from the front and rear mounting positions on the Center Spar. Al Smith KEOS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266560#266560 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Mods in the UK
Date: Oct 05, 2009
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Frank, That's not a Brit thing.? I have used it many times myself.? It means that some are made to go only on the left hand side and others on the right hand side; thus they are "handed". Jay Bannister. -----Original Message----- From: Frank Derfler <fderfler(at)gmail.com> Sent: Mon, Oct 5, 2009 6:37 am Subject: Zenith601-List: Mods in the UK I was reading the UK mods with great interest.? In the section describing the brackets the text says:? "9. The additional stiffening angles are manufactured per figure 2. Note that the stiffeners are handed." Could I please admit?total ignorance and get a translation from the British?? "Stiffners are handed."? means what??? Frank Derfler, Islamorada, FL ? ? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Malcolm Hunt" <malcolmhunt(at)mha1.fsbusiness.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Mods in the UK
Date: Oct 05, 2009
Frank The term handed is used on drawings in the UK and means that the 'handed' part is a mirror image to part as drawn. Hope this helps. Malcolm Hunt CH601XL Plans Builder in England ----- Original Message ----- From: Carlos Sa To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 1:30 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Mods in the UK Here's a wild guess: they are different, left from right...? Carlos CH601-HD, plans 2009/10/5 Frank Derfler I was reading the UK mods with great interest. In the section describing the brackets the text says: "9. The additional stiffening angles are manufactured per figure 2. Note that the stiffeners are handed." Could I please admit total ignorance and get a translation from the British? "Stiffners are handed." means what? Frank Derfler, Islamorada, FL ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Firewall Forward Kit from Jab USA/Camloc Fasteners
From: "AZFlyer" <millrML(at)aol.com>
Date: Oct 07, 2009
List, For those using the Jab USA supplied FWF kit: Has anybody found the "Camloc Fasteners" (10 - Camloc #26S8-6) to be too long for the cowl? Just right? or ? My cowl thickness seems to be around .150" which would indicate a 26S8-4 or -5. I may be measuring incorrectly.....? Thanks for feedback. Mike -------- Mike Miller @ millrml(at)aol.com 601 XL, 3300, Dynon Remember, "the second mouse gets the cheese"! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266981#266981 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "KARL POLIFKA" <jfowler120(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Firewall Forward Kit from Jab USA/Camloc Fasteners
Date: Oct 07, 2009
We have a Jabiru FWF kit of a few years ago. The camlocs vary from # 5 to #6 for reasons I can't explain -- just reality. Karl Polifka ----- Original Message ----- From: AZFlyer To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 3:48 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Firewall Forward Kit from Jab USA/Camloc Fasteners List, For those using the Jab USA supplied FWF kit: Has anybody found the "Camloc Fasteners" (10 - Camloc #26S8-6) to be too long for the cowl? Just right? or ? My cowl thickness seems to be around .150" which would indicate a 26S8-4 or -5. I may be measuring incorrectly.....? Thanks for feedback. Mike -------- Mike Miller @ millrml(at)aol.com 601 XL, 3300, Dynon Remember, "the second mouse gets the cheese"! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266981#266981 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Firewall Forward Kit from Jab USA/Camloc Fasteners
From: "mhubel" <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Date: Oct 07, 2009
I found that the fiberglass thickness was highly variable and there was no one size camloc that would work everywhere. Going just by the measurement may also lead to cams that are somewhat hard to open or almost fall out. I bought a few on each side of ideal and did a best fit to each hole. I used a range of #4 to #6. -------- Mark Hubelbank Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266996#266996 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 07, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Firewall Forward Kit from Jab USA/Camloc Fasteners
I glued in a little extra fiberglass where it was needed to make the cowl the right thickness for the camlocs. This was needed in some places and not in other places. Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 12:48 PM 10/7/2009, you wrote: >Has anybody found the "Camloc Fasteners" (10 - Camloc #26S8-6) to be >too long for the cowl? Just right? or ? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Firewall Forward Kit from Jab USA/Camloc Fasteners
Date: Oct 08, 2009
From: zman601xl(at)aol.com
Mike, I had a problem wih some of the fasteners(to long).What I did was make up shims,and shimmed each female portion so that the male portion would fit properly(fit flush).It's sort of a pain in the neck but it came out nice.Speaking of the top cowl fit I doubled the number of camlocs on each side.If you go with what they give you you will have" bulges".I've seen quite a few where the top cowl does not fit tight from front to back.It all depends how much time you want to spend. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bob Haring N107RW -----Original Message----- From: AZFlyer <millrML(at)aol.com> Sent: Wed, Oct 7, 2009 2:48 pm Subject: Zenith601-List: Firewall Forward Kit from Jab USA/Camloc Fasteners List, For those using the Jab USA supplied FWF kit: Has anybody found the "Camloc Fasteners" (10 - Camloc #26S8-6) to be too long for the cowl? Just right? or ? My cowl thickness seems to be around .150" which would indicate a 26S8-4 or -5. I may be measuring incorrectly.....? Thanks for feedback. Mike -------- Mike Miller @ millrml(at)aol.com 601 XL, 3300, Dynon Remember, "the second mouse gets the cheese"! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=266981#266981 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cabin fuel lines
From: "chuck960" <chuckde(at)roadrunner.com>
Date: Oct 09, 2009
Thanks to everyone for the advice. I have been pondering this for some time now. There are too many different fittings and materials. The car guys have similar problems. They use aluminum some times but generally don't recommend it. I flaired some aluminum for practice and it seamed like it might be fine but I'm not sure. How about 3/8 aluminum jic 37 degree fittings with single flair stainless steel lines. Hard to get the seat to seal but they make soft aluminum sealing washer for this. Chuck Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267231#267231 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Firewall Forward Kit from Jab USA/Camloc Fasteners
From: "AZFlyer" <millrML(at)aol.com>
Date: Oct 09, 2009
Many thanks to all that responded so quickly to my camloc question. Now back to building. Thanks again, Mike -------- Mike Miller @ millrml(at)aol.com 601 XL, 3300, Dynon Remember, "the second mouse gets the cheese"! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267233#267233 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cabin fuel lines
From: "Fly with Gus" <Gus(at)flywithgus.com>
Date: Oct 09, 2009
Get an AC43.13. It has all the info on materials and fittings for fuel systems and is considered FAA approved data. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267234#267234 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Axle drill Guide to suit GAC 5018
From: "aussiech650" <greg@gas-n-go.com.au>
Date: Oct 10, 2009
I am trying to buy a couple of axle drilling guides to suit the GAC 5018 axle but I am unable to contact kobush welding and machining via the email. They ask you to contact them before ordering if you are outside the states. I am in Australia. Can anyone help me with this, is there another supplier. Greg Cox Sydney, Australia greg@gas-n-go.com.au Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267325#267325 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: a.f.rupp(at)att.net
Subject: Re: Firewall Forward Kit from Jab USA/Camloc Fasteners
Date: Oct 10, 2009
Mike, A rub strip on the cowling can snug up those fasteners also. Al Rupp 601XL 765AR Lake Placid, NY -------------- Original message from "AZFlyer" : -------------- > > Many thanks to all that responded so quickly to my camloc question. > > Now back to building. > > Thanks again, > Mike > > -------- > Mike Miller @ millrml(at)aol.com > 601 XL, 3300, Dynon > > Remember, "the second mouse gets the cheese"! > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267233#267233 > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Axle drill Guide to suit GAC 5018
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Oct 10, 2009
Just take this to a machine shop and have them make it up from 3/4" to 1" thick steel. It shouldn't cost to much. Made one up myself right from this picture. I omitted the 1.25" center hole, made it 3/8", and it worked out just fine. -------- Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-) http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon Corvair Engine Prints: http://home.comcast.net/~rlendon/site/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267411#267411 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/grovegeardrillguide_127.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Propeller Selection
From: "alsmith" <alan.smith(at)nutreco.com>
Date: Oct 12, 2009
We are building a CH 650 and will be installing a O-200A Engine. What are others installing by brand and Size? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267568#267568 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Propeller Selection
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Oct 12, 2009
I use a McCauley 1A101/HCM clipped from 69 to 67 and re-pitched by the prop shop specifically for my application (LSA speeds, gross) I have the same prop on my 1973 C150L but in a 6948 configuration. The HCM spacer gives you enough room to move the factory cowling forward and use FAA/PMA spark plugs in all 8 positions. You have to clip the tip down to 67" to provide enough ground clearance in case your bungee fails at the same time you get a nose gear flat. The extra weight up front helps keep you away from extreme Aft CG loadings where non-linear stick input sensitivities appear to exist. Check out McCauley manual no. 730720 or Bulletin P-0161-F for other options... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267586#267586 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Propeller Selection
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Oct 12, 2009
I use a McCauley 1A101/HCM clipped from 69 to 67 and re-pitched by the prop shop specifically for my application (LSA speeds, gross) I have the same prop on my 1973 C150L but in a 6948 configuration. The HCM spacer gives you enough room to move the factory cowling forward and use FAA/PMA spark plugs in all 8 positions. You have to clip the tips/diameter down to a 67" to provide enough ground clearance in case your bungee fails at the same time you get a nose gear flat. On some well used props, they are almost down to this diameter due to repairs over the years. The service limit for a certified application is 67 on this model, so if you found one just under, it might be had for a great price. The extra weight up front helps keep you away from extreme Aft CG loadings where non-linear stick input sensitivities appear to exist. Check out McCauley manual no. 730720 or Bulletin P-0161-F for other options... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267587#267587 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Propeller Selection
From: "alsmith" <alan.smith(at)nutreco.com>
Date: Oct 12, 2009
Thanks for the input Al CH-650 KEOS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267590#267590 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Propeller Selection
Date: Oct 13, 2009
Al, I'm using a three blade 68 inch warp drive. Not flying yet but the engines running and feels good. I used Lightspeed plugs/adapter on the top cylinders (ala AMD) so as to use the standard cowl with no "blisters"/prop extns etc. Cheers Peter Wonthaggi Australia http://zodiac.cpc-world.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of alsmith Sent: Tuesday, 13 October 2009 1:09 AM Subject: Zenith601-List: Propeller Selection We are building a CH 650 and will be installing a O-200A Engine. What are others installing by brand and Size? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267568#267568 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Wanted Zenith 601xl Decal
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Oct 12, 2009
Found a higher res. pic.The local sign writer/decal cutter wants $150.00 for 2 or $200 for 20. Size 300mm x 100mm with clear background colors as per the pic below. Anyone know who could do them cheaper Cheers T87 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267703#267703 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/zenith_aircraft_logo_264.gif ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tonyplane" <Tonyplane(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Wanted Zenith 601xl Decal
Date: Oct 13, 2009
At an open house I flew to at Zenith two years ago, they were handing out that decal for free. I put two on my XL. You may wish to email them to see if they still have them and request they send you a couple, but they are only about 150 - 200 mm long. Tony Graziano XL/Jab; N493TG; 535 hrs ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 11:32 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Wanted Zenith 601xl Decal > > > Found a higher res. pic.The local sign writer/decal cutter wants $150.00 > for 2 or $200 for 20. Size 300mm x 100mm with clear background colors as > per the pic below. Anyone know who could do them cheaper Cheers T87 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267703#267703 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/zenith_aircraft_logo_264.gif > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Damien" <dgraham7(at)TWCNY.RR.COM>
Subject: Re: looking for suggestions
Date: Oct 13, 2009
Tom: Hello. Did anyone ever answer you about changing tires for rough field use? I have a 601 HDS that I bought 4 months ago. I almost always land on grass fiuelds. I currently have 4 inch tires and would like to move up to at least 5 inch tires. Regards, Damien Graham Watertown, NY N122DG ----- Original Message ----- From: "mccarthy" <mccarthy(at)jefnet.com> Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 5:47 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: looking for suggestions > > I have an older 601 HD kit that I built, s/n 6-1911 that I have been > flying > around for 3 1/2 years now, and would like to know if anyone has changed > the > rims and tires for more rough field use. I know this would also mean > making > wider forks, at least on the mains. Also, the kit came with thin aluminum > 1 > piece cast rims with x spoke pattern, that I was told came from an Italian > motor scooter manufacturer, and that they might not hold up on rough > fields? > anyway if anyone has been through this I would like to hear what you did > so > I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel. > Thanks > Tom McCarthy > Zenith 601HD, N514TM 200hours > Kolb Firestar, N414TM 545 hours > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: looking for suggestions
From: "MHerder" <michaelherder(at)beckgroup.com>
Date: Oct 14, 2009
I have seen this done, but it was a while ago on a website I can't recall at the moment. I seem to remember that he had to change the fork dimensions to accomodate, other than that it looked the same. -------- One Rivet at a Time! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267920#267920 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 14, 2009
From: Bill Shirley Mitchell <slandwcmitch(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Propeller Selection
Question relating to propeller and O-200 engine, where is the placement of the battery in your projects? Can anybody help me out ? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Floyd" <fwilkes(at)gvtc.com>
Subject: Re: Propeller Selection
Date: Oct 14, 2009
Bill, Mine are just behind the right seat. Actually, I have two batteries there, the usual RG680 and a 8AH SLA as emergency backup for my electrically dependent engine. On final approach with flaps down, I must hold back stick to maintain glide slope. This is not a problem, but would be much worse if the batteries were forward. Floyd Wilkes 601XL O-200 ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Shirley Mitchell To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 12:59 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Propeller Selection Question relating to propeller and O-200 engine, where is the placement of the battery in your projects? Can anybody help me out ? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 14, 2009
From: Terry Turnquist <ter_turn(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Propeller Selection
Bill, can you give us your firewall forward weight?- Thanks. Terry --- On Wed, 10/14/09, Floyd wrote: From: Floyd <fwilkes(at)gvtc.com> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Propeller Selection Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 7:46 PM =0A=0A =0A#yiv1840145840 DIV {=0AMARGIN:0px;}=0A=0A=0ABill,=0A-=0AMine- are just behind the right seat. Actually, =0AI have two batteries there, th e usual RG680 and a 8AH SLA as emergency backup =0Afor my electrically depe ndent engine.=0A-=0AOn final approach with flaps down,- I must =0Ahold back stick to maintain glide slope.- This is not a problem, but would =0A be much worse if the batteries were forward.=0A-=0AFloyd Wilkes=0A601XL O -200=0A=0A ----- Original Message ----- =0A From: =0A Bill =0A Shirley Mitchell =0A To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com =0A =0A Sent: Wednesday, O ctober 14, 2009 12:59 =0A PM=0A Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Propeller =0A Selection=0A =0A =0A Question relating to propeller and O-200 engine, where is the pla cement =0A of the battery in your projects? Can anybody help me out ? href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List">http://www.matro nics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c =0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Floyd" <fwilkes(at)gvtc.com>
Subject: Re: Propeller Selection
Date: Oct 14, 2009
Terry, Floyd here not Bill. My weights were nose wheel 258 lbs at -500 mm right wheel 274 lbs at 648 mm left wheel 280 lbs at 648 mm 601XL O-200 with two batteries aft of right seat. Standard O-200A with light weight starter and standard 70 amp altenator, no fuel pump, no vaccuum pump. Senenich W68-ZK-57G prop Floyd Wilkes ----- Original Message ----- From: Terry Turnquist To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 8:19 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Propeller Selection Bill, can you give us your firewall forward weight? Thanks. Terry --- On Wed, 10/14/09, Floyd wrote: From: Floyd <fwilkes(at)gvtc.com> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Propeller Selection To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 7:46 PM Bill, Mine are just behind the right seat. Actually, I have two batteries there, the usual RG680 and a 8AH SLA as emergency backup for my electrically dependent engine. On final approach with flaps down, I must hold back stick to maintain glide slope. This is not a problem, but would be much worse if the batteries were forward. Floyd Wilkes 601XL O-200 ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Shirley Mitchell To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 12:59 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Propeller Selection Question relating to propeller and O-200 engine, where is the placement of the battery in your projects? Can anybody help me out ? href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List">http://www.mat ronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">h ttp://forums.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution"> http://www.matronics.com/chttp://www.matronics.comofollow" target="_blank" href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://foru ========== ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: looking for suggestions
From: "aussiech650" <greg@gas-n-go.com.au>
Date: Oct 15, 2009
I have the standard XL601 5" main wheels & brakes. I tried the complete assembly inside the nose leg fork of the XL601 and it looks to me that they would work for you as an off the shelf item. I f you like I can send you some photo's. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268014#268014 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: CH601XL and Jabiru 3300 Performance
From: "mhubel" <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Date: Oct 16, 2009
I have a CH601XL with a Jabiru 3300 engine. While adjustments are still being made, to date, getting above 125 MPH CAS has been very difficult and getting 120 knots (138 MPH) has been out of sight. While I do not have wheel pants on it yet, I did expect somewhat better. I am wondering what others with this combination have observed. The airspeed indicator has been carefully calibrated so that is not a factor. -------- Mark Hubelbank Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268236#268236 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CH601XL and Jabiru 3300 Performance
From: "Stephen Smith" <sRoydSmith(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Oct 17, 2009
Hello Mark, My 601 XL with a Jabiru 3300 and the carbon-fiber Sensenich prop is good for an honest 140 MPH. It takes a minute or so to reach that speed. I dont do this anymore because its too hard on the engine and fuel consumption is high (10 gallons per hour or so). My plane had performance problems early on. They all had to do with the engine air intake system. The primary problem was the use of scat tube between the airbox and the Bing carburetor. When I got rid of the scat tube I picked up a noticeable amount of power. What is your top RPM when you hit the wall? Presumably you would want the engine turning close to red-line where it produces the most power. Again, I dont do this to my engine anymore. I have lowered the red-line to 3,050 and the yellow to 2,950 after getting a good look at the rod bearings at 600 hours and noticing they were quite worn. Steve -------- Steve Smith N601WF Zenair Zodiac XL Jabiru 3300 550+ hours Sensenich composite - ground adjustable Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268329#268329 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CH601XL and Jabiru 3300 Performance
From: "mhubel" <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Date: Oct 17, 2009
Steve, My static WOT RPM is 2800 with the present prop setting. In flight, I get up to 3100 RPM but keep it at or below 2800 for level flight. I expected that getting to near 140 MPH was going to take most of t he available power. At least from your experience it is possible. I don't expect to actually operate in that range too often but I would like to know what the airframe is reasonably capable of. Do you have wheel pants? External antennas? At this time I don't have wheel pants, only one antenna, the ELT, and no entry step. I have not cleaned up any of the gaps around the stabilizer and have done nothing about the gaps on the control surfaces. The engine is just finishing its "run in" period during which I tried to keep power high but not above 75% except for climb. I have given up on the Bing carb. I never got it to operate well at full throttle. Jabiru's statement was that the problem was caused by the right angle bend in the intake. Given that this bend was inherent in the Jabiru firewall forward kit, I though this was not a good response. I also never liked a number of things about the Bing, I never got the feeling it was a real aircraft device. Did you have to replace engine parts or was your observation at 600 hours just an inspection? Did you measure how much wear there was on the bearings? -------- Mark Hubelbank N708HU CH601XL Jabiru 3300 Rotec TBI 40 carb Sensenich ground adj prop. 28 hr TAF Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268342#268342 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CH601XL and Jabiru 3300 Performance
From: "Stephen Smith" <sRoydSmith(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Oct 17, 2009
Mark, My plane does have wheel pants. I have a COM and ELT external antennas. I have a entry step. How do you like your TBI? My TBI will be here in 3 days. At 600 hours I did a full top-end. More information can be found on my blogs on the Zenith Aircraft Builders and Flyers site. http://www.zenith.aero/profile/StephenRSmith Steve[/code] -------- Steve Smith N601WF Zenair Zodiac XL Jabiru 3300 600+ hours Sensenich composite - ground adjustable Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268378#268378 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 18, 2009
