Zenith601-Archive.digest.vol-an
May 16, 2010 - July 11, 2010
Zenith601-Archive.digest.vol-an
May 16, 2010 - July 11, 2010
----- Original Message -----
From: Karl <mailto:jfowler120(at)verizon.net> Polifka
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Alieron Trim
FYI -- after a couple of nose slam-down landings at near stall speed (with
extensive and expensive firewall damage), our landing procedure is a 60 kias
half-flap approach with a relatively shallow and fully controlled touchdown
at around 50 -55 kias. It makes little roll-out distance difference (this
is not a STOL airplane) and keeps the insurance company happy. I wouldn't
sweat the elevator trim business and would very strongly recommend not
getting into that envelope.
Karl
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Alieron Trim/ flap travel
Date: May 16, 2010
From: afterfxllc(at)aol.com
I've got both styles on working aircraft and I will go measure the travel
on both but it just seems to me the new unit has less but I will confirm
this tomorrow. You may be in fact correct.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Payne <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Sent: Sun, May 16, 2010 7:37 pm
Subject: RE: Zenith601-List: Zenith-List: Alieron Trim/ flap travel
Really? I've had both the old one with the exposed micro-switches and the
new sealed one (circa Nov. 2008) and measured the travel of both. Unless
you crack open the sealed unit you can't adjust the travel. From the fact
ory the travel of mine was 2 and 1/8th inches or 54mm. The plans page for
new style actuator here (dated 11/06) show a travel of 50 mm:
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/data/6b19.pdf
For the old actuator the rough settings shown for the micro switches show
in 6-B-19 (dated 08/05) give about 2 inches of travel (63mm - 12mm = 51
mm or about 2 inches) but this adjustment is refined for 30 degree travel
as specified on 6-S-3.
For both the old and new plans the center-to-center length of the arm that
connects the actuator to the flap torque tube (6B19-3) is listed as 170
mm. And the arm that drives the flap (at least on the right, 6B19-1) has
a center-to-center distance of 105 mm for the old and new design. So if
the actuators travel the same distance and the arms are the same length
then how did the angle swept change? Or has there been a third design?
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-li
st-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Zenith-List: Alieron Trim/ flap travel
Yes the new style actuator has less travel and my test pilot had the same
concern about lack of elevator trim with full flaps but with half flaps
and keeping his speed up it works fine. Full flaps isn't necessary. He sa
id what was strange was it stalled right at 38 to 40 but wouldn't dare do
that on a landing.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Payne <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Sent: Sun, May 16, 2010 6:54 pm
Subject: RE: Zenith601-List: Zenith-List: Alieron Trim/ flap travel
At least with my 2000 vintage plans and kit the factory actuator traveled
a bit under 2 inches. This was the actuator with the exposed microswitche
s.
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-li
st-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of fritz
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Zenith-List: Alieron Trim/ flap travel
At a later date, wasn't the flap actuator travel changed from 4" to 2" ?
To restrict the flap travel?
----- Original Message -----
From: Karl Polifka
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Zenith-List: Alieron Trim
FYI -- after a couple of nose slam-down landings at near stall speed (with
extensive and expensive firewall damage), our landing procedure is a 60
kias half-flap approach with a relatively shallow and fully controlled to
uchdown at around 50 -55 kias. It makes little roll-out distance differen
ce (this is not a STOL airplane) and keeps the insurance company happy.
I wouldn't sweat the elevator trim business and would very strongly recom
mend not getting into that envelope.
Karl
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
ref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
ref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
ref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
ref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
t" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
p://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
ref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
ref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
========================
===========
-= - 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: Zenith-List: Alieron Trim/ flap travel
From: "Ron Lendon" <ron.lendon(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 16, 2010
Jeff,
Measure the angle of deflection at the flap. That's what we should be looking
at anyway, the actual movement of the control surface.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=297949#297949
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 17, 2010
Subject: Trim Tab
From: David Brown <dwbbrown(at)gmail.com>
> I also have the small trim tab. I called Zenith they said it needed to
> bigger. So I over lapped the existing Tab with a new piece of aluminum that
> gave me twice the previous surface area. Since I never needed any down
> trim, I reposition the length of the arm from the servo so that neutral for
> the servo is slightly up trim, this gives about 10 or 15 degrees of extra up
> trim at full throw. The trim tab itself is at neutral in normal cruise
> flight hence no extra drag.
David
N601EX
CH601XLT JAB3300
165 hrs 25 since upgrade
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Austin" <daveaustin2(at)primus.ca>
Subject: Re: Trim Tab
Date: May 17, 2010
When you added the extra to the trim tab, did you check that you could
overcome full trim in both directions with the stick at all speeds?
Dave austin
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 18, 2010
Subject: Trim tab
From: David Brown <dwbbrown(at)gmail.com>
>
> From: "Dave Austin" <daveaustin2(at)primus.ca>
> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Trim Tab
>
> When you added the extra to the trim tab, did you check that you could
> overcome full trim in both directions with the stick at all speeds?
> Dave austin
>
>
> No, not at all speeds, a micro-switch did stick once at full throw, I had
no trouble with control at normal cruise speeds.
My additional area is not greater than the area on the full length trim tab
that Zenith now supplies and has tested.
David
N601EX
CH601XLT JAB3300
165 hrs 25 since upgrade
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: upgrade question
From: Lee Steensland <lee(at)steensland.net>
Date: May 18, 2010
Who knew you had to be a machinist to install the upgrade!
I'm learning about all sorts of new things: transfer punches, reamers,
solid rivets.
The plans state that the main spar attach bolt holes in the center spar
should be drilled undersized then reamed to the proper diameter (5/16).
To me that appears to be a pretty open ended statement. If you google
"reamer" you get many and varied hits for all different kinds of
reamers. Does anyone have a suggestion as to what kind of reamer we
should use and where to get one?
Should we also ream the bolt holes for 6-ZU-2-4?
What have other people done?
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: upgrade question
Date: May 19, 2010
Hi Lee,
Reamers do indeed come in a lot of different forms. For this kind of work, I prefer
hand reamers. They tend to be several inches longer than other kinds and
mount in tap holders. I selected "Left hand spiral, Right Hand cut" for my
Zodiac XL spar work, but other choices would probably work about the same.
What you probably don't want is "Chucking Reamer" types. These are meant for milling
machines and fancier "Machining Centers" where the machine provides the
stability rather than the shape of the reamer.
I like to drill 10 or 20 thousandths undersize before reaming a hole in aluminum.
There are many "Cutting Tool" vendors that all supply good stuff. Travers tool
is a good one on the East coast, MSC works well in most parts of the USA.
I don't know which holes should be reamed, so I'll let someone else address that
question. I personally think this is a big issue when a wing is attached to
the fuselage with one bolt, but when there are six of them I doubt the perfection
of the hole is a big deal.
Paul
XL installing upgrade (slowly)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lee Steensland
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 8:04 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: upgrade question
Who knew you had to be a machinist to install the upgrade!
I'm learning about all sorts of new things: transfer punches, reamers,
solid rivets.
The plans state that the main spar attach bolt holes in the center spar
should be drilled undersized then reamed to the proper diameter (5/16).
To me that appears to be a pretty open ended statement. If you google
"reamer" you get many and varied hits for all different kinds of
reamers. Does anyone have a suggestion as to what kind of reamer we
should use and where to get one?
Should we also ream the bolt holes for 6-ZU-2-4?
What have other people done?
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 19, 2010
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: upgrade question
Hi Lee
I am definitely not a machinist, but I can tell you what I am doing, though
I am still in the early stages. Most of what I've learned about reamers was
by buying the wrong thing at $18/ea.
I think the best ones are the "piloted reamers," e.g.,
http://browntool.com/Default.aspx?tabid=255&txtSearch=reamer&List=1&SortField=ProductName%2cProductNumber&catpageindex=2&ProductID=1010
which has a short pilot of 0.2969" dia. to fit in your sub-5/16" pilot
hole, followed by a section of 0.3125", to ream the hole precisely to
5/16". That assumes that you hold your drill perfectly normal to the
spar---or are using a good drill press. There are (slightly) cheaper
reamers that are not piloted.
I don't trust my hand drill skills, so I think I'll bolt my drill press to
my work table for the reaming.
I'm also using reamers for the bolt joints through the 1/8" spar cap, spar
cap doubler, web, and spar root doubler plate. I'm using AN4's rather than
AN3's, because the holes in my spar cap and my spar cap doubler are
substantially larger than 0.1875" . I bought a .247 x .231 HSS Piloted
Chucking Reamer for those holes (my AN4's measure about 0.245").
Good call on the 6-ZU-2-4 bolts. You're way ahead of me. I believe that the
bolts in the main spar are loaded primarily in shear (so a tight bolt hole
is critical to avoid stress concentrations, which can lead to fatigue
failure). I suspect the center spar bolt are in tension between the bolted
spar caps, but in shear between the spar caps and the spar uprights. In any
case, I do not believe that a tight bolt hole hurts (assuming that holes
line up in the different layers), so I'll plan to use my .247 x .231 AN4-
piloted reamer for those holes also. 'Good idea.
Terry
>Who knew you had to be a machinist to install the upgrade!
>
>I'm learning about all sorts of new things: transfer punches, reamers,
>solid rivets.
>
>The plans state that the main spar attach bolt holes in the center spar
>should be drilled undersized then reamed to the proper diameter (5/16).
>To me that appears to be a pretty open ended statement. If you google
>"reamer" you get many and varied hits for all different kinds of
>reamers. Does anyone have a suggestion as to what kind of reamer we
>should use and where to get one?
>
>Should we also ream the bolt holes for 6-ZU-2-4?
>
>What have other people done?
>
>Thanks!
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done;
Upgrading wings & ailerons per the AMD Safety Directive
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
From: "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Date: May 19, 2010
Lee,
The reamer you want to use is called a chucking reamer.
It has straight flutes and can be turned by hand or by a drill motor.
I suggest you turn it by hand.
A piloted reamer is handy but not totally necessary.
5/16 is .3125
The upgrade instructions specify the tolerance to be +.004
This means you holes cannot be larger than .3165or you will need to go to an over
sized bolt that is less than 3/8th.
these are very expensive.
The reamer size you want is .3125"
It is not necessary to ream the bolts in the main spar.
These bolts are not in shear really, they are mostly in tension.
as the spar is stressed the caps want to separate or bend away from each other.
this would allow them to collapse.
The bolt (&or rivets) hold them together and force them to flex in the correct
direction which is edge wise.
Clear as mud?
I hope this helps,
Brady
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298202#298202
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
From: "Ron Lendon" <ron.lendon(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 19, 2010
Lee,
Brady and I are machinists, here is a picture of how I keep things square when
I can't use a machine. It's a vee block, not show is my hand holding it in place
while I use the reamer and cutting oil everywhere.
http://mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=rlendon&project=113&category=0&log=24457&row=671
I used this method on one upgrade and the fit was good on all the holes.
YMMV
Practice, practice, practice, and oh yeah, practice.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298213#298213
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2010
From: BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net
Subject: Pushrods
List
I am changing over to pushrods on the ailerons of my 601 during the upgrade. I
am planning on using 1 1/8" O.D. x .039 6061 - T6 tubing in one piece. The overall
length from center to center of the Heim bearings is 96".the same tube is
used on several RV's. The RV-4 is ~ 66" Has anyone out there installed one piece
pushrods and what size tubing was used. The above tube is plenty strong but
I am concerned about vibration and harmonics on such a long tube. i would appreciate
it if someone could e-mail a description or photos of their installation
and how many hours they have flown.
Thanks for any help
Bobby
Florida
601 XL 96 hrs before upgrade.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: JohnDRead(at)aol.com
Date: May 20, 2010
Subject: Re: upgrade question
Brady;
I would not use a chucking reamer by hand the straight flutes
are designed to be driven by a machine tool such as a milling machine or
a
lathe. Reaming by hand is best done with a hand reamer which has spiral
flutes and a taper to the diameter for a short distance.
Regards, John
CH701 - Colorado - Jabiru 3300
Cell: 719-494-4567
Home: 303-648-3261
In a message dated 5/19/2010 11:26:28 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
brady(at)magnificentmachine.com writes:
--> Zenith601-List message posted by: "Brady"
Lee,
The reamer you want to use is called a chucking reamer.
It has straight flutes and can be turned by hand or by a drill motor.
I suggest you turn it by hand.
A piloted reamer is handy but not totally necessary.
5/16=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D is .3125=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D
The upgrade instructions specify the tolerance to be +.004=C3=A2=82=AC
=C2=9D
This means you holes cannot be larger than .3165=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9Dor
you will need to go
to an over sized bolt that is less than 3/8th.
these are very expensive.
The reamer size you want is .3125"
It is not necessary to ream the bolts in the main spar.
These bolts are not in shear really, they are mostly in tension.
as the spar is stressed the caps want to separate or bend away from each
other. this would allow them to collapse.
The bolt (&or rivets) hold them together and force them to flex in the
correct direction which is edge wise.