From: Rich Simmons <4RCSIMMONS(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Prop Selection
Hey folks! After a long wait, i have a Jabiru 3300. Yeah!! Now, I need to order my firewall forward kit and prop. There are 3 options. 1) one for short field take off 2) one for traveling - Higher cruse speeds 3) something in the middle. For those with the same engine, what did you choose an why? Rich Murfreesboro, TN 601XL Hoping to fly by Spring 2011 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CH601XL and Jabiru 3300 Performance
From: "mhubel" <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Date: Oct 18, 2009
Steve, I just have three hours on the TBI 40. So far, it has been a significant improvement over the Bing but one does not have to go far. It allows proper full throttle operation while the Bing was unpredictable. There is one issue. As with all carbs, getting the identical mixture to all cylinders is always a problem. The TBI 40 sprays the fuel from a single bar in the center of the carb. It sprays it to one side. With the very short distance between the carb and cylinders 5,6, one gets varying mixtures especially to cylinder 5. This afternoon, I will be trying the first fix I have in mind to solve this. If that does not work, I have a more complex plan that is "almost" guarantied to work. When I find something that works, I will post it. Still, the TBI 40 works as well as any carb I have ever used on Lycomings. They are not perfect but they do work. The ideal solution would have been for Jabiru to have provided pre drilled ports for fuel injectors. Then we could do this the right way. -------- Mark Hubelbank N708HU CH601XL Jabiru 3300 Rotec TBI 40 carb Sensenich ground adj prop. 28 hr TAF Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268395#268395 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CH601XL and Jabiru 3300 Performance
From: "Stephen Smith" <sRoydSmith(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Oct 18, 2009
Mark, I was planning to mount the TBI so the slide goes up and down up being open, down being closed. I was hoping this would eliminate left to right distribution issues. Which way did you mount your TBI? Would you share pictures? Steve -------- Steve Smith N601WF Zenair Zodiac XL Jabiru 3300 600+ hours Sensenich composite - ground adjustable Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268432#268432 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 18, 2009
From: vvkidd(at)mindspring.com
Subject: Re: CH601XL and Jabiru 3300 Performance
Steve: What did you use to replace the scat tube between the air fiter and carb? Victor Kidd Charleston, WV, CRW N922VK -----Original Message----- >From: Stephen Smith <sRoydSmith(at)hotmail.com> >Sent: Oct 17, 2009 12:05 PM >To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: CH601XL and Jabiru 3300 Performance > > >Hello Mark, > >My 601 XL with a Jabiru 3300 and the carbon-fiber Sensenich prop is good for an honest 140 MPH. It takes a minute or so to reach that speed. I dont do this anymore because its too hard on the engine and fuel consumption is high (10 gallons per hour or so). > >My plane had performance problems early on. They all had to do with the engine air intake system. The primary problem was the use of scat tube between the airbox and the Bing carburetor. When I got rid of the scat tube I picked up a noticeable amount of power. > >What is your top RPM when you hit the wall? Presumably you would want the engine turning close to red-line where it produces the most power. Again, I dont do this to my engine anymore. I have lowered the red-line to 3,050 and the yellow to 2,950 after getting a good look at the rod bearings at 600 hours and noticing they were quite worn. > >Steve > >-------- >Steve Smith >N601WF >Zenair Zodiac XL >Jabiru 3300 >550+ hours >Sensenich composite - ground adjustable > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268329#268329 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CH601XL and Jabiru 3300 Performance
From: "Stephen Smith" <sRoydSmith(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Oct 18, 2009
Hello Victor, I used radiator hose. NAPA part number 7905 (I think). Here is a blog I wrote which tells a bit more. http://www.zenith.aero/profiles/blogs/jabiru-3300-bing-carburetor Steve -------- Steve Smith N601WF Zenair Zodiac XL Jabiru 3300 600+ hours Sensenich composite - ground adjustable Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268474#268474 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CH601XL and Jabiru 3300 Performance
From: "mhubel" <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Date: Oct 19, 2009
Steven I have the TBI 40 mounted so the throttle rod is on the bottom. There was no room on the top. It did not appear there was a choice. I also added a lever arm to increase the throttle knob movement and allow for duel throttles. I am still working on making the mixture more even but I do have pictures of the present installation and will fetch them next time I am at the hanger within the next couple of days. -------- Mark Hubelbank N708HU CH601XL Jabiru 3300 Rotec TBI 40 carb Sensenich ground adj prop. 28 hr TAF Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268513#268513 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Stauffer" <mark.stauffer1(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Prop selection for Jabiru 3300
Date: Oct 19, 2009
Rich, Somehow I missed your voice mail, it never showed up as a call - I got it several days later. Hopefully Dana was able to answer your questions. To answer your question here - I have a Sensenich wood W64KZ51. This was the recommended prop when I first purchased my firewall forward over four years ago. They've now switched to a W64ZK49. My first flight I saw 2700 rpm on takeoff and climb out at 90mph. Today I was seeing about 2790-2800 at the same climb out speed which is about right. Today was a cooler day in TN - about 60 degrees this evening. Tonight I was able to get 3060 at WOT. That may be a bit low. I'm still working out some jetting issues on the Bing, I'm running fairly rich in both WOT and cruise. I recorded an hour flight tonight in the GRT EFIS but shut the power off before I copied over to the memory stick. DOH!! Also, I have an earlier solid lifter engine - SN 845. At 3060 I was indicating 140-143 mph. I say this with the caveat that I'm still calibrating my ASI. I think it reads a bit high. Hopefully this nice weather will hold out and I can fly again tomorrow evening - and record the flight! Give me a call when you get a chance. Mark 601XL Jabiru 3300 6.3 hours! Hey folks! After a long wait, i have a Jabiru 3300. Yeah!! Now, I need to order my firewall forward kit and prop. There are 3 options. 1) one for short field take off 2) one for traveling - Higher cruse speeds 3) something in the middle. For those with the same engine, what did you choose an why? Rich Murfreesboro, TN 601XL Hoping to fly by Spring 2011 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Floyd" <fwilkes(at)gvtc.com>
Subject: Re: Prop selection for Jabiru 3300
Date: Oct 19, 2009
Mark, If you are using the Zenith supplied pitot/static tubes, you will probably find the indicated/calibrated are way off at higher speed. My tests in knots were 107 KIAS=98 CAS 95 KIAS=88 KCAS 85KIAS KCAS 75KIAS = 73 KCAS 65 KIAS = 65 KCAS. By placing a small O-ring on the static port slightly behind the static port holes, I was able to get the IAS to equal the CAS in the 100 knot range but made the IAS about 10 knots less the CAS in the 40 knot range. It took several flight adjusting the position of the O ring to make this happen. Floyd Wilkes 601XL O-200 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Stauffer" <mark.stauffer1(at)gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 8:44 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Prop selection for Jabiru 3300 > > > Rich, > > Somehow I missed your voice mail, it never showed up as a call - I got it > several days later. Hopefully Dana was able to answer your questions. > > To answer your question here - I have a Sensenich wood W64KZ51. This was > the > recommended prop when I first purchased my firewall forward over four > years > ago. They've now switched to a W64ZK49. My first flight I saw 2700 rpm on > takeoff and climb out at 90mph. Today I was seeing about 2790-2800 at the > same climb out speed which is about right. Today was a cooler day in TN - > about 60 degrees this evening. Tonight I was able to get 3060 at WOT. That > may be a bit low. I'm still working out some jetting issues on the Bing, > I'm > running fairly rich in both WOT and cruise. I recorded an hour flight > tonight in the GRT EFIS but shut the power off before I copied over to the > memory stick. DOH!! > > Also, I have an earlier solid lifter engine - SN 845. > > At 3060 I was indicating 140-143 mph. I say this with the caveat that I'm > still calibrating my ASI. I think it reads a bit high. > > Hopefully this nice weather will hold out and I can fly again tomorrow > evening - and record the flight! > > Give me a call when you get a chance. > > Mark > > 601XL > Jabiru 3300 > 6.3 hours! > > > Hey folks! > > After a long wait, i have a Jabiru 3300. Yeah!! > > Now, I need to order my firewall forward kit and prop. > > There are 3 options. > 1) one for short field take off > 2) one for traveling - Higher cruse speeds > 3) something in the middle. > > For those with the same engine, what did you choose an why? > > > Rich > Murfreesboro, TN > 601XL > Hoping to fly by Spring 2011 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CH601XL and Jabiru 3300 Performance
From: "mhubel" <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Date: Oct 19, 2009
Steve, I have posted a number of pictures of the TBI 40 in my Jabiru 3300 at photo.hubbles.com, see the N708HU album and then at the end are some as yet unlabeled pictures of the installation. This shows a lever to increase the throttle throw and allow a duel throttle arrangement. At this time I have tested it with the ring shown in picture 668 between the carb and the engine. This makes all but cylinder 6 behave well. That one has too high a EGT during WOT. I will try the ring in 669 next. -------- Mark Hubelbank N708HU CH601XL Jabiru 3300 Rotec TBI 40 carb Sensenich ground adj prop. 28 hr TAF Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268634#268634 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CH601XL and Jabiru 3300 Performance
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Oct 19, 2009
You guys with the TBI might want to read about the Tornado Fuel Saver. Mark Langford uses one and has found it to help balance out the temps on his Corvair motor. Anyway it's noted at the bottom of this page: http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/intake.html -------- Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-) http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon Corvair Engine Prints: http://home.comcast.net/~rlendon/site/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268642#268642 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CH601XL and Jabiru 3300 Performance
From: "mhubel" <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Date: Oct 20, 2009
The web page for the Tornado shows it before the carb. With the Bing this would probably be a big problem as the Bing likes a smooth air flow. The TBI 40 may tolerate it but putting something like this after the carb would seem to be much more desirable. In the 3300 design, there is very little room to do this but that is what I am working on. Of course, the Tornado claim of doing anything with today's electronic fuel injected auto engines seems unlikely. All the fuel mixing takes place right at the intake valve. The Tornado claims to fit in airways between 2.5 and 3.75 inch dia. The outlet side of the carb is about 1.6 inch dia. It might still be useful to start with this thing and modify it to fit. One thing I did find is that simply making the air rotate does not help, it rotates some very lean air into cylinder 6 although it helps with the others. It would be really nice if the manufacturer (Rotac or Jabiru) would do this right and design the required coupling on a test stand. -------- Mark Hubelbank N708HU CH601XL Jabiru 3300 Rotec TBI 40 carb Sensenich ground adj prop. 28 hr TAF Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268668#268668 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CH601XL and Jabiru 3300 Performance
From: "Stephen Smith" <sRoydSmith(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Oct 20, 2009
Mark, Thanks for the pictures. It is very helpful to see your fabrication. Lucky for me I have no interest in dual throttle cables. The extra friction looks like a big negative. Steve -------- Steve Smith N601WF Zenair Zodiac XL Jabiru 3300 600+ hours Sensenich composite - ground adjustable Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268703#268703 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CH601XL and Jabiru 3300 Performance
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Oct 20, 2009
mhubel wrote: > The Tornado claims to fit in airways between 2.5 and 3.75 inch dia. The outlet side of the carb is about 1.6 inch dia. It might still be useful to start with this thing and modify it to fit. > > One thing I did find is that simply making the air rotate does not help, it rotates some very lean air into cylinder 6 although it helps with the others. > Mark, I'm pretty sure Mark Langford placed his Tornado downstream of his Ellison TBI. -------- Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-) http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon Corvair Engine Prints: http://home.comcast.net/~rlendon/site/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268741#268741 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Drilling 1/8" hole on the fuel vent tube
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Oct 21, 2009
How many of you have drilled a 1/8' hole at the back of the fuel vent tubes [just above the angle cutout] to stop siphoning ????? Is it really needed ??? Cheers T87 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268835#268835 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Drilling 1/8" hole on the fuel vent tube
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Oct 21, 2009
Is that hole called out in the prints? I must have missed that. -------- Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-) http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon Corvair Engine Prints: http://home.comcast.net/~rlendon/site/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268870#268870 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Drilling 1/8" hole on the fuel vent tube
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Oct 21, 2009
Ron Lendon wrote: > Is that hole called out in the prints? I must have missed that. It was in the final check list [about 20 odd pages] for a new 601xl. Can't remember where I down loaded it.Cheers Alan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268873#268873 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Drilling 1/8" hole on the fuel vent tube
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Oct 21, 2009
It was in this document Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=268887#268887 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/ch_601_xl_slsa_pre_flight_inspection_2008_270.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Drilling 1/8" hole on the fuel vent tube
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Oct 23, 2009
Thruster87 wrote: > How many of you have drilled a 1/8' hole at the back of the fuel vent tubes [just above the angle cutout] to stop siphoning ????? Is it really needed ??? Cheers T87 I don't see what you are referencing in the SAMPLE book you posted. To the best of my knowledge the vent gets cut on a 45 degree angle which faces forward. This is done to create a positive pressure inside the tank during flight. Could you point it out for me? Or give me a search term to find what you are referring to? -------- Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-) http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon Corvair Engine Prints: http://home.comcast.net/~rlendon/site/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269039#269039 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Drilling 1/8" hole on the fuel vent tube
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Oct 23, 2009
Posted the wrong pdf file Try this one,I've been flat out getting the final inspection done and starting the high speed taxi runs Cheers Alan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269143#269143 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/zodiac_ch601_650_inspection_percent20checklist_173.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gpjann1(at)netzero.com" <gpjann1(at)netzero.net>
Date: Oct 24, 2009
Subject: Zodiac 601 HD/HDS Wings Wanted
I'm looking for HD or HDS wings in kit or partially finished stage. Greg 770-277-1637 gpjann1(at)netzero.com My email address is gpjann1(at)netzero.com ____________________________________________________________ Online Associates Degrees Connect to AS and AA degrees from leading online universities today! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/c?cp=M_zEzALBydOEuZ2q_PjKdQAAJ1F9cVwFaCvfNUSN3t7ucO1NAAQAAAAFAAAAANEiWz4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABSJQAAAAA ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Oct 24, 2009
During high speed taxi runs at around 50knots lifted the nose wheel off and the mains maybe yes or no [ spectators not sure either] on lowering via elevator input [in hind site should have just pulled more elevator nose up for a smoother transition] the nose wheel come down and bumped back up[the runway has a couple of bumps as well] and on going down again the fork bent side ways as it hit the runway [due to a small right rudder input the wheel would have been pointing to the right].Basically the fork just collapsed/folded to the right jammed the nose wheel thus causing a prop strike,bent axle,firewall,and nose wheel strut. So it's back to the hangar for repairs and I'll look at strengthening the fork so it will resist the side loads better. Sitting here with a gnawing feeling in the pit of my stomach and trying to asses what went wrong. Cheers T87 :( Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269254#269254 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Oct 24, 2009
Allan If you need to borrow some parts till yours are ready / fixed give me a call. Sorry for your troubles.. Chris Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269257#269257 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 24, 2009
From: Terry Turnquist <ter_turn(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
First, sorry for your mishap..but it could have been worse!- I'm sure the re are other 601 XL drivers thinking about their up coming test flights..an d I'm wondering- (1) did you get any time in a 601XL prior and (2) are yo u going to reconsider high speed taxi runs based on your experience? I hope the damage is not too costly in time or money!- Thanks. Terry --- On Sat, 10/24/09, Thruster87 wrote: From: Thruster87 <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> Subject: Zenith601-List: Nose wheel fork failure Date: Saturday, October 24, 2009, 3:39 PM During high speed taxi runs at around 50knots- lifted the nose wheel off - and the mains maybe yes or no [ spectators not sure either] on lowering via elevator input [in hind site should have just pulled more elevator- nose up for a smoother transition]- the nose wheel- come down and- bu mped- back up[the runway has a couple of bumps as well] and on going down again the fork bent side ways as it hit the runway [due to a small right r udder input the wheel would have been pointing to the right].Basically the fork just collapsed/folded- to the right jammed the nose wheel- thus ca using- a prop strike,bent axle,firewall,and nose wheel- strut. So it's back to the hangar for repairs and I'll look at strengthening- the fork s o it will resist the side loads better. Sitting here with a gnawing feeling in the pit of my stomach and trying to asses what went wrong. Cheers T87 - :( Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269254#269254 le, List Admin. =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 24, 2009
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
Bummer, T87 That is everyone's worst fear. I hope that your crankshaft is OK. The linkage between the rudder and the nose wheel has long been one of my concerns about the basic design. I wish there was an option for a castering nose wheel. I'd love to just cover over those slots in the fire wall with solid steel. Keep us informed about the repair process. Terry >During high speed taxi runs at around 50knots lifted the nose wheel >off and the mains maybe yes or no [ spectators not sure either] on >lowering via elevator input [in hind site should have just pulled more >elevator nose up for a smoother transition] the nose wheel come down >and bumped back up[the runway has a couple of bumps as well] and on >going down again the fork bent side ways as it hit the runway [due to a >small right rudder input the wheel would have been pointing to the >right].Basically the fork just collapsed/folded to the right jammed the >nose wheel thus causing a prop strike,bent axle,firewall,and nose >wheel strut. So it's back to the hangar for repairs and I'll look at >strengthening the fork so it will resist the side loads better. Sitting >here with a gnawing feeling in the pit of my stomach and trying to asses >what went wrong. Cheers T87 :( Terry Phillips ZBAGer ttp44~at~rkymtn.net Corvallis MT 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons are done; waiting on the wings http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 24, 2009
First off did you have the fork doubler in place? Second 50 kt taxi runs are way too fast. -------- W.R. "Gig" Giacona 601XL Under Construction See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269266#269266 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin(at)comcast.net>
Date: Oct 24, 2009
Does your nosewheel fork have the doubler? My early plans did not show a nosewheel doubler, and it didn't come with the kit. I bent my fork on my first landing. The nosewheel fork doubler was added to later plans. I would suggest that anyone who attempts to lift the nosewheel off during taxi tests should be prepared to cut the throttle immediately and continue to hold the nose up and let it settle instead of trying to push forward to set it back down. The elevator is surprisingly responsive until you get used to it. I had a prop strike on mine during my taxi tests by making the same mistake. The fact that I had a 70 inch prop instead of the current 68 inch prop didn't help either. On Oct 24, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Thruster87 wrote: > > > > During high speed taxi runs at around 50knots lifted the nose wheel > off and the mains maybe yes or no [ spectators not sure either] on > lowering via elevator input [in hind site should have just pulled > more elevator nose up for a smoother transition] the nose wheel > come down and bumped back up[the runway has a couple of bumps as > well] and on going down again the fork bent side ways as it hit the > runway [due to a small right rudder input the wheel would have been > pointing to the right].Basically the fork just collapsed/folded to > the right jammed the nose wheel thus causing a prop strike,bent > axle,firewall,and nose wheel strut. So it's back to the hangar for > repairs and I'll look at strengthening the fork so it will resist > the side loads better. Sitting here with a gnawing feeling in the > pit of my stomach and trying to asses what went wrong. Cheers T87 :( -- Bryan Martin N61BM, CH 601 XL, RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Oct 24, 2009
I have the latest fork with the doubler installed, but it still folded side ways.I'd done about 3hrs of taxi runs prior two days at around the 40 knot mark and wanted to get near the lift-off envelope to see it would behave.We also did a couple of runs with two up at 45-50 knots and we lifted/lightened [not of the ground] the nose with no problems again to see how it would perform with the extra weight.It was just fine.On the day with two on board there was a 10knot cross wind and it weather cocked in a very predicable way and easy to handle.Just prior to the incident it had just passed the final inspection as well. Got the plane now back home and will start the repairs ASAP Cheers Alan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269278#269278 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Oct 24, 2009