Clear as mud?
I hope this helps,
Brady
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298202#298202
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2010
From: Bill Steer <steerr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Pushrods
Well, the harmonic frequency of a beam like this is inversely
proportional to the length squared, so your harmonic frequencies will be
about 47% of that of the pushrod in the RV-4, assuming you use the same
size tubing. Let me know if you want to know the exact frequencies.
Bill
On 5/19/2010 9:11 PM, BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net wrote:
> List
> I am changing over to pushrods on the ailerons of my 601 during the
> upgrade. I am planning on using 1 1/8" O.D. x .039 6061 - T6 tubing in
> one piece. The overall length from center to center of the Heim
> bearings is 96".the same tube is used on several RV's. The RV-4 is ~
> 66" Has anyone out there installed one piece pushrods and what size
> tubing was used. The above tube is plenty strong but I am concerned
> about vibration and harmonics on such a long tube. i would appreciate
> it if someone could e-mail a description or photos of their
> installation and how many hours they have flown.
>
> Thanks for any help
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2010
From: Mark Hubelbank <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Subject: Re: upgrade question
John,
On the issue of a chucking reamer, I did use one by hand. I don't
recommend it for everyone. By using the existing hole as an alignment
guide and then having the hole in the new metal only 0.015 under size,
it was very easy to get a clean hole. The clear issue is that one must
not put any side pressure on the existing hole. That is a matter of
practice. Even a hand reamer can take some metal off the existing hole
if one is not careful so there is no perfect solution short of standing
the wing on edge and mounting a "mini" drill press on the spar to ream
out the holes.
Even better would be to have a special reamer that only had cutting
flukes for the first 1/8 inch and then was smooth but the same diameter.
I have never heard of such a tool.
--
Mark Hubelbank
NorthEast Monitoring
2 Clock Tower Place
Suite 555
Maynard, MA, 01754 - USA
mhubel(at)nemon.com
978-443-3955
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Pushrods
Date: May 20, 2010
Bobby,
I basically copied Bill Phillip=99s documentation using the same
Vans rod ends and 1 1/8=9D tubing.
I have now 8 hours on the plane and all is working well. I have flown a
601 with cables and haven=99t noticed any great difference between
the two.
You can download a copy of Bill=99s documentation from here
http://forums.matronics.com/download.php?id=14337
<http://forums.matronics.com/download.php?id=14337&sid=5070ea75d7ac33
d8a0d772db8f98561b> &sid=5070ea75d7ac33d8a0d772db8f98561b
I left the balance cable in situ to provide some equalising forces on
the aileron bell crank. Might be a bit of an overkill. I have it
tensioned to 30lbs (Zenith spec) but may be a bit much. I think if I
decreased it a little the aileron feel would be a little lighter.
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
http://zodiac.cpc-world.com
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, 20 May 2010 11:12 AM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Pushrods
List
I am changing over to pushrods on the ailerons of my 601 during the
upgrade. I am planning on using 1 1/8" O.D. x .039 6061 - T6 tubing in
one piece. The overall length from center to center of the Heim bearings
is 96".the same tube is used on several RV's. The RV-4 is ~ 66" Has
anyone out there installed one piece pushrods and what size tubing was
used. The above tube is plenty strong but I am concerned about vibration
and harmonics on such a long tube. i would appreciate it if someone
could e-mail a description or photos of their installation and how many
hours they have flown.
Thanks for any help
Bobby
Florida
601 XL 96 hrs before upgrade.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
From: Lee Steensland <zenith-list(at)steensland.net>
Date: May 20, 2010
Fortunately I'm in a fairly unique situation. I don't have the center
spar installed nor the wings complete. Everything is free and away from
the plane, so setting it up in a drill press is child's play (for the
most part).
>
> John,
> On the issue of a chucking reamer, I did use one by hand. I don't
> recommend it for everyone. By using the existing hole as an alignment
> guide and then having the hole in the new metal only 0.015 under size,
> it was very easy to get a clean hole. The clear issue is that one must
> not put any side pressure on the existing hole. That is a matter of
> practice. Even a hand reamer can take some metal off the existing hole
> if one is not careful so there is no perfect solution short of standing
> the wing on edge and mounting a "mini" drill press on the spar to ream
> out the holes.
> Even better would be to have a special reamer that only had cutting
> flukes for the first 1/8 inch and then was smooth but the same diameter.
> I have never heard of such a tool.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
From: "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Date: May 20, 2010
JohnDRead(at)aol.com wrote:
> Brady;
> I would not use a chucking reamer by hand the straight flutes are
designed to be driven by a machine tool such as a milling machine or a lathe.
Reaming by hand is best done with a hand reamer which has spiral flutes and
a taper to the diameter for a short distance.
>
> Regards, John
>
>
>
John,
Actually that is not true, and I don't think the Reamer can tell who or what is
turning it.
Page 807 of the Machinery's Hand Book 26th edition says:
"Hand reamers are made with both straight and helical flutes. Helical flutes provide
a shearing cut and are especially useful in reaming holes having keyways
or grooves, as these are bridged over by the helical flutes, thus preventing
binding or chattering."
Because the hole we are reaming do not have a keyway or grooves (intentionally)
a spiral reamer is not necessary.
But every situation is different and everyone's skill level may vary.
I would expect builders to use their noggin.
My advice was free and general.
take it or leave it as you may.
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298343#298343
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2010
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: upgrade question
Brady or John
Assuming that one wanted to turn a chucking reamer by hand, what would you
use as an handle? My reamers have round shafts whose diameter is a bit
smaller than the reamer size.
Terry
>JohnDRead(at)aol.com wrote:
> > Brady;
> > I would not use a chucking reamer by hand the straight
> flutes are designed to be driven by a machine tool such as a milling
> machine or a lathe. Reaming by hand is best done with a hand reamer
> which has spiral flutes and a taper to the diameter for a short distance.
> >
> > Regards, John
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>John,
>Actually that is not true, and I don't think the Reamer can tell who or
>what is turning it.
>
>Page 807 of the Machinery's Hand Book 26th edition says:
>"Hand reamers are made with both straight and helical flutes. Helical
>flutes provide a shearing cut and are especially useful in reaming holes
>having keyways or grooves, as these are bridged over by the helical
>flutes, thus preventing binding or chattering."
>
>Because the hole we are reaming do not have a keyway or grooves
>(intentionally) a spiral reamer is not necessary.
>
>But every situation is different and everyone's skill level may vary.
>I would expect builders to use their noggin.
>
>My advice was free and general.
>take it or leave it as you may.
>
>--------
>Brady McCormick
>Poulsbo, WA
>www.magnificentmachine.com
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done;
Upgrading wings & ailerons per the AMD Safety Directive
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
From: "Ron Lendon" <ron.lendon(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 20, 2010
Terry Phillips wrote:
> Brady or John
>
> Assuming that one wanted to turn a chucking reamer by hand, what would you
> use as an handle? My reamers have round shafts whose diameter is a bit
> smaller than the reamer size.
>
> Terry
>
>
>
Terry,
I used a tap handle like the one in the bottom of the picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tap_wrench
Turned the reamer counterclockwise through existing hole till it met the new hole.
Then I turned it clockwise to finish the new hole. The new hole was .015
small before reaming.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298348#298348
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
From: "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Date: May 20, 2010
Terry Phillips wrote:
> Brady or John
>
> Assuming that one wanted to turn a chucking reamer by hand, what would you
> use as an handle? My reamers have round shafts whose diameter is a bit
> smaller than the reamer size.
>
> Terry
>
>
Terry,
You can grind 4 flats on it and turn it with a tap handle.
After you modify it will still be usable as in a chuck.
most of mine are modified this way.
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298350#298350
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
From: "chuck960" <chuckde(at)roadrunner.com>
Date: May 20, 2010
Why do the bolts have to be smaller than 3/8"? Is it edge distance that is the
problem? With all the drilling and back drilling it's hard to get a perfect hole.
The bolt may seem tight but the hole might not be uniform through many layers
of material. I thought of drilling a larger hole after all the 5/16 bolts
are in place by removing one bolt at a time. A 3/8 bolt is much stronger than
5/16.
Chuck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298400#298400
________________________________________________________________________________
From: <paulrod36(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: upgrade question
Date: May 21, 2010
Good question. I've heard of several people who have done that, and
apparently, nobody has complained about the result. While we're at it,
do any of the guys with real-world structural backgrounds have any
strong objections to using AN-3 bolts instead of rivets? Zenith said
they don't mind, and several A&Ps have said it's okay. With the proposed
number of bolts in the spar, the .008 (average) difference isn't going
to matter. I guess this goes back to Chris' comment one time, "You're
building a tractor, not a space shuttle".
Paul R
----- Original Message -----
From: chuck960<mailto:chuckde(at)roadrunner.com>
To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:56 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
>
Why do the bolts have to be smaller than 3/8"? Is it edge distance
that is the problem? With all the drilling and back drilling it's hard
to get a perfect hole. The bolt may seem tight but the hole might not be
uniform through many layers of material. I thought of drilling a larger
hole after all the 5/16 bolts are in place by removing one bolt at a
time. A 3/8 bolt is much stronger than 5/16.
Chuck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298400#298400
.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298400#298400>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
m/Navigator?Zenith601-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 21, 2010
From: Bill Pagan <bill.pagan(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: upgrade question
I asked the same question after discovering that a couple of my spar bolt h
oles were out of tolerance (It is a quickbuild and came that way but thats
another gripe).- ZAC (Caleb) told me that 3/8 was the maximum you could g
o to due to edge distances but cautioned that the tolerance was only .004.
- If you should go over that, which is easy to do,-you would need to re
place the-spar etc. which would be in excess of $2K.- =0A-Bill Pagan
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: chuck960 <chu
ckde(at)roadrunner.com>=0ATo: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Thu, May 20
, 2010 11:56:11 PM=0ASubject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question=0A=0A-->
Zenith601-List message posted by: "chuck960" =0A
=0AWhy do the bolts have to be smaller than 3/8"?- Is it edge distance th
at is the problem? With all the drilling and back drilling it's hard to get
a perfect hole. The bolt may seem tight but the hole might not be uniform
through many layers of material. I thought of drilling a larger hole after
all the 5/16 bolts are in place by removing one bolt at a time. A 3/8 bolt
is much stronger than 5/16.=0AChuck=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online he
re:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298400#298400=0A=0A
======================0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 21, 2010
From: Mark Hubelbank <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Subject: Re: upgrade question
Bill,
Has anyone thought of using metric bolts. I expect there are the
same grade bolts available (perhaps even better) in 8 mm (about 0.0024
over and a standard metric size) and 9 mm (0.0418 over or 0.021 under
3/8, but a hard to get size).
--
Mark Hubelbank
NorthEast Monitoring
2 Clock Tower Place
Suite 555
Maynard, MA, 01754 - USA
mhubel(at)nemon.com
978-443-3955
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: May 21, 2010
Subject: Re: upgrade question
All of this reamer talk got me thinking (Scary Huh) and I went to Lowes and
bought a 5/16 drill bit and just for shits and grins then drilled about 20
holes in a test piece of spar caps that came from the wing jigs and lo and
behold all of my holes done by hand with a drill came out to .312 to .314
and the bolts were snug so if you are half way careful you should be able
to just drill the holes.
And you can also buy oversized NAS bolts for the inept drillers out there.
:)
Jeff
In a message dated 5/21/2010 8:16:53 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
mhubel(at)nemon.com writes:
--> Zenith601-List message posted by: Mark Hubelbank
Bill,
Has anyone thought of using metric bolts. I expect there are the
same grade bolts available (perhaps even better) in 8 mm (about 0.0024
over and a standard metric size) and 9 mm (0.0418 over or 0.021 under
3/8, but a hard to get size).
--
Mark Hubelbank
NorthEast Monitoring
2 Clock Tower Place
Suite 555
Maynard, MA, 01754 - USA
mhubel(at)nemon.com
978-443-3955
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Leroy Wheeler" <flyboy3847(at)onecommail.com>
Subject: Re: upgrade question
Date: May 21, 2010
We used a reamer but just chucked it up in a hand drill. That worked fine.
Leroy Wheeler 601HD plans built just about done flying off the 40
hours.
_____
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
All of this reamer talk got me thinking (Scary Huh) and I went to Lowes and
bought a 5/16 drill bit and just for shits and grins then drilled about 20
holes in a test piece of spar caps that came from the wing jigs and lo and
behold all of my holes done by hand with a drill came out to .312 to .314
and the bolts were snug so if you are half way careful you should be able to
just drill the holes.
And you can also buy oversized NAS bolts for the inept drillers out there.
:)
Jeff
In a message dated 5/21/2010 8:16:53 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
mhubel(at)nemon.com writes:
Bill,
Has anyone thought of using metric bolts. I expect there are the
same grade bolts available (perhaps even better) in 8 mm (about 0.0024
over and a standard metric size) and 9 mm (0.0418 over or 0.021 under
3/8, but a hard to get size).