Sorry to hear about that. I have been considering spring loading the front wheel so it can track separately from the rudder. The front wheel really does need a good caster angle for this to work, but I have been thinking about it. -------- Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-) http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon Corvair Engine Prints: http://home.comcast.net/~rlendon/site/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269293#269293 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
Date: Oct 24, 2009
From: jeyoung65(at)aol.com
I just did some high speed taxi runs. Because my rudder and nose wheel wer e not inline I had a hard time keeping the aircraft on the runway untill I corrected it. I did not see the misalignment until the son pointed it out.I also was able to check the airspeed indicator during this taxi runs using the GPS, within 5 MPH up to 50 MPH. Would suggest all make hight sp eed taxi to see if the rudder and nose wheel are align Jerry of GA -----Original Message----- From: Thruster87 <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> Sent: Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:38 pm Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure > I have the latest fork with the doubler installed, but it still folded sid e ays.I'd done about 3hrs of taxi runs prior two days at around the 40 knot mark nd wanted to get near the lift-off envelope to see it would behave.We also did couple of runs with two up at 45-50 knots and we lifted/lightened [not of the round] the nose with no problems again to see how it would perform with the xtra weight.It was just fine.On the day with two on board there was a 10kn ot ross wind and it weather cocked in a very predicable way and easy to andle.Just prior to the incident it had just passed the final inspection as ell. Got the plane now back home and will start the repairs ASAP Cheers Alan ead this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269278#269278 ======================== =========== -= - The Zenith601-List Email Forum - -= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse -= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription, -= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, -= Photoshare, and much much more: - -= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List - -======================== ======================== =========== -= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - -= Same great content also available via the Web Forums! - -= --> http://forums.matronics.com - -======================== ======================== =========== -= - List Contribution Web Site - -= Thank you for your generous support! -= -Matt Dralle, List Admin. -= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution -======================== ======================== =========== ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Oct 24, 2009
Don't have any pics of the collapsed fork as we straightened so we could move the aircraft Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269297#269297 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/3_102.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/1_108.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Oct 24, 2009
And this Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269298#269298 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/2_402.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Subject: Nose wheel fork failure
Date: Oct 24, 2009
Does your fork have the doubler (6G1-5 on an XL)? Any photos? -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Thruster87 Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 2:40 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Nose wheel fork failure During high speed taxi runs at around 50knots lifted the nose wheel off and the mains maybe yes or no [ spectators not sure either] on lowering via elevator input [in hind site should have just pulled more elevator nose up for a smoother transition] the nose wheel come down and bumped back up[the runway has a couple of bumps as well] and on going down again the fork bent side ways as it hit the runway [due to a small right rudder input the wheel would have been pointing to the right].Basically the fork just collapsed/folded to the right jammed the nose wheel thus causing a prop strike,bent axle,firewall,and nose wheel strut. So it's back to the hangar for repairs and I'll look at strengthening the fork so it will resist the side loads better. Sitting here with a gnawing feeling in the pit of my stomach and trying to asses what went wrong. Cheers T87 :( Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269254#269254 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
Date: Oct 25, 2009
On the photo of the front gear is that extra stepped rod resting in the V block (below the main cross tube that links to the rudder pedals) your own addition or something from the factory? I'm guessing you had to add it when the cross tube on the factory part didn't reach the V because to the stop plate on the top of the gear. I think I can also see an extra shim fitted into the V of the black nylon part. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Thruster87 Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:28 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure And this Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269298#269298 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/2_402.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Oct 25, 2009
craig(at)craigandjean.com wrote: > On the photo of the front gear is that extra stepped rod resting in the V > block (below the main cross tube that links to the rudder pedals) your own > addition or something from the factory? I'm guessing you had to add it when > the cross tube on the factory part didn't reach the V because to the stop > plate on the top of the gear. I think I can also see an extra shim fitted > into the V of the black nylon part. > > -- Craig > > -- It was a mod I did to allow the nose wheel to move more freely.It has a stainless steel rod with phosphor bronze bushes resting on a crom-moly plate bolted thru the bearing material for the V.It really made the rudder pedals free up and smooth to operate.As you can see it stayed intact even thro the nose leg tube bent. Cheers Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269310#269310 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "aussiech650" <greg@gas-n-go.com.au>
Date: Oct 25, 2009
Alan, I have an XL601 nose leg that I will not be using. Give me a call if you would like it. Greg 0415610593. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269313#269313 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 25, 2009
From: LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
Ron, That fork has a logical reason for failing and I'm sure it'll reveal itself eventually. The steerable linked nose gear is more asset than liability. To be able to steer around potholes and rough fields is a major improvement over differential braking. I've experienced both types. For the tail dragger, it's logical, but for tri-gear it would be detrimental to add a free-caster nose-wheel to side braking mains. I know it's done in some aircraft, but it's a much lesser solution to the steerable nose wheel. Curious how the nose wheel steering got sideways far enough to fail the fork. Or it would seem there was not enough attention to where the nose wheel was at the time. Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com Ron Lendon wrote: > > Sorry to hear about that. > > I have been considering spring loading the front wheel so it can track separately from the rudder. The front wheel really does need a good caster angle for this to work, but I have been thinking about it. > > -------- > Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI > WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing > Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-) > http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon > Corvair Engine Prints: > http://home.comcast.net/~rlendon/site/ > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 25, 2009
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
Not to pick a fight here, Larry, but after flying close to 5000 hours in Grumman American airplanes with free castering nose gear, I have to object to your post. Besides the obvious simplicity and ease of maintenance of the free castering design, its 180 degree pivot allows for incredibly tight turns while parking or simple maneuvering around objects. Assuming the airplane doesn't have a draggy brake on one side or the other, taxiing is a breeze with an occasional tap on the brake to maintain directional control. The only negative I can see is replacing brake pads slightly more often, but pads are cheap and there's no linkage, springs, holes in the firewall, or any of the other hoopla associated with a steerable nosewheel. And best of all, the nose wheel alignment to the runway self corrects automatically upon landing, so any worry about side loads is moot. Your claim that it's "a much lesser solution" needs some qualification. I'm curious, in what way? Best, Rick Lindstrom ZenVair N42KP -----Original Message----- >From: LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com> >Sent: Oct 25, 2009 8:07 AM >To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure > > >Ron, >That fork has a logical reason for failing and I'm sure it'll reveal >itself eventually. >The steerable linked nose gear is more asset than liability. To be able >to steer around potholes and rough fields is >a major improvement over differential braking. I've experienced both >types. For the tail dragger, it's logical, but for tri-gear >it would be detrimental to add a free-caster nose-wheel to side braking >mains. I know it's done in some aircraft, but >it's a much lesser solution to the steerable nose wheel. >Curious how the nose wheel steering got sideways far enough to fail the >fork. Or it would seem >there was not enough attention to where the nose wheel was at the time. > >Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
Date: Oct 25, 2009
From: jeyoung65(at)aol.com
Could it be possible that the "free-caster nose wheel" is the problem? I do not understand how this was accomplish!!!!Landing in with a crosswind would indicate the nose wheel as cocked so when the nose wheel came down a side load was appllied to it. Now with a caster nose wheel, the nose wh eel would be forced to turn to it's limit. Thus the fork could bend. My $0 .02 Jerry of GA -----Original Message----- From: LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com> Sent: Sun, Oct 25, 2009 10:07 am Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure m> Ron, That fork has a logical reason for failing and I'm sure it'll reveal itsel f eventually. The steerable linked nose gear is more asset than liability. To be able to steer around potholes and rough fields is a major improvement over differential braking. I've experienced both types . For the tail dragger, it's logical, but for tri-gear it would be detrimental to add a free-caster nose-wheel to side braking ma ins. I know it's done in some aircraft, but it's a much lesser solution to the steerable nose wheel. Curious how the nose wheel steering got sideways far enough to fail the fo rk. Or it would seem there was not enough attention to where the nose wheel was at the time. Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
Date: Oct 25, 2009
From: jeyoung65(at)aol.com
Rick, you are talking about a gear that is design to have a castering gear . The 601 nose gear was not designned for a castering nose wheel. On a cas tering nose wheel the strut is in front of the wheel center so the wheel is drag down the runway not pushed. Jerry of GA -----Original Message----- From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick(at)mindspring.com> Sent: Sun, Oct 25, 2009 10:42 am Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure .com> Not to pick a fight here, Larry, but after flying close to 5000 hours in Grumman merican airplanes with free castering nose gear, I have to object to your post. Besides the obvious simplicity and ease of maintenance of the free casteri ng esign, its 180 degree pivot allows for incredibly tight turns while parkin g or imple maneuvering around objects. Assuming the airplane doesn't have a dra ggy rake on one side or the other, taxiing is a breeze with an occasional tap on he brake to maintain directional control. The only negative I can see is replacing brake pads slightly more often, but ads are cheap and there's no linkage, springs, holes in the firewall, or any of he other hoopla associated with a steerable nosewheel. And best of all, th e ose wheel alignment to the runway self corrects automatically upon landing , so ny worry about side loads is moot. Your claim that it's "a much lesser solution" needs some qualification. I' m urious, in what way? Best, Rick Lindstrom enVair N42KP -----Original Message----- From: LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com> Sent: Oct 25, 2009 8:07 AM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure m> Ron, That fork has a logical reason for failing and I'm sure it'll reveal itself eventually. The steerable linked nose gear is more asset than liability. To be able to steer around potholes and rough fields is a major improvement over differential braking. I've experienced both types. For the tail dragger, it's logical, but for tri-gear it would be detrimental to add a free-caster nose-wheel to side braking mains. I know it's done in some aircraft, but it's a much lesser solution to the steerable nose wheel. Curious how the nose wheel steering got sideways far enough to fail the fork. Or it would seem there was not enough attention to where the nose wheel was at the time. Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com -======================== ======================== =========== -= - The Zenith601-List Email Forum - -= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse -= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription, -= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, -= Photoshare, and much much more: - -= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List - -======================== ======================== =========== -= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - -= Same great content also available via the Web Forums! - -= --> http://forums.matronics.com - -======================== ======================== =========== -= - List Contribution Web Site - -= Thank you for your generous support! -= -Matt Dralle, List Admin. -= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution -======================== ======================== =========== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
Date: Oct 25, 2009
I don't think you should try to strengthen the fork any more than it is. If you make it too strong, in a hard landing it would shift the first point of failure to some other component. From the looks of those photos, the nose gear must have come down very hard and it wouldn't have helped much if the fork had stayed intact. That fork absorbed a lot of energy before it failed. It won't do much good to make the fork indestructible if it causes the strut to shear off and you plant the nose on the runway at 40 mph. At 50 mph and full throttle, that elevator has a whole lot of authority, you have to use a light hand on it. At full throttle, once that nosewheel comes off, that airplane wants to get airborne in a hurry. Be ready to chop the throttle and let it settle in. -- Bryan Martin CH 601 XL Builder No: 64003 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 25, 2009
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
Yes, I know, Jerry. My 601XL has a steerable nosewheel, just as designed. I was just responding to Larry's assertion that free-castering nosewheels are inferior in some way. The ONLY way you can impart a side load to the nose fork on the 601 is to land with it cocked significantly to one side. This means either full rudder deflection or something not right in the initial rigging. But it's just speculation at this point, until the facts are in. Rick -----Original Message----- >From: jeyoung65(at)aol.com >Sent: Oct 25, 2009 9:01 AM >To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure > >Rick, you are talking about a gear that is design to have a castering gear. The 601 nose gear was not designned for a castering nose wheel. On a castering nose wheel the strut is in front of the wheel center so the wheel is drag down the runway not pushed. Jerry of GA > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick(at)mindspring.com> >To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com >Sent: Sun, Oct 25, 2009 10:42 am >Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure > > >Not to pick a fight here, Larry, but after flying close to 5000 hours in Grumman >merican airplanes with free castering nose gear, I have to object to your post. >Besides the obvious simplicity and ease of maintenance of the free castering >esign, its 180 degree pivot allows for incredibly tight turns while parking or >imple maneuvering around objects. Assuming the airplane doesn't have a draggy >rake on one side or the other, taxiing is a breeze with an occasional tap on >he brake to maintain directional control. >The only negative I can see is replacing brake pads slightly more often, but >ads are cheap and there's no linkage, springs, holes in the firewall, or any of >he other hoopla associated with a steerable nosewheel. And best of all, the >ose wheel alignment to the runway self corrects automatically upon landing, so >ny worry about side loads is moot. >Your claim that it's "a much lesser solution" needs some qualification. I'm >urious, in what way? >Best, >Rick Lindstrom >enVair N42KP >-----Original Message----- >From: LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com> >Sent: Oct 25, 2009 8:07 AM >To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure > > >Ron, >That fork has a logical reason for failing and I'm sure it'll reveal >itself eventually. >The steerable linked nose gear is more asset than liability. To be able >to steer around potholes and rough fields is >a major improvement over differential braking. I've experienced both >types. For the tail dragger, it's logical, but for tri-gear >it would be detrimental to add a free-caster nose-wheel to side braking >mains. I know it's done in some aircraft, but >it's a much lesser solution to the steerable nose wheel. >Curious how the nose wheel steering got sideways far enough to fail the >fork. Or it would seem >there was not enough attention to where the nose wheel was at the time. > >Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com > >-=========================================================== >-= - The Zenith601-List Email Forum - >-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse >-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription, >-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, >-= Photoshare, and much much more: >- >-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List >- >-=========================================================== >-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - >-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums! >- >-= --> http://forums.matronics.com >- >-=========================================================== >-= - List Contribution Web Site - >-= Thank you for your generous support! >-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution >-=========================================================== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 25, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
Hi Rick, One problem I have had with "Yankee" type planes has to do with the lack of nose wheel steering when taking off in a crosswind. I found I had to apply brakes to one side while using takeoff power to keep the plane pointed down the runway for the initial takeoff run. I suppose the rudder will keep it pointed down the runway when enough speed is reached for rudder effectiveness, but in the beginning you are applying opposing forces, throttle and brakes, at the same time in order to perform a normal operation. (My brief experience with this problem was in a rented AA5 many years ago.) I agree with your point about taxi control with the brakes. It works just fine. However, I prefer the steerable nose wheel for taxiing too. It is true that the free castering nose wheel can make a tighter turn, but I have found the typical Cessna arrangement turns tighter if you use both differential braking and nose steering together. I am currently flying a Tecnam Echo that has a brake handle and nose steering. This turns OK, but I find it won't turn quite as tight a circle on the ground as I would prefer. It takes a little planning to turn into the wind for run-up and then get back to the heading for getting to the runway. This wouldn't be a problem with a large run-up pad, but that is not what you find at my home airport. Best regards, Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 08:42 AM 10/25/2009, you wrote > > >Not to pick a fight here, Larry, but after flying close to 5000 >hours in Grumman American airplanes with free castering nose gear, I >have to object to your post. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Oct 25, 2009
larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote: > > Curious how the nose wheel steering got sideways far enough to fail the > fork. Or it would seem > there was not enough attention to where the nose wheel was at the time. > Larry, As I recall the XL plunks down the nose wheel right down after touching the mains in a full stall landing (only flew one once). It also had the main gear reversed from the design position. The photo guide has many pictures of the main gear in the reversed position, it is noted that the pictures are not correct but many people have followed those pictures and have a heavy nose wheel as a result. Don't know if this is the case here but it merits discussion. -------- Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-) http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon Corvair Engine Prints: http://home.comcast.net/~rlendon/site/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269390#269390 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 25, 2009
Subject: First Flight
Hi All Well today after much aggravation with the Aero Carb on the Corvair engine we decided to switch to a MA-3A and had it rebuilt with a MA-3SPA nozzle to richen it up slightly. We taxied the plane 4 or 5 times thru all power setting before our test pilot was called to duty. Ralph (test pilot) had flown with me in the first 601xl I built so he was not as nervous as a first time test pilot would be flying behind a Corvair or even the 601 for that matter. The first flight went off without a hitch and the Corvair preformed as expected the prop is set at 10 1/2 degrees 2700 to 2800 static and 2900 109 MPH climb out. The CHT's were around 300 and the oil temp was 210 degrees before the cooler EGT's were around 1,200 degrees. All the parts on this plane are from Aerolite and the new Tech that picks up from the AC side of the alt worked great also (No more flywheel pickup). The new cowling and ram air Baffles really keep the temps down but I know our oil cooler setup works better than any other cooler out there when combined with our baffles. Tomorrow I will fit the wheel Pants and tinker with the trim a bit but all and all a great day. Watch the First Flight on U-tube _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwNrpIMhr_A_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwNrpIMhr_A) Jeff _www.aeroliteproducts.com_ (http://www.aeroliteproducts.com) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "KARL POLIFKA" <jfowler120(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
Date: Oct 25, 2009