--
Mark Hubelbank
NorthEast Monitoring
2 Clock Tower Place
Suite 555
Maynard, MA, 01754 - ================================================ Use
the ties Day ================================================ -
MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ===============================================
- List Contribution Web Site sp;
==================================================
14:26:00
________________________________________________________________________________
From: JohnDRead(at)aol.com
Date: May 21, 2010
Subject: Re: upgrade question
I discussed this option with a friend of mine a retired tool maker who is
making the upgrade to his 601. I am a retired mechanical engineer. If you
can ream the holes for a snug slide fit of A3 bolts into the holes then bolts
should be OK if the holes are over sized then rivets are the safe way to
go as they expand during setting the fill the holes. Just our two cents worth
Regards, John
CH701 - Colorado - Jabiru 3300
Cell: 719-494-4567
Home: 303-648-3261
In a message dated 5/21/2010 4:05:04 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
paulrod36(at)msn.com writes:
Good question. I've heard of several people who have done that, and
apparently, nobody has complained about the result. While we're at it, do any
of
the guys with real-world structural backgrounds have any strong objections
to using AN-3 bolts instead of rivets? Zenith said they don't mind, and
several A&Ps have said it's okay. With the proposed number of bolts in the
spar, the .008 (average) difference isn't going to matter. I guess this goes
back to Chris' comment one time, "You're building a tractor, not a space
shuttle".
Paul R
----- Original Message -----
From: _chuck960_ (mailto:chuckde(at)roadrunner.com)
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:56 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
(mailto:chuckde(at)roadrunner.com) >
Why do the bolts have to be smaller than 3/8"? Is it edge distance that
is the problem? With all the drilling and back drilling it's hard to get a
perfect hole. The bolt may seem tight but the hole might not be uniform
through many layers of material. I thought of drilling a larger hole after all
the 5/16 bolts are in place by removing one bolt at a time. A 3/8 bolt is
much stronger than 5/16.
Chuck
Read this topic online here:
_http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298400#298400_
(http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298400#298400)
http://www.matnbsp; via the Web title=http://forums.matronics.com/
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
_p; generous bsp;
title=http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c================
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Landing gear orientation
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: May 21, 2010
OK - I know this subject has been discussed before but I thought it would be interesting
to hear what people have to say after some time has passed.
I'm busy installing the mods in my wings at the moment but in the future I will
be back to building my fuselage. I have a Jabiru 3300 going up front and my
original intention was to install the gear flat side back. More recent plans
call for turning the gear around to avoid nose heaviness which results in the
nose plopping down on landing. On the other hand, I have heard that with the
gear turned around it is easier to ground the tail when boarding, especially when
it's a big guy (like me). That would be a little embarrassing at the least
:-)
I'd like to hear from guys who have done it both ways (with a similar weight engine)
to help me make a final decision as to which way to go.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298448#298448
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 21, 2010
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Landing gear orientation
Hi, Tim!
I'm also a "big guy", and I'm in the process of turning my gear around so the flat
side faces forward. I'd much rather shift my weight forward when boarding,
then put up any longer with the inability to hold the nose off after the mains
touch in a full stall landing.
Given the low rotation speed of the 601, and the "nose heaviness" with a Corvair,
I think it makes sense to move the pivot point forward (assuming tricycle gear).
But I'm used to thinking about the tail going down while boarding - this happens
withh Grumman Tigers all the time when two big people get on the boarding steps
at the same time.
The solution is to install a skid at the rear tie-down eye, which will protect
the tail and the ring.
Rick Lindstrom
ZenVair N42KP (upgrade well underway!)
-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Juhl <juhl(at)avci.net>
>Sent: May 21, 2010 10:59 AM
>To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith601-List: Landing gear orientation
>
>
>OK - I know this subject has been discussed before but I thought it would be interesting
to hear what people have to say after some time has passed.
>
>I'm busy installing the mods in my wings at the moment but in the future I will
be back to building my fuselage. I have a Jabiru 3300 going up front and my
original intention was to install the gear flat side back. More recent plans
call for turning the gear around to avoid nose heaviness which results in the
nose plopping down on landing. On the other hand, I have heard that with the
gear turned around it is easier to ground the tail when boarding, especially
when it's a big guy (like me). That would be a little embarrassing at the least
:-)
>
>I'd like to hear from guys who have done it both ways (with a similar weight engine)
to help me make a final decision as to which way to go.
>
>Tim
>
>--------
>______________
>CFII
>Champ L16A flying
>Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
>Working on fuselage
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298448#298448
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
From: "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Date: May 21, 2010
Afterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote:
> All of this reamer talk got me thinking (Scary Huh) and I went to Lowes and
bought a 5/16 drill bit and just for shits and grins then drilled about 20 holes
in a test piece of spar caps that came from the wing jigs and lo and behold
all of my holes done by hand with a drill came out to .312 to .314 and the
bolts were snug so if you are half way careful you should be able to just drill
the holes.
> And you can also buy oversized NAS bolts for the inept drillers out there.
:)
> Jeff
>
>
I believe in the Wing Spar & Rear Channel section 6-ZU-1 on page 11 of the upgrade
instructions right below the top picture it specifically says:
"The Holes must be reamed to final size, DO NOT use a 5/16 drill bit to Drill the
holes."
But what do I know I'm not an aeronautical engineer.
I am however a FORMALLY trained machinist and I do know that if I were to willingly
disregard such an instruction and someone were to get hurt it would be grounds
for a Lawsuit and perhaps Jail time.
Just food for thought...
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298458#298458
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
From: "Ron Lendon" <ron.lendon(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 21, 2010
Afterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote:
> All of this reamer talk got me thinking (Scary Huh)
Yeah it is, stop doing that!!!!! The information you have published is incorrect
and inaccurate.
The Machinery's Handbook lists a study done by the Metal Cutting Institute where
2800 holes were drilled in steel and cast iron and the results for 1/4" were
average oversize of .0065" and 1/2" were .008" oversize.
When an Engineer says to ream a hole, you better ream the hole.
Jeff, some times the things you say can be dangerous, especially if you are like
me and think you know the answers. I have finally reached a point in life where
I know, I don't know it all.
Wish you well,
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298471#298471
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Landing gear orientation
From: "DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher(at)ge.com>
Date: May 21, 2010
Tim,
I am also a big guy. Only once when two of us were boarding the wing at the same
time did we even start to tip the airplane. My current practice, anyway now,
is to board and strap in my passenger first and then I board. No problems
what so ever. I am to the point where I can hold the nose off for a good 5-9
seconds after landing on the mains.
Go flat forward with your Jabiru and you will not look back.
Dave
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL/Jabiru 3300
First flight 7/24/08
Upgraded 3/19/10
120+ hours and climbing!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298480#298480
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
Date: May 21, 2010
From: afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Hey Brady,
Then I would suggest you don't install my TEST PIECE in your airplane HUH?
??!!!!
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Brady <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Sent: Fri, May 21, 2010 3:02 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
m>
fterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote:
All of this reamer talk got me thinking (Scary Huh) and I went to Lowes
and
ought a 5/16 drill bit and just for shits and grins then drilled about 20
oles in a test piece of spar caps that came from the wing jigs and lo and
ehold all of my holes done by hand with a drill came out to .312 to .314
and
he bolts were snug so if you are half way careful you should be able to
just
rill the holes.
And you can also buy oversized NAS bolts for the inept drillers out ther
e.
)
Jeff
believe in the Wing Spar & Rear Channel section 6-ZU-1 on page 11 of the
pgrade instructions right below the top picture it specifically says:
"The Holes must be reamed to final size, DO NOT use a 5/16 drill bit to Dr
ill
he holes."
But what do I know I'm not an aeronautical engineer.
am however a FORMALLY trained machinist and I do know that if I were to
illingly disregard such an instruction and someone were to get hurt it wou
ld be
rounds for a Lawsuit and perhaps Jail time.
Just food for thought...
--------
rady McCormick
oulsbo, WA
ww.magnificentmachine.com
ead this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298458#298458
========================
===========
-= - 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: upgrade question
Date: May 21, 2010
From: afterfxllc(at)aol.com
So you are telling me that the holes I drilled in my test piece were someh
ow wrong because of some other test that was done?
I never said do it I said I was testing it for SHITS AND GRINS and found
the holes would be within tolerance. And you can also mess a hole up with
a reamer as well if you use a drill and are not used to using it.
You and Brady must have had lunch together today and forgot how to read.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Lendon <ron.lendon(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, May 21, 2010 6:34 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
fterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote:
All of this reamer talk got me thinking (Scary Huh)
eah it is, stop doing that!!!!! The information you have published is
ncorrect and inaccurate.
The Machinery's Handbook lists a study done by the Metal Cutting Institute
where
800 holes were drilled in steel and cast iron and the results for 1/4" wer
e
verage oversize of .0065" and 1/2" were .008" oversize.
When an Engineer says to ream a hole, you better ream the hole.
Jeff, some times the things you say can be dangerous, especially if you ar
e like
e and think you know the answers. I have finally reached a point in life
where
know, I don't know it all.
Wish you well,
--------
on Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
W Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
odiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
ttp://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
ead this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298471#298471
========================
===========
-= - 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: upgrade question
Date: May 21, 2010
From: afterfxllc(at)aol.com
O and BTW aluminum is much softer than steel and cast iron now isn't it.
And was the hole already there or where these new holes? Did they use hig
h speed bits or low speed, oil or no oil? was the test done by hand or usi
ng a drill press? New drill bits or old? was the test done by average peop
le or machinists? What was the thickness?
I drilled the freaking holes and they were within tolerance .002 under so
they would be acceptable if I were to use them.
If you are going to correct me at least compare apples to apples. OK?
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Lendon <ron.lendon(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, May 21, 2010 6:34 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
fterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote:
All of this reamer talk got me thinking (Scary Huh)
eah it is, stop doing that!!!!! The information you have published is
ncorrect and inaccurate.
The Machinery's Handbook lists a study done by the Metal Cutting Institute
where
800 holes were drilled in steel and cast iron and the results for 1/4" wer
e
verage oversize of .0065" and 1/2" were .008" oversize.
When an Engineer says to ream a hole, you better ream the hole.
Jeff, some times the things you say can be dangerous, especially if you ar
e like
e and think you know the answers. I have finally reached a point in life
where
know, I don't know it all.
Wish you well,
--------
on Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
W Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
odiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
ttp://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
ead this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298471#298471
========================
===========
-= - 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: upgrade question
From: "chuck960" <chuckde(at)roadrunner.com>
Date: May 21, 2010
I thought we were talking about reaming holes not each other.
I will drill some test pieces as well before I do the Spar.
If someone could point me to the oversize NAS bolt store. Maybe I'll try that instead
of reaming to .375.
Chuck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298490#298490
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
Date: May 22, 2010
From: afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Chuck,
Shirley at Zenith can give you the source for the oversized bolts. If you
decide to switch to 3/8 you still need to use NAS bolts even though the
diameter of the 3/8 bolt is larger.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: chuck960 <chuckde(at)roadrunner.com>
Sent: Fri, May 21, 2010 11:43 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
I thought we were talking about reaming holes not each other.
will drill some test pieces as well before I do the Spar.
f someone could point me to the oversize NAS bolt store. Maybe I'll try th
at
nstead of reaming to .375.
huck
ead this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298490#298490
========================
===========
-= - 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: May 22, 2010
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: upgrade question
Chuck, I looked for some oversize AN3's for the spar root doubler joint.
They were very hard to find, and pricey when I found them--check out:
http://www.arizona-aero.com/nas_list.html
You'll need to request a quote, and, for that you'll have to decipher the
part number codes. Ultimately, I decided to go with AN4's. They are about
40x cheaper than over size NAS6204-11's. (I believe, but I'm not positive,
that oversize AN's do not exist. The oversize bolts all seem to be NAS's. I
suspect it's a tolerance thing.)
Terry
>I thought we were talking about reaming holes not each other.
>I will drill some test pieces as well before I do the Spar.
>If someone could point me to the oversize NAS bolt store. Maybe I'll try
>that instead of reaming to .375.
>Chuck
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done;
Upgrading wings & ailerons per the AMD Safety Directive
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
From: "chuck960" <chuckde(at)roadrunner.com>
Date: May 22, 2010
Well put Pavel!
I think this is why I may go to .375". The layers will be held in higher tension.
The bolts are stronger but may be very close to being out of tolerance (edge
distance) But at least the holes can be reamed after all the parts ate in place
(only from the aft drilling forward) opening the hole from a somewhat sloppy
5/16" to .375 with the final reamer being .374 (subject to testing). Maybe
I drink too much coffee!
Comments?
Chuck
CH650 65%
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298517#298517
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
From: "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Date: May 22, 2010
Gentlemen,
The part #'s for the over sized bolts are:
NAS6205-22x
NAS6205-23x
the "X" in the part # specifies the over size.
Also there is a "y" for the next over size.
I forget if the oversize increments are .010" or .015" for the "X" but the "Y"
is 2 times the "X" dimension. (.020" or .030").