I've stayed out of this but -- a couple of comments. We've had one or more hard landings because of the nose thump-down habit -- more than one in gusty conditions. This eventually led to a firewall and stiffener replacement -- along with the phenolic block in the lower main gear. We've changed a few things, besides the repairs. Half flap approaches, full nose up trim, 60 kias on final to touch down. Makes for a much smoother landing and virtually no touchdown nosegear thump. Also, BTW, hold the stick back with some nose up trim on takeoff -- it takes the pressure off a weak point in this airplane. As to this incident -- it certainly appears that you had rudder in you didn't realize or something was really wrong with the rudder-nose gear pushrods after taxi started. Prop strike -- hope you are getting an engine teardown to check the interior! Karl ----- Original Message ----- From: Ron Lendon To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 7:38 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote: > > Curious how the nose wheel steering got sideways far enough to fail the > fork. Or it would seem > there was not enough attention to where the nose wheel was at the time. > Larry, As I recall the XL plunks down the nose wheel right down after touching the mains in a full stall landing (only flew one once). It also had the main gear reversed from the design position. The photo guide has many pictures of the main gear in the reversed position, it is noted that the pictures are not correct but many people have followed those pictures and have a heavy nose wheel as a result. Don't know if this is the case here but it merits discussion. -------- Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-) http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon Corvair Engine Prints: http://home.comcast.net/~rlendon/site/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269390#269390 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Oct 25, 2009
A follow up on the discussion so far,main gear reversed to lighten loads on to nose gear.As aircraft was starting to drift to the left a SMALL amount of right rudder applied to straighten back to center of runway [sealed] .As the nose was a foot or so off the ground when down elevator applied,I never dreamt that it would bounce and thump from that hight. But I do now.Repair bill including prop around $2000.00 :( Cheers T87 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269407#269407 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "mhubel" <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Date: Oct 26, 2009
I might add that I had a slightly similar event. It was on the second landing. The aircraft clearly "landed" very nose heavy. One seasoned observer said he thought no aircraft could survive un-damaged. I bent the nose wheel assembly back under the fuseloge and of course broke the prop. Without going into all the details of how this happened as there are always multiple things that typically add up to cause such an event. My thoughts were that after flying 20 years in an AA-5, I am still convinced that the AA-5 with its long nose assembly and castering wheel, just might have survived with a large bounce. This assumes that one did full power go-around. I still think the nose wheel of the 601 design is a weak point. On the prop strike, Jabiru has a specific procedure to check the crank without engine the tear down. According to Jabiru USA, they have had over 20 prop strikes reported and none have resulted in damaged cranks so far. This includes the ones where an engine tear down was done. Check with Pete at Jabiru USA for the details. They are not available on-line. I have attached the procedure. -------- Mark Hubelbank N708HU CH601XL Jabiru 3300 Rotec TBI 40 carb Sensenich ground adj prop. 28 hr TAF Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269453#269453 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/prop_strike_inspection_171.pdf http://forums.matronics.com//files/prop_strike_check_crank_run_out_156.tif ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601a(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Cowling attachment, O200
Date: Oct 26, 2009
This is a query to anyone who used the Continental O200 on their 601XL. How did you attach the fiberglass cowling to the rest of the aircraft? I'm looking for ideas. Whilwe I can comew up with something, I hate to reinvent the wheel if someone already has a good solution. ============================================ Jim B Belcher BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science A&P/IA Retired aerospace technical manager Mathematics and alcohol do not mix. Do not drink and derive. ============================================ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <paulrod36(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: First Flight
Date: Oct 26, 2009
Jeff, could you detail the problems you had with the Aerocarb? I've been thinking about maybe using one, and could use the info. Thanks, Paul R ----- Original Message ----- From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com<mailto:Afterfxllc(at)aol.com> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com ; zenith-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 7:05 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: First Flight Hi All Well today after much aggravation with the Aero Carb on the Corvair engine we decided to switch to a MA-3A and had it rebuilt with a MA-3SPA nozzle to richen it up slightly. We taxied the plane 4 or 5 times thru all power setting before our test pilot was called to duty. Ralph (test pilot) had flown with me in the first 601xl I built so he was not as nervous as a first time test pilot would be flying behind a Corvair or even the 601 for that matter. The first flight went off without a hitch and the Corvair preformed as expected the prop is set at 10 1/2 degrees 2700 to 2800 static and 2900 109 MPH climb out. The CHT's were around 300 and the oil temp was 210 degrees before the cooler EGT's were around 1,200 degrees. All the parts on this plane are from Aerolite and the new Tech that picks up from the AC side of the alt worked great also (No more flywheel pickup). The new cowling and ram air Baffles really keep the temps down but I know our oil cooler setup works better than any other cooler out there when combined with our baffles. Tomorrow I will fit the wheel Pants and tinker with the trim a bit but all and all a great day. Watch the First Flight on U-tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwNrpIMhr_A ?v=XwNrpIMhr_A> Jeff www.aeroliteproducts.com<http://www.aeroliteproducts.com/> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List m/Navigator?Zenith601-List> http://www.matronics.com/contribution on> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: First Flight
From: "mhubel" <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Date: Oct 26, 2009
I had also tried an Aerocarb on a CH601XL. It was with a Jabiru 3300. I had two problems and both may have been due to the fuel pressure. One was difficulty getting a reasonable idle mixture. It was difficult to get it lean enough. This might have been solved but the other issue was the leaking fuel. With a Aerocarb (even with a pressure regulator), if the electric fuel pump is on (and it is assumed all low wing fuel systems have a backup electric pump), the carb will allow fuel to flow even if the engine is not running. This can result in a large amount of fuel dripped near the exhaust system. The only solution is to ALWAYS remember to have the electric pump off if the engine is not running. As one usually puts the pump on for landing, then shuts down the engine after a short taxi, this seems like asking for too much. Even using the mixture control to stop the engine does not insure that there will be no fuel drip as the engine will stop before the fuel flow is completely stopped. It is effectively a single point failure mode. I understand that with the lower pressure of gravity feed, these things are better. Perhaps a pressure regulator that could be set below 1 PSI might help. -------- Mark Hubelbank N708HU CH601XL Jabiru 3300 Rotec TBI 40 carb Sensenich ground adj prop. 28 hr TAF Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269533#269533 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug - SportAviation" <Doug.Norman(at)sportaviation.aero>
Subject: Cowling attachment, O200
Date: Oct 26, 2009
Take a look at what AMD does (www.newplane.com). If you need detail pictures I can probably photograph my cowling and send them to you. Doug Norman (AMD N601DN) -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Belcher Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:34 AM Subject: Zenith601-List: Cowling attachment, O200 This is a query to anyone who used the Continental O200 on their 601XL. How did you attach the fiberglass cowling to the rest of the aircraft? I'm looking for ideas. Whilwe I can comew up with something, I hate to reinvent the wheel if someone already has a good solution. ============================================ Jim B Belcher BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science A&P/IA Retired aerospace technical manager Mathematics and alcohol do not mix. Do not drink and derive. ============================================ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cowling attachment, O200
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Oct 26, 2009
I used 13 (7 top, 6 bottom) Camloc CM1 adjustable depth receptacles. I made up my own brackets and mounted them to the firewall. My cowling is mounted outside the sideskins. At 4 minutes into this video you can see the brackets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZQfypsw8k4 I am at school and do not have access to my plans or build photos. They are not cheap, but they hold much better than my attempts with Dzus fasteners. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269579#269579 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "Ianrat" <ianrat(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: Oct 26, 2009
Thruster 87 sorry to here about your plane. Glad to here that you are Ok Ianrat Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269610#269610 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Oct 27, 2009
It would be nice to come up with a mod to strengthen the fork to side loading especially for sealed runways which is not as forgiving as grass strips.My confidence in the design of the fork has been dented, and as such would appreciate if anyone else has any ideas for improvements or arguments to leave it as is, considering the number flying.Cheers T87 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269614#269614 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "fritz" <klondike(at)megalink.net>
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure/ why not fix problem?
Date: Oct 27, 2009
My question is: If you guys knows that the XL "lands hard on the nose tire", why aren't you veversing your MLG "spring assembly" ????? This was to be a correction for the "heavy nose, landings". Simple fit, remove main landing gear, weld notches closed, reverse gear, make new notches. Fritz ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:11 AM Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure > > > It would be nice to come up with a mod to strengthen the fork to side > loading especially for sealed runways which is not as forgiving as grass > strips.My confidence in the design of the fork has been dented, and as > such would appreciate if anyone else has any ideas for improvements or > arguments to leave it as is, considering the number flying.Cheers T87 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269614#269614 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "meltonoso" <meltonoso(at)cox.net>
Subject: 601 nose gear
Date: Oct 27, 2009
>From Alan Melton (meltonoso(at)cox.net). Our airplane likewise landed nose heavy, resulting in excessive wear on the plastic block through which the strut runs, and ultimately warping of the firewall. Our solution, which so far seems to be working very well, is to use no more than half flaps and a 60 knot airspeed on final. The result is much less nose drop on landing. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 27, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: 601 nose gear
That sounds great for solving the crash-down nose gear problem on landing. However, I wonder what such a high speed with limited flaps does to the landing distance over an obstacle or just the required runway length with or without an obstacle on the landing approach. Paul XL awaiting (STILL) engineering changes At 05:53 AM 10/27/2009, you wrote: > From Alan Melton > (meltonoso(at)cox.net). Our airplane > likewise landed nose heavy, resulting in excessive wear on the > plastic block through which the strut runs, and ultimately warping > of the firewall. Our solution, which so far seems to be working > very well, is to use no more than half flaps and a 60 knot airspeed > on final. The result is much less nose drop on landing. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 601 nose gear
From: "mhubel" <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Date: Oct 27, 2009
As a lot of 601s are flying with minimal problem, I don't think there will be a major engineering change coming. I did however observe a tendency to land with the nose too low initially. I noted that the trim tab could not trim out all forces on final with full flaps. I did two things. I changed the angle of the stabilizer from zero to 1 degree nose up which is the center of the range in the drawings. Secondly and more significantly, I added a spring on the elevator control cable to compensate for the weight of the elevator. With the trim tab not having to lift the weight of the elevator, it then had enough range to trim with full flaps. This makes it much easier to land with a proper nose high position and reduces the chance you will stress on the nose wheel . While I don't have carefully measured landing numbers yet, this results is a lot of runway ahead. -------- Mark Hubelbank N708HU CH601XL Jabiru 3300 Rotec TBI 40 carb Sensenich ground adj prop. 28 hr TAF Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269639#269639 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 27, 2009
Thruster87 wrote: > It would be nice to come up with a mod to strengthen the fork to side loading especially for sealed runways which is not as forgiving as grass strips.My confidence in the design of the fork has been dented, and as such would appreciate if anyone else has any ideas for improvements or arguments to leave it as is, considering the number flying.Cheers T87 I may have missed it in a previous post, but did you have the fork doubler in place? -------- W.R. "Gig" Giacona 601XL Under Construction See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269640#269640 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "KARL POLIFKA" <jfowler120(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: 601 nose gear
Date: Oct 27, 2009
It really has little effect, assuming a properly planned approach. We operate off a 3000' runway and I normally turn off halfway down. This isn't a STOL aircraft so I would consider that acceptable performance. Karl ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Mulwitz To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:00 AM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 601 nose gear That sounds great for solving the crash-down nose gear problem on landing. However, I wonder what such a high speed with limited flaps does to the landing distance over an obstacle or just the required runway length with or without an obstacle on the landing approach. Paul XL awaiting (STILL) engineering changes At 05:53 AM 10/27/2009, you wrote: From Alan Melton (meltonoso(at)cox.net). Our airplane likewise landed nose heavy, resulting in excessive wear on the plastic block through which the strut runs, and ultimately warping of the firewall. Our solution, which so far seems to be working very well, is to use no more than half flaps and a 60 knot airspeed on final. The result is much less nose drop on landing. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 27, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: 601 nose gear
I wonder if you and I are on the same planet. The designer of the CH601XL, Chris Heintz, has reduced the maximum takeoff weight as a result of all the problems. He has promised, through his son and president of Zenith Aircraft Company, a series of engineering changes including aileron mass balancing and control system sensitivity adjustment. I don't know how many XLs are actually flying, but all the ones I have personal contact or knowledge of are gounded. This includes my own XL, another one based in my local area, and the two XLs in California that were in commercial service before the NTSB letter was issued. I know there are a few flying, but only the most aggressive owners are still flying in the face of acknowledged design flaws. Whether this is 10 or 20 or 100 XLs still not grounded I cannot determine. If you have some accurate statistics on how many are still flying please let me know. In particular, I would like to know if any of the XLs in commercial service are available now. These are the ones a potential XL pilot could get dual time in to prepare for their own plane's first flight. Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 06:32 AM 10/27/2009, you wrote: >As a lot of 601s are flying with minimal problem, I don't think >there will be a major engineering change coming. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug - SportAviation" <Doug.Norman(at)sportaviation.aero>
Subject: Re: 601 nose gear
Date: Oct 27, 2009
Paul, certainly you and I aren't on the same sheet of music. You're certainly entitled to believe anything you want, but your characterization of a grounded fleet doesn't stack up to my experience. Not even a little. I continue to fly mine. And, while I've inspected it more aggressively and continually, I use the airplane often. I've had no problems, nor have I had any indications of potential problems. I'm approaching 500 hrs on the airplane. And, even though an AMD airplane, I know every rivet and bolt on it (I suppose I could say this was a good outcome from this brouhaha). This past weekend I flew down to an airport with cheap fuel. While there, two other 601XLs came in for the same reason. We had a nice gab session, looked over each others' airplanes, and then went our separate ways. It was delightful. And, this is typical -with different owners at different airports. Now, as to commercial use, that's a different story. The reduced weight renders the airplane useless for dual (unless one gives lessons of 1/2 hour or less). Besides, given the current "confused" state, one must acknowledge to anyone who wants to fly what outstanding issues there are. How many want to fly in the airplane now? The airplane has been rendered useless as a rental. No dual + no rental = no commercial use (I guess I could tow gliders). Are these justified alarms? Yet another discussion. But, CH reduced the weight and performance numbers NOT because of "acknowledged design flaws," but because of the hysteria and hand-wringing; and the need to come to a workable understanding with the FAA to PREVENT the grounding of the fleet. There will be a series of engineering changes coming (soon, I understand) which will allow those who perform them to bring the performance numbers back to where they were (and, to my thinking where they should be today). There may not be a mass-balanced aileron in the mix (as it's not required); but I can't say for sure. It wasn't in the set of things which were discussed with me. Of course, I don't see the lack of mass-balanced ailerons as an issue since the only uncontested facts on the table come from the German engineering study; and we know what that showed. Assuming, for argument, there are no aileron changes and you choose to alter your airplane's design to include LAA-type mass-balanced ailerons, you'll be explicitly going against the designer's design. That would be an interesting choice. Me? I'll make whatever changes CH states should be made to bring the performance numbers back up. After all, I own an SLSA. It's not a choice for me. If I didn't have to make changes, would I? Probably not. Ask yourself this question: what other LSA has had this level of scrutiny and actual testing? Careful not to look to the LAA activities as justification. Much of the posturing and requirements seem to be a self-reinforcing, positive feeedback phenomenon. I sincerely hope you're able to complete and fly your airplane someday. I hope you're not too angry with yourself for all the time you've lost. All the best, Doug Norman N601DN -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:20 AM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 nose gear I wonder if you and I are on the same planet. The designer of the CH601XL, Chris Heintz, has reduced the maximum takeoff weight as a result of all the problems. He has promised, through his son and president of Zenith Aircraft Company, a series of engineering changes including aileron mass balancing and control system sensitivity adjustment. I don't know how many XLs are actually flying, but all the ones I have personal contact or knowledge of are gounded. This includes my own XL, another one based in my local area, and the two XLs in California that were in commercial service before the NTSB letter was issued. I know there are a few flying, but only the most aggressive owners are still flying in the face of acknowledged design flaws. Whether this is 10 or 20 or 100 XLs still not grounded I cannot determine. If you have some accurate statistics on how many are still flying please let me know. In particular, I would like to know if any of the XLs in commercial service are available now. These are the ones a potential XL pilot could get dual time in to prepare for their own plane's first flight. Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 06:32 AM 10/27/2009, you wrote: >As a lot of 601s are flying with minimal problem, I don't think >there will be a major engineering change coming. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 27, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)ATT.NET>
Subject: Re: 601 nose gear
Hi Doug, Thank you for your reasoned and reasonable post on the XL issues. I agree with virtually all you said - at least on the level of fact vs. fiction. I am happy for you. You have chosen to fly your plane, and I support you in the freedom to make that choice. I know there are lots of folks who have made the other decision and I support them on their choices too. There are no guarantees in this world, and we all need to decide for ourselves how much risk we want to live with. Zero risk is not a possibility in real life. The only differences between your situation and mine are the builder of the plane (me vs. AMD) and the final decision on how to deal with the vague questions and equally vague answers available today. I am not concerned with my "Loss of time" with my XL. I never had a specific schedule for completion and flight of my plane. The only issue in my mind is whether or not I will ever get to fly it. I am comfortable with the current situation (although getting a bit impatient) and I can live with either outcome. I have already started building my next plane. It is a scratch build project on a Wittman Buttercup. Its performance is very similar to the Zodiac XL (as you might expect with a maximum LSA) but there are no kits available. I need to weld up a fuselage from steel tubes and complete the plane with fabric and much the same sort of instruments and controls as the Zodiac. If I reach the point where I need avionics, engine, and other stuff that can be moved from the Zodiac to the Buttercup then I will decide whether to do that or buy new stuff. That decision is probably many years away. I hope I live that long. I also have another plane to fly whenever I want. It is a Tecnam Echo Super Deluxe that I leased last Spring for one year. I had hoped this would be long enough to get past the Zodiac engineering impasse but now I am not sure. If necessary I can obtain another plane or take some other steps to have something available for my flying. Just because I have completed a Zodiac doesn't mean I have to ground myself because I grounded the Zodiac. I wish you the best of luck in your flying and other endeavors. Paul XL awaiting engineering changes. At 09:33 AM 10/27/2009, you wrote: >Paul, certainly you and I aren't on the same sheet of music. You're >certainly entitled to believe anything you want, but your characterization >of a grounded fleet doesn't stack up to my experience. Not even a little. > >I continue to fly mine. And, while I've inspected it more aggressively and >continually, I use the airplane often. I've had no problems, nor have I had >any indications of potential problems. I'm approaching 500 hrs on the >airplane. And, even though an AMD airplane, I know every rivet and bolt on >it (I suppose I could say this was a good outcome from this brouhaha). > >This past weekend I flew down to an airport with cheap fuel. While there, >two other 601XLs came in for the same reason. We had a nice gab session, >looked over each others' airplanes, and then went our separate ways. It was >delightful. And, this is typical -with different owners at different >airports. > >Now, as to commercial use, that's a different story. The reduced weight >renders the airplane useless for dual (unless one gives lessons of 1/2 hour >or less). Besides, given the current "confused" state, one must acknowledge >to anyone who wants to fly what outstanding issues there are. How many want >to fly in the airplane now? The airplane has been rendered useless as a >rental. No dual + no rental = no commercial use (I guess I could tow >gliders). > >Are these justified alarms? Yet another discussion. But, CH reduced the >weight and performance numbers NOT because of "acknowledged design flaws," >but because of the hysteria and hand-wringing; and the need to come to a >workable understanding with the FAA to PREVENT the grounding of the fleet. > >There will be a series of engineering changes coming (soon, I understand) >which will allow those who perform them to bring the performance numbers >back to where they were (and, to my thinking where they should be today). >There may not be a mass-balanced aileron in the mix (as it's not required); >but I can't say for sure. It wasn't in the set of things which were >discussed with me. Of course, I don't see the lack of mass-balanced ailerons >as an issue since the only uncontested facts on the table come from the >German engineering study; and we know what that showed. Assuming, for >argument, there are no aileron changes and you choose to alter your >airplane's design to include LAA-type mass-balanced ailerons, you'll be >explicitly going against the designer's design. That would be an interesting >choice. Me? I'll make whatever changes CH states should be made to bring the >performance numbers back up. After all, I own an SLSA. It's not a choice for >me. If I didn't have to make changes, would I? Probably not. > >Ask yourself this question: what other LSA has had this level of scrutiny >and actual testing? Careful not to look to the LAA activities as >justification. Much of the posturing and requirements seem to be a >self-reinforcing, positive feeedback phenomenon. > >I sincerely hope you're able to complete and fly your airplane someday. I >hope you're not too angry with yourself for all the time you've lost. > >All the best, >Doug Norman >N601DN ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "KARL POLIFKA" <jfowler120(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: 601 nose gear