Regardless I had a very lengthy discussion with Caleb about this because I have
2 airplanes in my shop that will require over sized bolts.
Caleb told me to "avoid over sizing to 3/8 if at all possible."
His reason for this is that at 3/8 the minimum edge distance becomes dangerously
close.
My experience with sourcing the oversize bolts is that they are very rare and very
expensive.
I sourced certified bolts @ $40 each.
I was lucky to find some surplus bolts without certification papers for $10 each
and so I bought all they had. Unfortunately this still is not enough to complete
both airplanes. so the search continues.
Just because the animal exists doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy to hunt!
Or that you will bag one
For what its worth:
A 2 flute drill will produce a hole with 3 corners.
A 3 flute drill will produce a hole with 4 corners.
A 4 flute drill will produce a hole with 5 corners.
and so on.
With each additional flute the corners decrease in depth.
the formula is N+1 (N=number of flutes).
I learned this in my first week as an apprentice with the IAM (International Aerospace
Workers & Machinists Union)
I think this is covered in the Machinery's Hand book as well?
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298532#298532
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2010
From: Bill Pagan <bill.pagan(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: upgrade question
The "X" is .015 oversize and the "Y" is .030 oversize.=0A-Bill Pagan =0A
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Brady <brady@mag
nificentmachine.com>=0ATo: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Sat, May 22
, 2010 3:54:59 PM=0ASubject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question=0A=0A-->
Zenith601-List message posted by: "Brady" =0A
=0AGentlemen,=0A=0AThe part #'s for the over sized bolts are:=0ANAS6205-22x
=0ANAS6205-23x=0Athe "X" in the part # specifies the over size.=0AAlso ther
e is a "y" for the next over size.=0AI forget if the oversize increments ar
e .010" or .015" for the "X" but the "Y" is 2 times the "X" dimension. (.02
0" or .030").=0ARegardless I had a very lengthy discussion with Caleb about
this because I have 2 airplanes in my shop that will require over sized bo
lts.=0ACaleb told me to "avoid over sizing to 3/8 if at all possible."=0AHi
s reason for this is that at 3/8 the minimum edge distance becomes dangerou
sly close.=0A=0AMy experience with sourcing the oversize bolts is that they
are very rare and very expensive.=0AI sourced certified bolts @ $40 each.
=0AI was lucky to find some surplus bolts without certification papers for
$10 each and so I bought all they had. Unfortunately this still is not enou
gh to complete both airplanes. so the search continues.=0A=0AJust because t
he animal exists doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy to hunt! Or that
you will bag one =0A=0AFor what its worth:=0AA 2 flute drill will produce a
hole with 3 corners.=0AA 3 flute drill will produce a hole with 4 corners.
=0AA 4 flute drill will produce a hole with 5 corners.=0Aand so on.=0AWith
each additional flute the corners decrease in depth.=0Athe formula is N+1 (
N=number of flutes).=0AI learned this in my first week as an apprentice w
ith the IAM (International Aerospace Workers & Machinists Union) =0AI think
this is covered in the Machinery's Hand book as well?=0A=0A--------=0ABrad
y McCormick=0APoulsbo, WA=0Awww.magnificentmachine.com=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead t
his topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=2
====0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
Date: May 22, 2010
From: afterfxllc(at)aol.com
For what it is worth I have done 4 upgrades and built 3 flying 601's (None
in the dirt BTW) and I have taken apart 7 601's and have seen everything
from 10 lb lead shot bags in the wingtip, wing AOA 50 mm apart, loose spa
r bolts, bottomed out spar bolts, smaller bolts for rear attach point. And
non of these failed. And as a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolt
s broke or were the cause of wing failures. The spar snapped at the first
bolt hole but the bolts remained. Now as a matter of engineering of cours
e the holes should be reamed if at all possible but remember there are tho
usands of aircraft flying that have drilled spar bolts and are safe. Zeni
th once told us alittle loose is ok but not sloppy but after what has happ
ened every thing has to be technically correct. I use a reamer but wouldn'
t think one minute about drilling my own spars with a drill bit because I
know I can do it correctly and I now believe the spar and center section
wasn't the problem to begin with and after seeing the sloppy building of
some of these aircraft that didn't break apart I believe and and have alw
ays believed flutter is the most likely reason for the failures.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Brady <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Sent: Sat, May 22, 2010 3:54 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
m>
Gentlemen,
The part #'s for the over sized bolts are:
AS6205-22x
AS6205-23x
he "X" in the part # specifies the over size.
lso there is a "y" for the next over size.
forget if the oversize increments are .010" or .015" for the "X" but the
"Y"
s 2 times the "X" dimension. (.020" or .030").
egardless I had a very lengthy discussion with Caleb about this because I
have
airplanes in my shop that will require over sized bolts.
aleb told me to "avoid over sizing to 3/8 if at all possible."
is reason for this is that at 3/8 the minimum edge distance becomes danger
ously
lose.
My experience with sourcing the oversize bolts is that they are very rare
and
ery expensive.
sourced certified bolts @ $40 each.
was lucky to find some surplus bolts without certification papers for $10
each
nd so I bought all they had. Unfortunately this still is not enough to com
plete
oth airplanes. so the search continues.
Just because the animal exists doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy to
hunt!
r that you will bag one
For what its worth:
2 flute drill will produce a hole with 3 corners.
3 flute drill will produce a hole with 4 corners.
4 flute drill will produce a hole with 5 corners.
nd so on.
ith each additional flute the corners decrease in depth.
he formula is N+1 (N=number of flutes).
learned this in my first week as an apprentice with the IAM (Internationa
l
erospace Workers & Machinists Union)
think this is covered in the Machinery's Hand book as well?
--------
rady McCormick
oulsbo, WA
ww.magnificentmachine.com
ead this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298532#298532
========================
===========
-= - 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: upgrade question
Date: May 22, 2010
From: afterfxllc(at)aol.com
I think Brady is trying to be the WW of Matronics. All technical and stuff
but wrong just the same.
But hey what do I know I just built 3 flying 601's.
That was my last pissing match post I have too many upgrades to do.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Pagan <bill.pagan(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, May 22, 2010 4:47 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
The "X" is .015 oversize and the "Y" is .030 oversize.
Bill Pagan
From: Brady <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Sent: Sat, May 22, 2010 3:54:59 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
m>
Gentlemen,
The part #'s for the over sized bolts are:
NAS6205-22x
NAS6205-23x
the "X" in the part # specifies the over size.
Also there is a "y" for the next over size.
I forget if the oversize increments are .010" or .015" for the "X" but the
"Y" is 2 times the "X" dimension. (.020" or .030").