Date: Oct 27, 2009
Paul, This is pretty silly. There appear to be very few who share your opinions and I would suspect, but do not know, that very few have stopped flying the XL because of an overinflated one-size-fits-all report that was, rightfully, ignored by the FAA. The verbiage in that NTSB report was, itself, highly suspect (observers on the ground seeing aileron flutter in an aircraft at pattern altitude, and so forth. What nonsense). Every airplane has design characteristics that any competent pilot needs to learn and work around to fly any airplane successfully -- and correctly. The adverse yaw characteristics of the F-4 are an example -- potentially fatal if ignored, so you don't ignore than design aspect. I have seen far too many posts on this forum from people who deliberately exceed various design limits. That is flat dumb. The pilot adapts to the airplane, not the other way around. If adaptation is not feasible, then it is a bad airplane. The XL is not a bad airplane. I would suspect that most or all of the Zenith changes in aircraft limitations are inspired by lawyers, not engineers. There are things you simply should not do with this design. The nose whack-down phenomena is an example. Yes, it is a design weakness -- so you work around it. You, BTW, don't let the nose touch down in a cocked position -- something which should be pretty obvious. That is not a design weakness, per se, it's a pilot weakness. Our airplane flies just fine. We have had no problems, other than those I have previously noted. We have always flown within limits, including the original design limits. It is probably possible to do Mach 1 in the XL -- after you rip the wings off in a 90 degree full power dive from 10 grand. There won't be much left, but it is not a design flaw. Maybe you should sell your kit as is and move on to something else. Karl ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Mulwitz To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:19 AM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 nose gear I wonder if you and I are on the same planet. The designer of the CH601XL, Chris Heintz, has reduced the maximum takeoff weight as a result of all the problems. He has promised, through his son and president of Zenith Aircraft Company, a series of engineering changes including aileron mass balancing and control system sensitivity adjustment. I don't know how many XLs are actually flying, but all the ones I have personal contact or knowledge of are gounded. This includes my own XL, another one based in my local area, and the two XLs in California that were in commercial service before the NTSB letter was issued. I know there are a few flying, but only the most aggressive owners are still flying in the face of acknowledged design flaws. Whether this is 10 or 20 or 100 XLs still not grounded I cannot determine. If you have some accurate statistics on how many are still flying please let me know. In particular, I would like to know if any of the XLs in commercial service are available now. These are the ones a potential XL pilot could get dual time in to prepare for their own plane's first flight. Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 06:32 AM 10/27/2009, you wrote: >As a lot of 601s are flying with minimal problem, I don't think >there will be a major engineering change coming. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 27, 2009
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: 601 nose gear
I agree, Karl. Paul's choice of verbiage "...crash-down nose gear problem on landing" is unfortunate, and inaccurate as well. (Sometimes I think he chooses his words just to raise my blood pressure!) But you have to remember that he's yet to fly his 601XL, so his supporting data is not coming from personal experience. Yes, the nose wheel comes down immediately after the mains plant in a full stall landing with full flaps, especially if you have a heavier engine and have placed the main gear aft instead of forward on the gear legs (which I have). The airplane really wants to keep flying, all the way down to about 45 mph, so when the wing finally runs out of lift, there's not much air going across the elevator to help keep the nose up. This is great for STOL performance and short strips, but we usually don't need to operate at this end of the flight envelope on a regular basis unless we have a REALLY short runway. Personally, I keep a bit of power in all the way down final to touchdown, thereby reducing the sink rate. I'll still make the first turn-off, even with a bit more airspeed on final and partial flaps. Pulling power ALL the way off, deploying full flaps, and holding the airplane off of the runway to the bitter end WILL result in a firm arrival. But as you've correctly pointed out, this can be addressed in a variety of ways, all involving landing technique. Rick Lindstrom ZenVair N42KP -----Original Message----- >From: KARL POLIFKA <jfowler120(at)verizon.net> >Sent: Oct 27, 2009 1:35 PM >To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 nose gear > >Paul, > >This is pretty silly. > >There appear to be very few who share your opinions and I would suspect, but do not know, that very few have stopped flying the XL because of an overinflated one-size-fits-all report that was, rightfully, ignored by the FAA. The verbiage in that NTSB report was, itself, highly suspect (observers on the ground seeing aileron flutter in an aircraft at pattern altitude, and so forth. What nonsense). > >Every airplane has design characteristics that any competent pilot needs to learn and work around to fly any airplane successfully -- and correctly. The adverse yaw characteristics of the F-4 are an example -- potentially fatal if ignored, so you don't ignore than design aspect. I have seen far too many posts on this forum from people who deliberately exceed various design limits. That is flat dumb. The pilot adapts to the airplane, not the other way around. If adaptation is not feasible, then it is a bad airplane. The XL is not a bad airplane. > >I would suspect that most or all of the Zenith changes in aircraft limitations are inspired by lawyers, not engineers. There are things you simply should not do with this design. The nose whack-down phenomena is an example. Yes, it is a design weakness -- so you work around it. You, BTW, don't let the nose touch down in a cocked position -- something which should be pretty obvious. That is not a design weakness, per se, it's a pilot weakness. > >Our airplane flies just fine. We have had no problems, other than those I have previously noted. We have always flown within limits, including the original design limits. It is probably possible to do Mach 1 in the XL -- after you rip the wings off in a 90 degree full power dive from 10 grand. There won't be much left, but it is not a design flaw. > >Maybe you should sell your kit as is and move on to something else. > >Karl > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Paul Mulwitz > To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:19 AM > Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 nose gear > > > I wonder if you and I are on the same planet. > > The designer of the CH601XL, Chris Heintz, has reduced the maximum > takeoff weight as a result of all the problems. He has promised, > through his son and president of Zenith Aircraft Company, a series of > engineering changes including aileron mass balancing and control > system sensitivity adjustment. > > I don't know how many XLs are actually flying, but all the ones I > have personal contact or knowledge of are gounded. This includes my > own XL, another one based in my local area, and the two XLs in > California that were in commercial service before the NTSB letter was > issued. I know there are a few flying, but only the most aggressive > owners are still flying in the face of acknowledged design > flaws. Whether this is 10 or 20 or 100 XLs still not grounded I > cannot determine. If you have some accurate statistics on how many > are still flying please let me know. In particular, I would like to > know if any of the XLs in commercial service are available > now. These are the ones a potential XL pilot could get dual time in > to prepare for their own plane's first flight. > > Paul > XL awaiting engineering changes > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 27, 2009
From: Terry Turnquist <ter_turn(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 601 nose gear
Gentlemen, let's look at this from strictly a pragmatic viewpoint. All one has to do in the aviation community is mention the 601XL and you'll get a raised eyebrow or an expression of condolences. Whether or not this is justified is strictly a matter of opinion at this point. However, the fact is that the airplane has an undesirable reputation which is not doing any of us any good. When CH releases a "fix" for the perceived problem I intend to make those changes so as to help salvage what will otherwise be a very unhappy financial outcome not to mention years of labor. Then if someone mentions it again I can say "That problems been fixed". Hopefully at some point the bad reputation will be forgotten. Best wishes Terry ________________________________ From: KARL POLIFKA <jfowler120(at)verizon.net> Sent: Tue, October 27, 2009 12:35:33 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 nose gear Paul, This is pretty silly. There appear to be very few who share your opinions and I would suspect, but do not know, that very few have stopped flying the XL because of an overinflated one-size-fits-all report that was, rightfully, ignored by the FAA. The verbiage in that NTSB report was, itself, highly suspect (observers on the ground seeing aileron flutter in an aircraft at pattern altitude, and so forth. What nonsense). Every airplane has design characteristics that any competent pilot needs to learn and work around to fly any airplane successfully -- and correctly. The adverse yaw characteristics of the F-4 are an example -- potentially fatal if ignored, so you don't ignore than design aspect. I have seen far too many posts on this forum from people who deliberately exceed various design limits. That is flat dumb. The pilot adapts to the airplane, not the other way around. If adaptation is not feasible, then it is a bad airplane. The XL is not a bad airplane. I would suspect that most or all of the Zenith changes in aircraft limitations are inspired by lawyers, not engineers. There are things you simply should not do with this design. The nose whack-down phenomena is an example. Yes, it is a design weakness -- so you work around it. You, BTW, don't let the nose touch down in a cocked position -- something which should be pretty obvious. That is not a design weakness, per se, it's a pilot weakness. Our airplane flies just fine. We have had no problems, other than those I have previously noted. We have always flown within limits, including the original design limits. It is probably possible to do Mach 1 in the XL -- after you rip the wings off in a 90 degree full power dive from 10 grand. There won't be much left, but it is not a design flaw. Maybe you should sell your kit as is and move on to something else. Karl ----- Original Message ----- >From: Paul Mulwitz >To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com >Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:19 > AM >Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 nose > gear > > >I wonder if you and I are > on the same planet. > >The designer of the CH601XL, Chris Heintz, has > reduced the maximum >takeoff weight as a result of all the problems. > He has promised, >through his son and president of Zenith Aircraft Company, > a series of >engineering changes including aileron mass balancing and > control >system sensitivity adjustment. > >I don't know how many XLs > are actually flying, but all the ones I >have personal contact or knowledge > of are gounded. This includes my >own XL, another one based in my > local area, and the two XLs in >California that were in commercial service > before the NTSB letter was >issued. I know there are a few flying, > but only the most aggressive >owners are still flying in the face of > acknowledged design >flaws. Whether this is 10 or 20 or 100 XLs still > not grounded I >cannot determine. If you have some accurate > statistics on how many >are still flying please let me know. In > particular, I would like to >know if any of the XLs in commercial service > are available >now. These are the ones a potential XL pilot could get > dual time in >to prepare for their own plane's first > flight. > >Paul >XL awaiting engineering changes > > >At 06:32 AM > 10/27/2009, you wrote: >>As a lot of 601s are flying with minimal > problem, I don't think >>there will be a major engineering change > nbsp; >Features >Chat, > http://www.matnbsp; >via the Web > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com >_p; >generous > bsp; > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c================ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 27, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: 601 nose gear
Hi Karl, I don't know where people like you get the idea I have a Zodiac XL kit. I used up my last kit part around two years ago. My plane is complete and nearly ready for certification. It has been registered for around a year. I did remove the wings last Spring to make room for a flying plane in my hangar. I don't think anyone has exact numbers of XLs that are currently grounded vs. those that are flying. We all have anecdotal information. To assume that the rest of the world has made the same decision as I or you have is just egotistical nonsense. If indeed you want me to sell my plane to you then please make an offer. Any offer under $50,000 will not be considered since that is the value of brand new engine, avionics and other stuff in my plane. Paul XL awaiting engineering changes. At 10:35 AM 10/27/2009, you wrote: >Maybe you should sell your kit as is and move on to something else. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Oct 27, 2009
Gig Giacona wrote: > > Thruster87 wrote: > > It would be nice to come up with a mod to strengthen the fork to side loading especially for sealed runways which is not as forgiving as grass strips.My confidence in the design of the fork has been dented, and as such would appreciate if anyone else has any ideas for improvements or arguments to leave it as is, considering the number flying.Cheers T87 > > > I may have missed it in a previous post, but did you have the fork doubler in place? Hi Gig, Yes the gear was reversed and the doubler was installed.I'm now wondering if the lower bearing mod which allows smoother rotation [less friction] may have contributed?? Is the high friction an issue during flight?? I'll now properly go back to specs Cheers T87 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269710#269710 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 27, 2009
Was the wheel bent to the left by any chance? The reason I asked is that I've seen two fast taxi accidents in my 30 years of flying where pilots tried to "hit the brakes" buy slamming down on the left rudder. -------- W.R. "Gig" Giacona 601XL Under Construction See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269716#269716 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <paulrod36(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
Date: Oct 27, 2009
Gig, how about using a T-shaped outer piece? The stem of the T wouldn't need to be more than 3/4" or create too much drag, but it ought to greatly stiffen the fork to side loads. Naturally, it would need to be tapered and ground off just above the axle bolt. Paul R (Nose gear? We don' need no esteenkin' nose gear!) ----- Original Message ----- From: Thruster87<mailto:alania(at)optusnet.com.au> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:15 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Nose wheel fork failure > Gig Giacona wrote: > > Thruster87 wrote: > > It would be nice to come up with a mod to strengthen the fork to side loading especially for sealed runways which is not as forgiving as grass strips.My confidence in the design of the fork has been dented, and as such would appreciate if anyone else has any ideas for improvements or arguments to leave it as is, considering the number flying.Cheers T87 > > > I may have missed it in a previous post, but did you have the fork doubler in place? Hi Gig, Yes the gear was reversed and the doubler was installed.I'm now wondering if the lower bearing mod which allows smoother rotation [less friction] may have contributed?? Is the high friction an issue during flight?? I'll now properly go back to specs Cheers T87 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269710#269710 .matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269710#269710> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List m/Navigator?Zenith601-List> http://www.matronics.com/contribution on> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 27, 2009
paulrod36(at)msn.com wrote: > Gig, how about using a T-shaped outer piece? The stem of the T wouldn't need to be more than 3/4" or create too much drag, but it ought to greatly stiffen the fork to side loads. Naturally, it would need to be tapered and ground off just above the axle bolt. > > Paul R (Nose gear? We don' need no esteenkin' nose gear!) > Don't ask me about redesign issues. I don't know nothin' about design. -------- W.R. "Gig" Giacona 601XL Under Construction See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269721#269721 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Austin" <daveaustin2(at)primus.ca>
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
Date: Oct 27, 2009
I cannot help wondering what piece of the a/c would have failed if the forks had not given way? Would the leg have bent, or been torn from he firewall? How many 601s have bent the fork from the hundreds flying today? Think about it, folks. Chris knows what he is doing. Dave Austin 601HDS - 912 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Oct 27, 2009
Dave Chris knows what he is doing. ?? Maybe Chris H knows what he is doing? My wife often says I don't know what I am doing.. But I am Chris S.. Its morning here Down Under Chris S. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269739#269739 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Austin" <daveaustin2(at)primus.ca>
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
Date: Oct 27, 2009
G'Day Chris, Pom here in Canada. My 1993 601 (not me) bent the fork rather quickly, so I fitted the doubler. But by then I'd managed to learn to keep the nosewheel off the ground until just enough elevator influence is left to lower it to the runway with NO brakes on. I was glad the fork had bent. Good lesson. Dave Austin 601HDS - 912 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 27, 2009
Subject: (no subject)
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocq2UBkyzFI_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocq2UBkyzFI) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Oct 27, 2009
Gig Giacona wrote: > Was the wheel bent to the left by any chance? > > The reason I asked is that I've seen two fast taxi accidents in my 30 years of flying where pilots tried to "hit the brakes" buy slamming down on the left rudder. To the right,it bent from the radius at the top.Left hand side of fork rubbing the ground and the right side bent up towards the nose leg.The nose leg held on very well and it bent about 5 deg 250mm up from the base,base plate twisted about 5mm and the brunt was taken by the structure aft of the lower bearing support.Cheers T87 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269749#269749 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Jabiru USA 3300 engine mount NOT to Specs
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Oct 27, 2009
Started the repair on the bent/cracked engine mount and during the straightening process it broke off at the lower mid point at the intersection of tubes 7 & 6.On measuring the wall thickness it came to 0.035" and the drawings called for 0.058" [6-JE-1] This is now the second engine mount supplied with the use of incorrect thickness tubing/plates.What is happening to quality control?????? Jab USA has to get rid of the person welding these mounts.Lucky or unlucky as the case may be, if it wasn't for the nose wheel collapse the bloody engine might have fallen off.Cheers T87 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269775#269775 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Jabiru USA 3300 engine mount NOT to Specs
From: "chuck960" <chuckde(at)roadrunner.com>
Date: Oct 27, 2009
How are they (Jab USA) about replacing factory defective parts? Chuck Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269787#269787 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Jabiru USA 3300 engine mount NOT to Specs
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Oct 27, 2009
chuck960 wrote: > How are they (Jab USA) about replacing factory defective parts? > Chuck The first one no problem, waiting a response for the second Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269788#269788 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Subject: Re: Jabiru USA 3300 engine mount NOT to Specs
Date: Oct 27, 2009
My 3300 motor mount placed the engine at the wrong angle. They replaced it. I received an oil cooler with the threads pre-striped. They replaced that too. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of chuck960 Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:24 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Jabiru USA 3300 engine mount NOT to Specs How are they (Jab USA) about replacing factory defective parts? Chuck Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269787#269787 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "KARL POLIFKA" <jfowler120(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Jabiru USA 3300 engine mount NOT to Specs
Date: Oct 28, 2009
I think they may have been through more than one welder. We went through three engine mounts before they got it right in 2006. Wrong angle -- not the wrong material. Karl ----- Original Message ----- From: Thruster87 To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:50 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Jabiru USA 3300 engine mount NOT to Specs Started the repair on the bent/cracked engine mount and during the straightening process it broke off at the lower mid point at the intersection of tubes 7 & 6.On measuring the wall thickness it came to 0.035" and the drawings called for 0.058" [6-JE-1] This is now the second engine mount supplied with the use of incorrect thickness tubing/plates.What is happening to quality control?????? Jab USA has to get rid of the person welding these mounts.Lucky or unlucky as the case may be, if it wasn't for the nose wheel collapse the bloody engine might have fallen off.Cheers T87 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269775#269775 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 28, 2009
From: BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net
Subject: Flying Times
Guys can we get a show of hands on who is flying and how much. i would have done much more except for weather and runway construction. went to a fly-in 100 miles away. good time, good food. indicated 125 mph at 5500' with a 155 mph ground speed hopefully we are getting better weather. N131BP 601 XL E-AB 14hrs since June ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "KARL POLIFKA" <jfowler120(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Flying Times
Date: Oct 28, 2009
N156WT (Williamsburg, VA with 4 owners) does about 140 hours per year. ----- Original Message ----- From: BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net To: zenith601-list-digest(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:50 AM Subject: Zenith601-List: Flying Times Guys can we get a show of hands on who is flying and how much. i would have done much more except for weather and runway construction. went to a fly-in 100 miles away. good time, good food. indicated 125 mph at 5500' with a 155 mph ground speed hopefully we are getting better weather. N131BP 601 XL E-AB 14hrs since June ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 28, 2009
From: John Davis <johnd@data-tech.com>
Subject: Re: Flying Times
N601JD in Spruce Pine, NC, I've gotten 32 hours since my first flight in Jan. Would have had more but the wx has been crummy this year... John Davis BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net wrote: > Guys > can we get a show of hands on who is flying and how much. i would have > done much more except for weather and runway construction. went to a > fly-in 100 miles away. good time, good food. indicated 125 mph at > 5500' with a 155 mph ground speed > hopefully we are getting better weather. > > N131BP > 601 XL E-AB > 14hrs since June > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Flying Times
From: "mhubel" <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Date: Oct 28, 2009
N708HU FIT, MA have 32 hours since first flight. Like others, weather and fighting with Bing have reduced the total. -------- Mark Hubelbank N708HU CH601XL Jabiru 3300 Rotec TBI 40 carb Sensenich ground adj prop. 28 hr TAF Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269841#269841 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Flying Times
From: "DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher(at)ge.com>
Date: Oct 28, 2009
I flew about 70 hours this year and have 115 total hours now. Made x-country trips to Oshkosh once and to Illinois three times. Hit about 15 fly-ins and pancake breakfasts. This week I flew at night for the first time and got enough takeoff's and landings to become night current. I have no qualms about flying the 601XL, even at night. p.s. since we have had recent discussions about nose gear, my experience with a light engine (Jabiru) and the gear turned around (flat face forward), is that I can typically hold the nose gear off for about 5 seconds before it eases down. It required some technique refining, but not a lot. Footloose and flutter free, -------- David Gallagher 601 XL/Jabiru 3300 First flight 7/24/08 115 hours and climbing! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269842#269842 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/sworfi09_35_910.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug - SportAviation" <Doug.Norman(at)sportaviation.aero>
Subject: Re: Flying Times
Date: Oct 28, 2009
172 hrs personal flying so far this year on the Zodiac; 468 total. No Stephen Smith trips, but regularly back and forth between north Georgia and Clearwater, FL. And often back and forth between Clearwater and Boca Raton, FL (visiting kids). Only issue (since taking it off the rental line - whole other story there) was an oil leak in a valve cover (Continental O-200); and a cracked canopy from having it slam down onto a headset from a gust of wind - take note folks. Nothing with the airframe. Doug Norman, CFI, AGI N601DN -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DaveG601XL Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:00 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Flying Times I flew about 70 hours this year and have 115 total hours now. Made x-country trips to Oshkosh once and to Illinois three times. Hit about 15 fly-ins and pancake breakfasts. This week I flew at night for the first time and got enough takeoff's and landings to become night current. I have no qualms about flying the 601XL, even at night. p.s. since we have had recent discussions about nose gear, my experience with a light engine (Jabiru) and the gear turned around (flat face forward), is that I can typically hold the nose gear off for about 5 seconds before it eases down. It required some technique refining, but not a lot. Footloose and flutter free, -------- David Gallagher 601 XL/Jabiru 3300 First flight 7/24/08 115 hours and climbing! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269842#269842 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/sworfi09_35_910.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 28, 2009
Subject: Flying times
From: roger lambert <n601ap(at)gmail.com>
Approximately 90 hrs/year. 220 in total on this airframe. The real question is: how many of you have stopped flying the airplane because of this "flutter" mess. The nay-sayers are of the opinion that only a few people are flying, and they're in the majority with their decision not to fly. I don't see anyone on ZenithAero having made that decision, and no, I don't include those don't have a finished airplane and spend their days wringing their hands and looking for another reason not to complete. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 28, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Flying times
Hi Roger, I hope you are not including me in the "nay-sayers of the opinion that only a few people are flying" but I suspect this is indeed your interpretation. I also object to your characterization of the problems with the Zodiac XL as "Flutter" mess. Let me try to clear up my own position. Flutter never was a serious likelihood to explain the XL problems. Indeed, the problems are a considerable number of fatal in-flight structural failures in the last few years. I don't know the exact number of these events but I think it is somewhere between 5 and 10 worldwide. As to the number of grounded XLs, my belief is that nobody knows the answer to this question. There is no official registry of flights world-wide to give a definitive answer. We all know that several countries in Europe have grounded the XL and that one of them, the UK, has released a long list of changes that will enable owners in that country to resume flights. As far as I know the other countries still have the XLs grounded. I appreciate the idea of having list members announce their own recent flight records. This is a haphazard way to determine how many planes are flying vs. grounded, but it is the best one I have heard of yet. So far I have counted around 8 owners who replied that they are still flying their XLs. For reference, the 2008 Kitplanes lists the number of completed and flying XLs as 950. I don't know how to interpret these related numbers, but it does seem only a few are still flying. Of course the number of responses is only a small percentage of the number actually in use. This is a limited, but large, email list of Zodiac builders and owners, and I am sure there are a number of owners flying that have not responded. Several list members have made it clear they are flying and have not responded to this query. If only 10 percent of the flying Zodiac XL owners have responded and the Kitplanes number is reasonably accurate that would suggest 90 percent of the fleet is grounded. This doesn't surprise me since the NTSB asked for this result and indeed several countries (not including the USA) have responded with regulatory force on the subject. Still, I am not sure of the real numbers, and I don't even think this really matters. My position always has been that we don't need a consensus on this issue. It is a decision each owner should make according to his own judgement and situation. It is only a few very vocal folks still flying their Zodiac XLs that seem to want a justification for their choice by citing numbers of people who agree with them. My own position since the NTSB letter has been, and remains, my plane is grounded until we get a formal release of engineering changes from Chris Heintz or one of his related companies to resolve this problem. That change has been promised to me by Sebastian Heintz as coming "Soon". I have no idea when his promise will be filled, but I will wait for it. I don't know why it seems to annoy some people so much that I have chosen this path, but apparently it does. Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 11:06 AM 10/28/2009, you wrote: >Approximately 90 hrs/year. 220 in total on this airframe. The real >question is: how many of you have stopped flying the airplane >because of this "flutter" mess. The nay-sayers are of the opinion >that only a few people are flying, and they're in the majority with >their decision not to fly. I don't see anyone on ZenithAero having >made that decision, and no, I don't include those don't have a >finished airplane and spend their days wringing their hands and >looking for another reason not to complete. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "KARL POLIFKA" <jfowler120(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Flying times
Date: Oct 28, 2009
Rubbish. Karl ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Mulwitz To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:44 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Flying times Hi Roger, I hope you are not including me in the "nay-sayers of the opinion that only a few people are flying" but I suspect this is indeed your interpretation. I also object to your characterization of the problems with the Zodiac XL as "Flutter" mess. Let me try to clear up my own position. Flutter never was a serious likelihood to explain the XL problems. Indeed, the problems are a considerable number of fatal in-flight structural failures in the last few years. I don't know the exact number of these events but I think it is somewhere between 5 and 10 worldwide. As to the number of grounded XLs, my belief is that nobody knows the answer to this question. There is no official registry of flights world-wide to give a definitive answer. We all know that several countries in Europe have grounded the XL and that one of them, the UK, has released a long list of changes that will enable owners in that country to resume flights. As far as I know the other countries still have the XLs grounded. I appreciate the idea of having list members announce their own recent flight records. This is a haphazard way to determine how many planes are flying vs. grounded, but it is the best one I have heard of yet. So far I have counted around 8 owners who replied that they are still flying their XLs. For reference, the 2008 Kitplanes lists the number of completed and flying XLs as 950. I don't know how to interpret these related numbers, but it does seem only a few are still flying. Of course the number of responses is only a small percentage of the number actually in use. This is a limited, but large, email list of Zodiac builders and owners, and I am sure there are a number of owners flying that have not responded. Several list members have made it clear they are flying and have not responded to this query. If only 10 percent of the flying Zodiac XL owners have responded and the Kitplanes number is reasonably accurate that would suggest 90 percent of the fleet is grounded. This doesn't surprise me since the NTSB asked for this result and indeed several countries (not including the USA) have responded with regulatory force on the subject. Still, I am not sure of the real numbers, and I don't even think this really matters. My position always has been that we don't need a consensus on this issue. It is a decision each owner should make according to his own judgement and situation. It is only a few very vocal folks still flying their Zodiac XLs that seem to want a justification for their choice by citing numbers of people who agree with them. My own position since the NTSB letter has been, and remains, my plane is grounded until we get a formal release of engineering changes from Chris Heintz or one of his related companies to resolve this problem. That change has been promised to me by Sebastian Heintz as coming "Soon". I have no idea when his promise will be filled, but I will wait for it. I don't know why it seems to annoy some people so much that I have chosen this path, but apparently it does. Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 11:06 AM 10/28/2009, you wrote: Approximately 90 hrs/year. 220 in total on this airframe. The real question is: how many of you have stopped flying the airplane because of this "flutter" mess. The nay-sayers are of the opinion that only a few people are flying, and they're in the majority with their decision not to fly. I don't see anyone on ZenithAero having made that decision, and no, I don't include those don't have a finished airplane and spend their days wringing their hands and looking for another reason not to complete. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: How many of you have grounded...
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 28, 2009
...your plane because of the NTSB letter or the issues surrounding it? -------- W.R. "Gig" Giacona 601XL Under Construction See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269885#269885 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug - SportAviation" <Doug.Norman(at)sportaviation.aero>
Subject: Flying times
Date: Oct 28, 2009
Paul's right that nobody knows the actual number of "grounded" 601s, or those "still flying." And there are some weak arguments offered which claim some statistical backup for what one might conclude. He's also correct that this isn't a consensus activity. If one could gather data on a reasonable sample of people who have XLs, and mine their experiences, then one could apply simple non-parametric statistics and get a handle on what the likely status is. So. I took a couple of hours and went on the Zenith.Aero site to gather what data there might be. I went and pulled the member data from the site for all the 601 XLs which are flying in the US. I then divided them into four categories: 1) Those who list themselves as "flying," but there's not enough data to put them clearly into flying or not flying (as determined by there being no activity on the site. They registered, described themselves, but no other data is there to conclude whether they are actually flying or not). 2) Those who are clearly flying as determined by pictures, discussions with others, etc. 3) Those who list themselves as flying, but are explicit about keeping themselves on the ground, or where one can reasonably infer that they are not flying 4) Those who register as "other" and who might have changed their listing from "flying" based on them grounding themselves. Remember, these are only for those people who have registered on the site. The details are below for those who want to check my math. The results are clear: people, as a rule, are not grounding themselves. The explanation for the continuing belief that they are grounding themselves must be due to those who are asserting this without any data to support their contention. In fact I wasn't able to find a single example of someone who had voluntarily grounded themselves on the site. But we know they exist. Paul is one. Therefore, they must represent a small slice of the owners/operators of Xls. Essentially, statistically insignificant (yet loud with assertions). This invalidates a number of assertions I've seen which suggest that the reason there are few additional episodes is probably due to the lack of flight hours. Sorry, that suggestion is not supportable. The most likely explanation is that people are flying within the limits of the airplane in a reasonable, responsible manner. And, isn't that what everyone should do at all times? Fly your airplanes and enjoy them. ---------------------------------------------------------- Here are the results: - Total 601 XLs Flying in the US: 92 - "Flying" but indeterminate: 32 - "Flying" and flying: 60 - "Flying" but grounded: 0 - "Other" and grounded: 0 We now have sufficient data to test a number of hypotheses --------------------------------------------------- Hypothesis 1: "90% of the fleet are voluntarily grounded" To allow the best possibility of this, we'll assign all "Flying but indeterminate" to the "voluntarily grounded" category. Now we'll perform a Chi Square in the following way: Flying: Observed: 60 Expected: 9 (10% of 92) Grounded: Observed: 32 Expected: 83 (90% of 92) Chi Square = 0.0001 Thus, this hypothesis is exceedingly unlikely, and we reject it. ------------------------------------------------------- Hypothesis 2: "50% of the fleet are voluntarily grounded" Again, to allow for the reading of the data which would most support this possibility we assign all "Flying but indeterminate" to the "voluntarily grounded category" Flying: Observed: 60 Expected: 46 Grounded: Observed: 32 Expected: 46 Chi Square = 0.0035 Thus, as before, we reject the hypothesis ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hypothesis 3: "Everybody is flying" Flying: Observed: 60 Expected: 91 Grounded: Observed: 32 Expected: 1 Chi Square = 0.0001 Thus this must be rejected too. Thus, because we can't assign the indeterminate category, we can't make this statement either. It turns out the largest supportable global distribution of voluntarily grounded aircraft turns out to be about 20% IF you assume ALL indeterminates are voluntary groundings. This is probably not correct; thus, one might conclude that, among the Zenith.Aero community, there are few voluntary groundings. I suspect that, since there were NO explicit statements of voluntary grounding, they probably are pretty rare. Thus, fleet-hours are being accumulated at a rate consistent with what one would expect absent this unfortunate set of issues. From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of KARL POLIFKA Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:08 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Flying times Rubbish. Karl ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Mulwitz <mailto:psm(at)att.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:44 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Flying times Hi Roger, I hope you are not including me in the "nay-sayers of the opinion that only a few people are flying" but I suspect this is indeed your interpretation. I also object to your characterization of the problems with the Zodiac XL as "Flutter" mess. Let me try to clear up my own position. Flutter never was a serious likelihood to explain the XL problems. Indeed, the problems are a considerable number of fatal in-flight structural failures in the last few years. I don't know the exact number of these events but I think it is somewhere between 5 and 10 worldwide. As to the number of grounded XLs, my belief is that nobody knows the answer to this question. There is no official registry of flights world-wide to give a definitive answer. We all know that several countries in Europe have grounded the XL and that one of them, the UK, has released a long list of changes that will enable owners in that country to resume flights. As far as I know the other countries still have the XLs grounded. I appreciate the idea of having list members announce their own recent flight records. This is a haphazard way to determine how many planes are flying vs. grounded, but it is the best one I have heard of yet. So far I have counted around 8 owners who replied that they are still flying their XLs. For reference, the 2008 Kitplanes lists the number of completed and flying XLs as 950. I don't know how to interpret these related numbers, but it does seem only a few are still flying. Of course the number of responses is only a small percentage of the number actually in use. This is a limited, but large, email list of Zodiac builders and owners, and I am sure there are a number of owners flying that have not responded. Several list members have made it clear they are flying and have not responded to this query. If only 10 percent of the flying Zodiac XL owners have responded and the Kitplanes number is reasonably accurate that would suggest 90 percent of the fleet is grounded. This doesn't surprise me since the NTSB asked for this result and indeed several countries (not including the USA) have responded with regulatory force on the subject. Still, I am not sure of the real numbers, and I don't even think this really matters. My position always has been that we don't need a consensus on this issue. It is a decision each owner should make according to his own judgement and situation. It is only a few very vocal folks still flying their Zodiac XLs that seem to want a justification for their choice by citing numbers of people who agree with them. My own position since the NTSB letter has been, and remains, my plane is grounded until we get a formal release of engineering changes from Chris Heintz or one of his related companies to resolve this problem. That change has been promised to me by Sebastian Heintz as coming "Soon". I have no idea when his promise will be filled, but I will wait for it. I don't know why it seems to annoy some people so much that I have chosen this path, but apparently it does. Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 11:06 AM 10/28/2009, you wrote: Approximately 90 hrs/year. 220 in total on this airframe. The real question is: how many of you have stopped flying the airplane because of this "flutter" mess. The nay-sayers are of the opinion that only a few people are flying, and they're in the majority with their decision not to fly. I don't see anyone on ZenithAero having made that decision, and no, I don't include those don't have a finished airplane and spend their days wringing their hands and looking for another reason not to complete. href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List">http://www.matronic s.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug - SportAviation" <Doug.Norman(at)sportaviation.aero>
Subject: Flying times
Date: Oct 28, 2009
Paul's right that nobody knows the actual number of "grounded" 601s, or those "still flying." And there are some weak arguments offered which claim some statistical backup for what one might conclude. He's also correct that this isn't a consensus activity. If one could gather data on a reasonable sample of people who have XLs, and mine their experiences, then one could apply simple non-parametric statistics and get a handle on what the likely status is. So. I took a couple of hours and went on the Zenith.Aero site to gather what data there might be. I went and pulled the member data from the site for all the 601 XLs which are flying in the US. I then divided them into four categories: 1) Those who list themselves as "flying," but there's not enough data to put them clearly into flying or not flying (as determined by there being no activity on the site. They registered, described themselves, but no other data is there to conclude whether they are actually flying or not). 2) Those who are clearly flying as determined by pictures, discussions with others, etc. 3) Those who list themselves as flying, but are explicit about keeping themselves on the ground, or where one can reasonably infer that they are not flying 4) Those who register as "other" and who might have changed their listing from "flying" based on them grounding themselves. Remember, these are only for those people who have registered on the site. The details are below for those who want to check my math. The results are clear: people, as a rule, are not grounding themselves. The explanation for the continuing belief that they are grounding themselves must be due to those who are asserting this without any data to support their contention. In fact I wasn't able to find a single example of someone who had voluntarily grounded themselves on the site. But we know they exist. Paul is one. Therefore, they must represent a small slice of the owners/operators of Xls. Essentially, statistically insignificant (yet loud with assertions). This invalidates a number of assertions I've seen which suggest that the reason there are few additional episodes is probably due to the lack of flight hours. Sorry, that suggestion is not supportable. The most likely explanation is that people are flying within the limits of the airplane in a reasonable, responsible manner. And, isn't that what everyone should do at all times? Fly your airplanes and enjoy them. ---------------------------------------------------------- Here are the results: - Total 601 XLs Flying in the US: 92 - "Flying" but indeterminate: 32 - "Flying" and flying: 60 - "Flying" but grounded: 0 - "Other" and grounded: 0 We now have sufficient data to test a number of hypotheses --------------------------------------------------- Hypothesis 1: "90% of the fleet are voluntarily grounded" To allow the best possibility of this, we'll assign all "Flying but indeterminate" to the "voluntarily grounded" category. Now we'll perform a Chi Square in the following way: Flying: Observed: 60 Expected: 9 (10% of 92) Grounded: Observed: 32 Expected: 83 (90% of 92) Chi Square = 0.0001 Thus, this hypothesis is exceedingly unlikely, and we reject it. ------------------------------------------------------- Hypothesis 2: "50% of the fleet are voluntarily grounded" Again, to allow for the reading of the data which would most support this possibility we assign all "Flying but indeterminate" to the "voluntarily grounded category" Flying: Observed: 60 Expected: 46 Grounded: Observed: 32 Expected: 46 Chi Square = 0.0035 Thus, as before, we reject the hypothesis ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hypothesis 3: "Everybody is flying" Flying: Observed: 60 Expected: 91 Grounded: Observed: 32 Expected: 1 Chi Square = 0.0001 Thus this must be rejected too. Thus, because we can't assign the indeterminate category, we can't make this statement either. It turns out the largest supportable global distribution of voluntarily grounded aircraft turns out to be about 20% IF you assume ALL indeterminates are voluntary groundings. This is probably not correct; thus, one might conclude that, among the Zenith.Aero community, there are few voluntary groundings. I suspect that, since there were NO explicit statements of voluntary grounding, they probably are pretty rare. Thus, fleet-hours are being accumulated at a rate consistent with what one would expect absent this unfortunate set of issues. From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of KARL POLIFKA Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:08 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Flying times Rubbish. Karl ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Mulwitz <mailto:psm(at)att.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:44 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Flying times Hi Roger, I hope you are not including me in the "nay-sayers of the opinion that only a few people are flying" but I suspect this is indeed your interpretation. I also object to your characterization of the problems with the Zodiac XL as "Flutter" mess. Let me try to clear up my own position. Flutter never was a serious likelihood to explain the XL problems. Indeed, the problems are a considerable number of fatal in-flight structural failures in the last few years. I don't know the exact number of these events but I think it is somewhere between 5 and 10 worldwide. As to the number of grounded XLs, my belief is that nobody knows the answer to this question. There is no official registry of flights world-wide to give a definitive answer. We all know that several countries in Europe have grounded the XL and that one of them, the UK, has released a long list of changes that will enable owners in that country to resume flights. As far as I know the other countries still have the XLs grounded. I appreciate the idea of having list members announce their own recent flight records. This is a haphazard way to determine how many planes are flying vs. grounded, but it is the best one I have heard of yet. So far I have counted around 8 owners who replied that they are still flying their XLs. For reference, the 2008 Kitplanes lists the number of completed and flying XLs as 950. I don't know how to interpret these related numbers, but it does seem only a few are still flying. Of course the number of responses is only a small percentage of the number actually in use. This is a limited, but large, email list of Zodiac builders and owners, and I am sure there are a number of owners flying that have not responded. Several list members have made it clear they are flying and have not responded to this query. If only 10 percent of the flying Zodiac XL owners have responded and the Kitplanes number is reasonably accurate that would suggest 90 percent of the fleet is grounded. This doesn't surprise me since the NTSB asked for this result and indeed several countries (not including the USA) have responded with regulatory force on the subject. Still, I am not sure of the real numbers, and I don't even think this really matters. My position always has been that we don't need a consensus on this issue. It is a decision each owner should make according to his own judgement and situation. It is only a few very vocal folks still flying their Zodiac XLs that seem to want a justification for their choice by citing numbers of people who agree with them. My own position since the NTSB letter has been, and remains, my plane is grounded until we get a formal release of engineering changes from Chris Heintz or one of his related companies to resolve this problem. That change has been promised to me by Sebastian Heintz as coming "Soon". I have no idea when his promise will be filled, but I will wait for it. I don't know why it seems to annoy some people so much that I have chosen this path, but apparently it does. Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 11:06 AM 10/28/2009, you wrote: Approximately 90 hrs/year. 220 in total on this airframe. The real question is: how many of you have stopped flying the airplane because of this "flutter" mess. The nay-sayers are of the opinion that only a few people are flying, and they're in the majority with their decision not to fly. I don't see anyone on ZenithAero having made that decision, and no, I don't include those don't have a finished airplane and spend their days wringing their hands and looking for another reason not to complete. href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List">http://www.matronic s.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 28, 2009
From: Terry Turnquist <ter_turn(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Flying times
Ouch Doug, you've hurt my brain! Thanks anyway.=0ATerry=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A____ ____________________________=0AFrom: Doug - SportAviation <Doug.Norman@spor taviation.aero>=0ATo: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Wed, October 28, 2009 4:36:05 PM=0ASubject: RE: Zenith601-List: Flying times=0A=0A =0APaul =99s right that nobody knows the actual number of =9Cgrounded =9D=0A601s, or those =9Cstill flying.=9D And there are so me weak arguments=0Aoffered which claim some statistical backup for what on e might conclude. He=99s=0Aalso correct that this isn=99t a con sensus activity. =0A =0AIf one could gather data on a reasonable sample of people who have=0AXLs, and mine their experiences, then one could apply sim ple non-parametric statistics=0Aand get a handle on what the likely status is.=0A =0ASo I took a couple of hours and went on the Zenith.Aero =0Asite to gather what data there might be. I went and pulled the member da ta from=0Athe site for all the 601 XLs which are flying in the US. I then d ivided them=0Ainto four categories: =0A1) Those who list themselves as =9Cflying,=9D but there=99s=0Anot enough data to put the m clearly into flying or not flying (as determined by=0Athere being no acti vity on the site. They registered, described themselves, but=0Ano other dat a is there to conclude whether they are actually flying or not).=0A2) Those who are clearly flying as determined by pictures,=0Adiscussions with others, etc.=0A3) Those who list themselves as flying, but are explici t about=0Akeeping themselves on the ground, or where one can reasonably inf er that they=0Aare not flying=0A4) Those who register as =9Cothe r=9D and who might have=0Achanged their listing from =9Cflying =9D based on them grounding=0Athemselves.=0A =0ARemember, these are o nly for those people who have registered on=0Athe site. The details are bel ow for those who want to check my math.=0A =0AThe results are clear: people , as a rule, are not grounding=0Athemselves. The explanation for the contin uing belief that they are grounding=0Athemselves must be due to those who a re asserting this without any data to=0Asupport their contention. In fact I wasn=99t able to find a single example=0Aof someone who had voluntar ily grounded themselves on the site. But we know=0Athey exist. Paul is one. Therefore, they must represent a small slice of the=0Aowners/operators of Xls. Essentially, statistically insignificant (yet loud=0Awith assertions). =0A =0AThis invalidates a number of assertions I=99ve seen which=0Asu ggest that the reason there are few additional episodes is probably due to =0Athe lack of flight hours. Sorry, that suggestion is not supportable.=0A =0AThe most likely explanation is that people are flying within the=0Alimit s of the airplane in a reasonable, responsible manner. And, isn=99t =0Athat what everyone should do at all times? Fly your airplanes and enjoy them.=0A =0A----------------------------------------------------------=0AHe re are the results:=0A =0A- Total 601 XLs Flying in the US: 92 =0A- =9CFlying=9D but indeterminate: 32=0A- =9CFlying=9D and flying: 60=0A- =9CFlying=9D but grounded: =0A0=0A- =9COther=9D and grounded: 0=0A =0AWe now have sufficient data to test a number of hypotheses=0A----------------- ----------------------------------=0AHypothesis 1: =9C90% of the flee t are voluntarily grounded=9D=0A =0ATo allow the best possibility of this, we=99ll assign all =9CFlying=0Abut indeterminate=9D to the =9Cvoluntarily grounded=9D category.=0ANow we=99l l perform a Chi Square in the following way:=0A Flying: =0AO bserved:=0A60 Expected: 9 (10%=0Aof 92)=0A Ground ed:=0A Observed:=0A32 Expected: 83 ( 90% of 92)=0A =0AChi Square = 0.0001 Thus,=0Athis hypothesis is e xceedingly unlikely, and we reject it.=0A---------------------------------- ---------------------=0A =0AHypothesis 2: =9C50% of the fleet are vol untarily grounded=9D=0A =0AAgain, to allow for the reading of the dat a which would most=0Asupport this possibility we assign all =9CFlying but indeterminate=9D=0Ato the =9Cvoluntarily grounded category =9D=0A =0A Flying:=0A O bserved:=0A60 Expected: 46=0A Grounded:=0A Observed:=0A32 Expected: 46=0A =0AChi Square = 0.00 35 Thus,=0Aas before, we reject the hypothesis=0A------------------ -----------------------------------------------=0A =0AHypothesis 3: =9CEverybody is flying=9D=0A =0A Flying:=0A Observed:=0A60 Expected: 91=0A Grou nded:=0A Observed:=0A32 Expected: 1=0A =0AChi Square = 0.0001 Thus=0Athis must be rejected too. Thus, be cause we can=99t assign the indeterminate=0Acategory, we can=99 t make this statement either.=0A =0AIt turns out the largest supportable global distribution of voluntarily=0Agrounded aircraft turns out to be about 20% IF you assume ALL=0Aindeterminates are voluntary ground ings. This is probably not correct; thus,=0Aone might conclude that, among the Zenith.Aero community, there are few=0Avoluntary groundings. =0A =0AI s uspect that, since there were NO explicit statements of=0Avoluntary groundi ng, they probably are pretty rare.=0A =0AThus, fleet-hours are being accumu lated at a rate consistent=0Awith what one would expect absent this unfortu nate set of issues. =0A =0AFrom:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com =0A[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of KARL=0AP OLIFKA=0ASent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:08 PM=0ATo: zenith601-list@mat ronics.com=0ASubject: Re: Zenith601-List: Flying times=0A =0ARubbish.=0A =0AKarl=0A>=0A>>=0A>-----=0A>Original Message ----- =0A>>=0A>From:Paul Mulw itz =0A>>=0A>To:zenith601-list(at)matronics.com =0A>>=0A>Sent:Wednesday, Octob er=0A>28, 2009 2:44 PM=0A>>=0A>Subject:Re: Zenith601-List:=0A>Flying times =0A>>=0A> =0A>Hi Roger,=0A>=0A>>I hope you are not including me in the "nay -sayers of the opinion that=0A>only a few people are flying" but I suspect this is indeed your=0A>interpretation. I also object to your characterizat ion of the problems=0A>with the Zodiac XL as "Flutter" mess. Let me try to clear up my=0A>own position.=0A>=0A>>Flutter never was a serious likelihoo d to explain the XL problems. =0A>Indeed, the problems are a considerable n umber of fatal in-flight structural=0A>failures in the last few years. I d on't know the exact number of these=0A>events but I think it is somewhere b etween 5 and 10 worldwide.=0A>=0A>>As to the number of grounded XLs, my bel ief is that nobody knows the answer to=0A>this question. There is no offic ial registry of flights world-wide to=0A>give a definitive answer. We all know that several countries in Europe=0A>have grounded the XL and that one of them, the UK, has released a long list of=0A>changes that will enable ow ners in that country to resume flights. As far=0A>as I know the other coun tries still have the XLs grounded.=0A>=0A>>I appreciate the idea of having list members announce their own recent flight=0A>records. This is a haphaz ard way to determine how many planes are flying=0A>vs. grounded, but it is the best one I have heard of yet.=0A>=0A>>So far I have counted around 8 ow ners who replied that they are still flying=0A>their XLs. For reference, t he 2008 Kitplanes lists the number of=0A>completed and flying XLs as 950. I don't know how to interpret these=0A>related numbers, but it does seem on ly a few are still flying. Of course=0A>the number of responses is only a small percentage of the number actually in=0A>use. This is a limited, but large, email list of Zodiac builders and=0A>owners, and I am sure there are a number of owners flying that have not=0A>responded. Several list member s have made it clear they are flying and=0A>have not responded to this quer y.=0A>=0A>>If only 10 percent of the flying Zodiac XL owners have responded and the=0A>Kitplanes number is reasonably accurate that would suggest 90 p ercent of the=0A>fleet is grounded. This doesn't surprise me since the NTS B asked for this=0A>result and indeed several countries (not including the USA) have responded with=0A>regulatory force on the subject. =0A>=0A>>Stil l, I am not sure of the real numbers, and I don't even think this really=0A >matters. My position always has been that we don't need a consensus on=0A >this issue. It is a decision each owner should make according to his own =0A>judgement and situation. It is only a few very vocal folks still flyin g=0A>their Zodiac XLs that seem to want a justification for their choice by citing=0A>numbers of people who agree with them. =0A>=0A>>My own position since the NTSB letter has been, and remains, my plane is=0A>grounded until we get a formal release of engineering changes from Chris Heintz=0A>or one of his related companies to resolve this problem. That change has=0A>been promised to me by Sebastian Heintz as coming "Soon". I=0A>have no idea wh en his promise will be filled, but I will wait for it. I=0A>don't know why it seems to annoy some people so much that I have chosen this=0A>path, but apparently it does.=0A>=0A>>Paul=0A>>XL awaiting engineering changes=0A> =0A>=0A>>At 11:06 AM 10/28/2009, you wrote:=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>Approximately 90 hrs/year. 220 in total on this airframe.=0A>The real question is: how many of you have stopped flying the airplane because=0A>of this "flutter" mess. The nay-sayers are of the opinion that only a=0A>few people are flying, an d they're in the majority with their decision not to=0A>fly. I don't see a nyone on ZenithAero having made that decision, and no,=0A>I don't include t hose don't have a finished airplane and spend their days=0A>wringing their hands and looking for another reason not to complete. =0A> =0A> =0A> =0A> =0A>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List">http://www .matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List=0A>href="http://forums.matronics. com">http://forums.matronics.com=0A>href="http://www.matronics.com/contri bution">http://www.matronics.com/c=0A =0A =0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/Nav igator?Zenith601-List=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com=0Ahttp://www.matronics. ===0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy" <rpf(at)wi.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Flying Times
Date: Oct 28, 2009
I've been flying almost every week (spring, summer, fall and winter) since May 2007. Longest down time was three and a half weeks do to weather. Randy 601xl 360hrs since May 2007 ----- Original Message ----- From: BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net To: zenith601-list-digest(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 8:50 AM Subject: Zenith601-List: Flying Times Guys can we get a show of hands on who is flying and how much. i would have done much more except for weather and runway construction. went to a fly-in 100 miles away. good time, good food. indicated 125 mph at 5500' with a 155 mph ground speed hopefully we are getting better weather. N131BP 601 XL E-AB 14hrs since June ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 28, 2009
From: Rosalie <rosestar(at)sonic.net>
Subject: How Many of You Have Grounded...
I grounded my plane from April 16th to April 24th. After reading the NTSB report thoroughly, I did some reading of the accident reports online. I decided for myself that the conclusions in the NTSB report were not supported by enough probative evidence and corroboration from the actual accident reports to keep my Zodiac XL grounded. I have flown my airplane ever since. I would love to see all the NTSB files on these accidents to look at site investigation photos and the notes of the investigators. I inform prospective passengers of the NTSB report and offer a copy to them before they fly with me. Usually they decline the report and ask "what does it say?" I tell them my reading and conclusions and why I fly my airplane. So far no one has declined to fly with me. My social friends know me as cautious. I won't bungy jump and I won't ride rollercoasters. So I guess they trust my judgment and cautious nature. Some of my flying friends who own other makes and models of experimental airplanes have volunteered their unsolicited thoughts. But, they all sincerely wish me well and safe flying. Those around my hanger flying certified aircraft are just curious and really don't know an issue exists with my airplane make and model. I do a really thorough pre-flight and follow the recommendations of Chris Heintz. As time goes by, and I continue to observe many (not just a few) Zodiacs flying without incident, it is hard for me to accept that a problem exists without pilot error as the primary and significant cause. Therefore, I fly and hope my piloting skills are up to snuff. Brad DeMeo N601BD 2008 Zodiac XL (QBK) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tonyplane" <Tonyplane(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Flying Times
Date: Oct 28, 2009
N493TG: 601XL (ser 6-5342)/Jab3300; first flight Jul 05 540 hrs; 1210 landings; (231 landings on rough, short farm strip) - now "based" on my farm 4 annual condition inspections Easy to fly. Lots of fun, inexpensive (relativity speaking) flying. (NO, I do not plan to balance my ailerons - modal surveys and flight testings for flutter, and my own flight testing has convinced me there is no flutter problem within the flight envelop. YES - I do believe you can fail the wings with the wing removal device found on the XL and on all airplanes, sometimes called the "stick" and on others the "yoke".) Tony Graziano Buchanan, Tn ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Jabiru USA 3300 engine mount NOT to Specs
From: "601RX" <aubme11(at)aol.com>
Date: Oct 28, 2009
I purchased a damaged 601xl earlier this year from a insurance company and have been repairing it for the last couple of months. It had suffered a bent nose gear also on one of it's first taxi test. It looked exactly like yours. The top of the firewall did not bend any, and the bottom was pushed back about 4 inches. The good thing is that the damage was contained to the firewall, cabin floor, engine mount, oil cooler, muffler and cowl. It did not get back into the wing spar carry through. It was fairly easy to fix the airframe. On my plane the nose gear was bent straight backward and up into the cabin floor. My engine mount was bent also. I also found that it the 2 lower bars were built from .035 and not .058. I called and e-mailed the Zenith print to Jabiru USA. They informed me that they used .035 tubing for the entire mount. I also talked with Pete at the Zenith Fly-in this year and he confirmed that the built their mounts out of all .035. I replaced the 2 lower bars with .058 as the Zenith print called for. He also told me that there had been several prop strikes on the 3300, and all the engines where ok. He did say to be sure to replace the flywheel bolts as well as the bolts that hold the crank extension/prop adaptor to the crankshaft. The muffler is expensive, but it only takes a couple of hours to make a new "Skin" for it. I almost have my plane back ready to fly. -------- Mike Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269935#269935 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1010176_684.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1010178_406.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Flying Times
Date: Oct 28, 2009
What Randy are you? Are you my Pal Randy Stout of San Antonio? Are you Randy, Las vegas? No wait that's me. Are you another Randy? Need to add an identifyer here. Regards, Randy, Las Vegas ----- Original Message ----- From: Randy To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:49 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Flying Times I've been flying almost every week (spring, summer, fall and winter) since May 2007. Longest down time was three and a half weeks do to weather. Randy 601xl 360hrs since May 2007 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Nose wheel fork failure
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Oct 28, 2009
Here's a question for the structural engineers out there,what affect did the wrong wall thickness[.035" instead of .058" ] of the engine mount have on allowing the two lower mounting points to move towards the middle to accommodate the the crushing of the firewall and lower bearing support structure as the nose wheel tube moved back due to the loads.The thin wall tube no.6-7 bent forward [the triangle piece] Cheers T87 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269945#269945 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Franke" <pfranke(at)tpg.com.au>
Subject: Flying Times
Date: Oct 29, 2009
Flying since March this year. 72 hours so far, and having a ball! 19-7024 Peter F in Oz _____ From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net Sent: Thursday, 29 October 2009 12:50 AM Subject: Zenith601-List: Flying Times Guys can we get a show of hands on who is flying and how much. i would have done much more except for weather and runway construction. went to a fly-in 100 miles away. good time, good food. indicated 125 mph at 5500' with a 155 mph ground speed hopefully we are getting better weather. N131BP 601 XL E-AB 14hrs since June ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: (no subject)
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Oct 29, 2009
Nice. Got a chuckle out of the guy who said, "It sounds just like an aviation motor". - Pat -------- Patrick XL/650/Corvair N63PZ (reserved) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269957#269957 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How many of you have grounded...
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Oct 29, 2009
What about builders who have completed and signed-off XL's that have not yet flown? There's one local guy in my area who finished his airplane last winter who hasn't flown yet. He hasn't been coming around, so we don't know what's up with him. Could be afraid. Could be sick, or have other reasons. Don't know... Also know of one other guy with a finished and signed off XL who hasn't flown yet. Has been a few months. The way I feel, when I get my XL signed off, I can't imagine delaying very long until it's first flight. Patrick 90%. -------- Patrick XL/650/Corvair N63PZ (reserved) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269960#269960 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Young Eagles in XL?
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Oct 29, 2009
Anybody flying Young Eagles in their XL's...? When I was a little kid a guy gave me a ride in his airplane. Meant a lot to me. I'd eventually like to return the favor for other kids. Anybody catching any flak or encountering resistance in using your XL for Young Eagle flights...? Patrick 90% -------- Patrick XL/650/Corvair N63PZ (reserved) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269961#269961 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 29, 2009
Subject: Flying times
From: roger lambert <n601ap(at)gmail.com>
Hi Paul: Actually, I recently conducted a poll on the ZBAG list. The results were for a period of 3 months this summer. There were 32 different people responding to anything posted on the list. Of those who responded to the poll: anonymously, I might add so they would feel free to speak their real feelings: 44% didn't believe the FAA statement that the 601xl is capable of safe flight if built and flown according to manufacturers specifications(11 of 25) 37.5% didn't believe The Austrian GVT testing and the opinions expressed as a result of that testing(one of them, who has wholeheartedly embraced the LAA tried and true method of conducting GVT testing of putting wood on the wingtip and whacking it with a hammer, actually wanted "independent" verification of the Austrian GVT testing).(6 0f 16) So when you write: "I hope you are not including me in the "nay-sayers of the opinion that only a few people are flying" but I suspect this is indeed your interpretation" We need only look at your subsequent statements: "If only 10 percent of the flying Zodiac XL owners have responded and the Kitplanes number is reasonably accurate that would suggest 90 percent of the fleet is grounded." and " but it does seem only a few are still flying. " Accordingly, I think you placed yourself in that group. Secondly, your statements: " I also object to your characterization of the problems with the Zodiac XL as "Flutter" mess. Let me try to clear up my own position. Flutter never was a serious likelihood to explain the XL problems. " are belied by your actions. I was present at Sun-n-Fun. A whole tentful of people saw and heard you shout repeatedly at the Heintz brothers that the NTSB says flutter is the problem and when are you going to fix the ailerons so many times that the rest of the crowd told you to shut up and let other people speak. You then proceeded to stalk the brothers across the area back to the Zenith display where you continued the harange until you left the area. If flutter was never a serious likelihood, why such actions? Third, the statement: " It is only a few very vocal folks still flying their Zodiac XLs that seem to want a justification for their choice by citing numbers of people who agree with them." appears to be contraindicated. Actually the statistics support the proposition that it is a very vocal minority that are engaged that are justifying their position by refusing to believe any test, study or opinion that is at variance with the NTSB statement. Fourth: "My own position since the NTSB letter has been, and remains, my plane is grounded until we get a formal release of engineering changes from Chris Heintz or one of his related companies to resolve this problem." Which problem is that? If its not flutter( as per the NTSB, which you now say never a serious likelihood),what is(are) it(they)? Give us all an engineering analysis by an aeronautical engineer willing to actually sign his name to a document for public review that actually states the casual factor( the assumption implicit by the hand wringers in all this of their being only one) of the crashes and how to fix it. The FAA, NTSB, LAA and ZBAG despite millions of dollars haven't been able to do it . Lastly: " I don't know why it seems to annoy some people so much that I have chosen this path, but apparently it does." Perhaps its the circular logic, you continually state: 1. I won't fly because of the NTSB letter saying flutter is the cause of the accidents. 2. Flutter was never a serious likelihood to explain the accidents. 3. I still won't fly because of the NTSB flutter letter. Personally, I hope CH does come up with something, anything, to stop this ceaseless game of Whack-a-Mole being played by some members of these groups. If its not flutter, its rivit strength, or aileron bellcrank support or the rear spar attach or the hole in the rear spar for the aileron actuator rod. All most of us ever wanted was reputable analysis of the accidents for causation and some engineered fix. It would have been easy for CH to just put forth an external mass balanced aileron for everyone and pretend the problem is solved. Fortunately or unfortunately, he has too much integrity and has done, and paid for, those tests and studies to determine potential causes and solutions. Let's see what he comes up with. It all the accidents had one single cause, it would have been apparent and identified by now. It it were one design flaw, it would be happening to every aircraft built in accordance with that design operated within the same flight envelope. Risk managment is the goal, risk elimination is a figment of imagination. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tonyplane" <Tonyplane(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Young Eagles in XL?
Date: Oct 29, 2009
About 15 this year. On 3 Oct, gave 8 Y.E. rides during "Aluminum Overcast"'s visit to 0M4 (Camden, Tn). Neat stating "Nr. 2 following the Boeing". No problems or any questions. Tony Graziano XL/Jab; N493TG ----- Original Message ----- From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:44 AM Subject: Zenith601-List: Young Eagles in XL? > > Anybody flying Young Eagles in their XL's...? > > When I was a little kid a guy gave me a ride in his airplane. Meant a lot > to me. > > I'd eventually like to return the favor for other kids. > > Anybody catching any flak or encountering resistance in using your XL for > Young Eagle flights...? > > Patrick > 90% > > -------- > Patrick > XL/650/Corvair > N63PZ (reserved) > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269961#269961 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 29, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Flying times
Hi Roger, I really appreciate your comments. Instead of making personal attacks, as some have done, you are making reasonably logical comments on my actual statements. I will try my best to give you straight answers to your questions. I never thought flutter was an issue with the XL. My reason is the fact observed by witnesses to a couple of the accidents that the breakups tend to happen in level flight at moderate to slow speeds. My understanding of flutter is that it is a high speed phenomenon and that increased speed greatly increases the likelihood. In my personal interpretation of the NTSB letter, the real issue was always the structure failures and the comments about flutter were just a side issue. The NTSB is in the business of analyzing accidents and their causes rather than engineering and design choices. We all know the airplanes failed and lots of people died. What ever the underlying cause of the failures is this simple fact is the basis of the NTSB letter and my own feelings. OK, this may not be the only way to read the letter, but it is indeed my interpretation. I understand some people were so focused on the question of flutter it didn't matter what I or anyone else said. They simply heard "Flutter problem" rather than what was actually said. I don't feel qualified to have a professional opinion on the underlying cause of the failures. With that caveat, I do have a personal opinion about the basic problem. I think the light pitch control forces and the gradient problem first identified in the NTSB letter are the root of the problem. I also know there is some "Problem" that causes loud vibrations in level flight as reported by Bill of GA. His winning solution for this problem was not a speed reduction - the normal solution if flutter is a problem - but unloading the wings by entering a steep bank. I don't think the noisy vibration is actually fatal, but I think some pilots respond to this phenomenon as if it were flutter and sharply pull and push the stick removing the wings. If this is indeed true and not just my own personal musing then the change already announced by Chris Heintz to reduce the pitch sensitivity with some sort of springs will indeed help reduce the accident rate. It also means those pilots who are cool enough in an "Emergency" situation to maintain gentle control forces will be safe in XLs with or without the engineering change. On to another engineering point . . . even though I am convinced flutter is not a problem I am still willing to install a mass balance change on the ailerons of my plane. My reasoning may be impossible to follow, but here it is. I have heard many "Old timers" from the FAA and my local pilot community say that this is a necessary change for safety. They can't convince me that the XL has a flutter problem and this fixes it. They have convinced me that planes with balanced control surfaces (virtually all existing planes with metal control surfaces) have better safety records. Put this all together and you can see I am willing to add a few pounds to my plane to get the ailerons balanced simply because I think it might help and can't hurt. I hope I have answered your questions. The only point I want to emphasize is that the changes I want have already been promised from Chris with no specific delivery date other than "Soon". My decision to wait for those changes and install them in my plane shouldn't upset anyone. Since my "Choice of words" seems to upset some people I am indeed sorry. I am trying to be straight forward with my ideas without inflammatory language. I do want to make one more comment. I have started building a Wittman Buttercup and have joined several email lists relating to that airplane and its builders/owners. I have not seen a single instance of the kind of abrasive personal attacks that regularly happen on this list. Perhaps it is because the other group is mostly experienced builders rather than first timers like the Zenith community. I wish there were some magic wand I could wave to get the Zenith community to act more professionally and with less personal attacks. If I left out any significant points please let me know. I meant to answer all your concerns, but I am not perfect - particularly in the memory area. Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 08:31 AM 10/29/2009, you wrote: > If flutter was never a serious likelihood, why such actions? > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 29, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: NTSB letter and flutter.
After the last round of heated discussion over the NTSB letter regarding flutter I decided to check the language in the actual letter. The first paragraph of the letter in question is copied below. The letter itself says: "It appears . . .flutter . . . likely source". This is a country mile away from a statement that flutter caused the accidents. It is merely a conjecture that is presented for further consideration and testing. Paul XL awaiting engineering changes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The National Transportation Safety Board has investigated a series of in-flight structural breakups of Zodiac CH-601XL airplanes designed by Zenair, Inc., that occurred in the United States in the last 3 years. The Safety Board is also aware of several in-flight structural breakups of CH-601XLs that have occurred abroad. It appears that aerodynamic flutter is the likely source of four of the U.S. accidents and of at least two foreign accidents. The Safety Board believes urgent action is needed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to prevent additional in-flight breakups. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Floyd Gantt" <fgantt(at)texaviation.com>
Subject: Re: Flying times
Date: Oct 29, 2009
PaulI think we grow tired of the constant posting of known facts.Why can't we wait and see what Chris and Zenith Aircraft's final report recommends. Each person has made their own decision to ground or not to ground their airplane. I think the statement ,"I do want to make one more comment. I have started building a Wittman Buttercup and have joined several email lists relating to that airplane and its builders/owners. I have not seen a single instance of the kind of abrasive personal attacks that regularly happen on this list. Perhaps it is because the other group is mostly experienced builders rather than first timers like the Zenith community. I wish there were some magic wand I could wave to get the Zenith community to act more professionally and with less personal attacks",is condescending and unnecessary. Floyd Gantt ---------------------------------------- From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm(at)att.net> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:26 AM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Flying times Hi Roger, I really appreciate your comments. Instead of making personal attacks, as some have done, you are making reasonably logical comments on my actual statements. I will try my best to give you straight answers to your questions. I never thought flutter was an issue with the XL. My reason is the fact observed by witnesses to a couple of the accidents that the breakups tend to happen in level flight at moderate to slow speeds. My understanding of flutter is that it is a high speed phenomenon and that increased speed greatly increases the likelihood. In my personal interpretation of the NTSB letter, the real issue was always the structure failures and the comments about flutter were just a side issue. The NTSB is in the business of analyzing accidents and their causes rather than engineering and design choices. We all know the airplanes failed and lots of people died. What ever the underlying cause of the failures is this simple fact is the basis of the NTSB letter and my own feelings. OK, this may not be the only way to read the letter, but it is indeed my interpretation. I understand some people were so focused on the question of flutter it didn't matter what I or anyone else said. They simply heard "Flutter problem" rather than what was actually said. I don't feel qualified to have a professional opinion on the underlying cause of the failures. With that caveat, I do have a personal opinion about the basic problem. I think the light pitch control forces and the gradient problem first identified in the NTSB letter are the root of the problem. I also know there is some "Problem" that causes loud vibrations in level flight as reported by Bill of GA. His winning solution for this problem was not a speed reduction - the normal solution if flutter is a problem - but unloading the wings by entering a steep bank. I don't think the noisy vibration is actually fatal, but I think some pilots respond to this phenomenon as if it were flutter and sharply pull and push the stick removing the wings. If this is indeed true and not just my own personal musing then the change already announced by Chris Heintz to reduce the pitch sensitivity with some sort of springs will indeed help reduce the accident rate. It also means those pilots who are cool enough in an "Emergency" situation to maintain gentle control forces will be safe in XLs with or without the engineering change. On to another engineering point . . . even though I am convinced flutter is not a problem I am still willing to install a mass balance change on the ailerons of my plane. My reasoning may be impossible to follow, but here it is. I have heard many "Old timers" from the FAA and my local pilot community say that this is a necessary change for safety. They can't convince me that the XL has a flutter problem and this fixes it. They have convinced me that planes with balanced control surfaces (virtually all existing planes with metal control surfaces) have better safety records. Put this all together and you can see I am willing to add a few pounds to my plane to get the ailerons balanced simply because I think it might help and can't hurt. I hope I have answered your questions. The only point I want to emphasize is that the changes I want have already been promised from Chris with no specific delivery date other than "Soon". My decision to wait for those changes and install them in my plane shouldn't upset anyone. Since my "Choice of words" seems to upset some people I am indeed sorry. I am trying to be straight forward with my ideas without inflammatory language. I do want to make one more comment. I have started building a Wittman Buttercup and have joined several email lists relating to that airplane and its builders/owners. I have not seen a single instance of the kind of abrasive personal attacks that regularly happen on this list. Perhaps it is because the other group is mostly experienced builders rather than first timers like the Zenith community. I wish there were some magic wand I could wave to get the Zenith community to act more professionally and with less personal attacks. If I left out any significant points please let me know. I meant to answer all your concerns, but I am not perfect - particularly in the memory area. Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 08:31 AM 10/29/2009, you wrote: > If flutter was never a serious likelihood, why such actions? > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tonyplane" <Tonyplane(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Flying times
Date: Oct 29, 2009
Paul, Statements made by witnesses as to what they think they observed do not necessarily contain true facts. The statement is a fact; however, the supposed observations contained in the statement are often proven false. Also the problem reported by Bill of Ga apparently was caused by super turbulent air encountered above a power plant, a phenomena not encountered in typical level flight. Tony Graziano ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm(at)att.net> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:18 AM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Flying times > > Hi Roger, > > I really appreciate your comments. Instead of making personal attacks, as > some have done, you are making reasonably logical comments on my actual > statements. I will try my best to give you straight answers to your > questions. > > I never thought flutter was an issue with the XL. My reason is the fact > observed by witnesses to a couple of the accidents that the breakups tend > to happen in level flight at moderate to slow speeds. My understanding of > flutter is that it is a high speed phenomenon and that increased speed > greatly increases the likelihood. > > In my personal interpretation of the NTSB letter, the real issue was > always the structure failures and the comments about flutter were just a > side issue. The NTSB is in the business of analyzing accidents and their > causes rather than engineering and design choices. We all know the > airplanes failed and lots of people died. What ever the underlying cause > of the failures is this simple fact is the basis of the NTSB letter and my > own feelings. OK, this may not be the only way to read the letter, but it > is indeed my interpretation. > > I understand some people were so focused on the question of flutter it > didn't matter what I or anyone else said. They simply heard "Flutter > problem" rather than what was actually said. > > I don't feel qualified to have a professional opinion on the underlying > cause of the failures. With that caveat, I do have a personal opinion > about the basic problem. I think the light pitch control forces and the > gradient problem first identified in the NTSB letter are the root of the > problem. I also know there is some "Problem" that causes loud vibrations > in level flight as reported by Bill of GA. His winning solution for this > problem was not a speed reduction - the normal solution if flutter is a > problem - but unloading the wings by entering a steep bank. I don't think > the noisy vibration is actually fatal, but I think some pilots respond to > this phenomenon as if it were flutter and sharply pull and push the stick > removing the wings. If this is indeed true and not just my own personal > musing then the change already announced by Chris Heintz to reduce the > pitch sensitivity with some sort of springs will indeed help reduce the > accident rate. It also means those pilots who are cool enough in an > "Emergency" situation to maintain gentle control forces will be safe in > XLs with or without the engineering change. > > On to another engineering point . . . even though I am convinced flutter > is not a problem I am still willing to install a mass balance change on > the ailerons of my plane. My reasoning may be impossible to follow, but > here it is. I have heard many "Old timers" from the FAA and my local > pilot community say that this is a necessary change for safety. They > can't convince me that the XL has a flutter problem and this fixes it. > They have convinced me that planes with balanced control surfaces > (virtually all existing planes with metal control surfaces) have better > safety records. Put this all together and you can see I am willing to add > a few pounds to my plane to get the ailerons balanced simply because I > think it might help and can't hurt. > > I hope I have answered your questions. The only point I want to emphasize > is that the changes I want have already been promised from Chris with no > specific delivery date other than "Soon". My decision to wait for those > changes and install them in my plane shouldn't upset anyone. Since my > "Choice of words" seems to upset some people I am indeed sorry. I am > trying to be straight forward with my ideas without inflammatory language. > > I do want to make one more comment. I have started building a Wittman > Buttercup and have joined several email lists relating to that airplane > and its builders/owners. I have not seen a single instance of the kind of > abrasive personal attacks that regularly happen on this list. Perhaps it > is because the other group is mostly experienced builders rather than > first timers like the Zenith community. I wish there were some magic wand > I could wave to get the Zenith community to act more professionally and > with less personal attacks. > > If I left out any significant points please let me know. I meant to > answer all your concerns, but I am not perfect - particularly in the > memory area. > > Paul > XL awaiting engineering changes > > > At 08:31 AM 10/29/2009, you wrote: >> If flutter was never a serious likelihood, why such actions? >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Reaming wing attach holes
From: "Cle" <wohlmuth10(at)gmx.at>
Date: Oct 29, 2009
Hello, My name is Clemens living in Austria and I am building a 601XL from plans and I have a big problem finding the correct reamer size for the wing attach holes. For example if i buy a 1/4" reamer and ream the hole with it I can feel a small play when I inserting a AN4 Bolt in the hole - also small play with close tolerance bolts. What do you think? Is that play okay? I think if you install this "heay", "long" wing you will not feel any play at the bolt - but I want to make sure befor I destroy a wing- and centerspar. Thanks for your help, Cle Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269997#269997 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 29, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Reaming wing attach holes
Hi Cle, My experience is that a reamed 1/4 inch hole will provide a snug fit for a normal AN-4 bolt. I used a hand reamer with slow and gentle force, after drilling perhaps 30/1000 inch smaller holes to reach this point. Perhaps you are using a chucking reamer in a vibrating drill to do your reaming and this might give different results. The good news is you are unlikely to destroy your plane at this point. You can always go to larger, AN-5, bolts if necessary. I am not an expert on this stuff, but I feel the 12 bolts used to hold the wings to the spar carry through are probably a bit much for safety. If one or two of the bolts is not quite perfectly installed I think you will probable still be just fine. Even if they are all a little bit loose before being torqued in place the torqued bolts will still provide a great deal of strength for the total structure. Good luck, Paul XL awaiting engineering changes At 10:59 AM 10/29/2009, you wrote: >Hello, >My name is Clemens living in Austria and I am building a 601XL from >plans and I have a big problem finding the correct reamer size for >the wing attach holes. >For example if i buy a 1/4" reamer and ream the hole with it I can >feel a small play when I inserting a AN4 Bolt in the hole - also >small play with close tolerance bolts. >What do you think? Is that play okay? I think if you install this >"heay", "long" wing you will not feel any play at the bolt - but I >want to make sure befor I destroy a wing- and centerspar. >Thanks for your help, >Cle ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 29, 2009
From: mversteeg <maarten.versteeg(at)swri.org>
Subject: Re: Flying times
Hello, Two months ago I took a number of training lessons in a 650 (117FA) from Forsyth Aviation in Virginia. Since they are a commercial operation they decided to limit he take-off weight to the suggested value and yes this limits the maximum flight duration. But they have a light-weight (physical not regarding his qualifications) instructor available so it is still doable. Regards, Maarten Versteeg, San Antonio plansbuilding 601xl, working on fuselage ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy" <rpf(at)wi.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Flying Times
Date: Oct 29, 2009
I'm Randy from Wisconsin. ----- Original Message ----- From: Randy L. Thwing To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:01 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Flying Times What Randy are you? Are you my Pal Randy Stout of San Antonio? Are you Randy, Las vegas? No wait that's me. Are you another Randy? Need to add an identifyer here. Regards, Randy, Las Vegas ----- Original Message ----- From: Randy To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:49 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Flying Times I've been flying almost every week (spring, summer, fall and winter) since May 2007. Longest down time was three and a half weeks do to weather. Randy 601xl 360hrs since May 2007 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Reaming wing attach holes
From: "Cle" <wohlmuth10(at)gmx.at>
Date: Oct 29, 2009

August 31, 2009 - October 29, 2009

Zenith601-Archive.digest.vol-aj