Regardless I had a very lengthy discussion with Caleb about this because
I have 2 airplanes in my shop that will require over sized bolts.
Caleb told me to "avoid over sizing to 3/8 if at all possible."
His reason for this is that at 3/8 the minimum edge distance becomes dange
rously close.
My experience with sourcing the oversize bolts is that they are very rare
and very expensive.
I sourced certified bolts @ $40 each.
I was lucky to find some surplus bolts without certification papers for $1
0 each and so I bought all they had. Unfortunately this still is not enoug
h to complete both airplanes. so the search continues.
Just because the animal exists doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy to
hunt! Or that you will bag one
For what its worth:
A 2 flute drill will produce a hole with 3 corners.
A 3 flute drill will produce a hole with 4 corners.
A 4 flute drill will produce a hole with 5 corners.
and so on.
With each additional flute the corners decrease in depth.
the formula is N+1 (N=number of flutes).
I learned this in my first week as an apprentice with the IAM (Internation
al Aerospace Workers & Machinists Union)
I think this is covered in the Machinery's Hand book as well?
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopsp; -Matt Dr===
=========
========================
===========
-= - 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: Purpose of bottom cap angle 6 ZU1-5
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: May 22, 2010
Ok
I give up
what is the purpose of this part? and why is it important to have it there if you
have the newer 3 nose rib design?
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298539#298539
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: May 22, 2010
Subject: Re: Purpose of bottom cap angle 6 ZU1-5
I think that's a question for Caleb. They had 2 of them in there until I
called and told him the other one couldn't be installed because of the access
hole so they omitted it. The wings with 4 ribs don't get them. So it might
just be to make up for the 4th rib.
Jeff
In a message dated 5/22/2010 4:15:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au writes:
--> Zenith601-List message posted by: "chris Sinfield"
Ok
I give up
what is the purpose of this part? and why is it important to have it there
if you have the newer 3 nose rib design?
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298539#298539
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
From: "chuck960" <chuckde(at)roadrunner.com>
Date: May 22, 2010
Thanks for the part numbers. I assume that is for the bolt only and the nut will
have a different equally complex part number.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298546#298546
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Oops! A6 Rivet question
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: May 22, 2010
I removed the top skin on my right wing today. Because of some pesky stems that
protruded too high I had trouble with a few rivets, resulting in some very slightly
enlarged or out of round holes.
I know that in this case others have installed A6 rivets. My question is, did
you use countersunk or dome head? If you used countersunk rivets did you pull
them with the nosepiece ground for the A5 rivet or make a new one?
Thanks!
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298547#298547
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Floyd Wilkes" <fwilkes(at)gvtc.com>
Subject: Re: upgrade question
Date: May 22, 2010
Actually, no. The nut is the standard nut for a AN5. The threads are the
same size just the shank is oversized.
Floyd Wilkes
601XL flying after upgrade.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of chuck960
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 7:12 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
Thanks for the part numbers. I assume that is for the bolt only and the nut
will have a different equally complex part number.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298546#298546
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
From: "Louie928" <louieo(at)gorge.net>
Date: May 22, 2010
I have a set of adjustable size reamers turned by hand in a tap chuck. I started
with slight under size holes and slowly worked my way up to where the spar bolts
were a tight push fit. The adjustable reamers have a very slight taper so
the end fits in the under size hole. You run the reamer all the way through so
it doesn't leave a tapered hole.
--------
Louis W. Ott
601XL beginner Quick Build
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298557#298557
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Oops! A6 Rivet question
From: "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Date: May 22, 2010
Tim,
one of the airplanes I am working on needed some A6 rivets.
I used the counter sunk style and made a new tip for the rivet gun.
If you use an automatic center punch to knock the mandrels down before you drill
you will need fewer A6 rivets.
I have posted a Blog on the Zenith Aero site entitled:
CH601XL Up Grades with Magnificent Machine LLC (tricks of the trade)
http://www.zenith.aero/profiles/blogs/ch601xl-upgrades-with
there might be some useful info in there, specifically about tooling for this project.
Cheers,
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298558#298558
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
From: "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Date: May 22, 2010
>
> The "X" is .015 oversize and the "Y" is .030 oversize.
>
> Bill Pagan
Thank you Bill,
That had slipped my mind and my coffee had not kicked in yet. :)
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298560#298560
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Purpose of bottom cap angle 6 ZU1-5
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: May 23, 2010
thanks
yep
I have an access hole in the next section as well.
I guess I will have to ask..
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298564#298564
________________________________________________________________________________
From: <r-garrett(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Oops! A6 Rivet question
Date: May 23, 2010
TIM- On the rivets that have stems that keep you from drilling and cause the
drill to go off-center and make a mess- Use a center punch and a light
hammer and try to drive the stem back into yhe opposte end . Then try
drilling the rivet hear off. Sometimes it takes a few tries to drive the
rivet center in. Be carefull you don't bend or dent the aluminum skin. I did
have to use a few #6 rivets a couple years ago when I opened the leading
edge on both wings to take out the two aux. tanks but don't remember which
pulling head I used.
Presently, I have both wings off with the topskins removed along with both
leading edge skins. Also, the center section srar is out. I have stripped
both spars fron the wings for easier handling. I have decided bolt yhe new
heavy angles onto the spars after trying unsucessfully to rivet. The left
wing will be closed and finished in about a week or two. Then comes the
right wing and then the center spar and fuselage work. Looks like an all
summer job. If you get a chance take a trip down and see my slow progress.
ROY
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 8:13 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Oops! A6 Rivet question
>
> I removed the top skin on my right wing today. Because of some pesky
> stems that protruded too high I had trouble with a few rivets, resulting
> in some very slightly enlarged or out of round holes.
>
> I know that in this case others have installed A6 rivets. My question is,
> did you use countersunk or dome head? If you used countersunk rivets did
> you pull them with the nosepiece ground for the A5 rivet or make a new
> one?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Tim
>
> --------
> ______________
> CFII
> Champ L16A flying
> Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
> Working on fuselage
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298547#298547
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Oops! A6 Rivet question
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: May 23, 2010
Tim Juhl wrote:
> I know that in this case others have installed A6 rivets. My question is, did
you use countersunk or dome head? If you used countersunk rivets did you pull
them with the nosepiece ground for the A5 rivet or make a new one?
I used A6 rivets that I bought from Zenith. They are the countersunk type, just
like the A4's and A5's we already use, just a little bigger. I bought a bigger
hand riveter and ground out one of the nosepieces that came with it.
For removing the pre-existing rivets, I used one of those $3 "spring punches".
I ground down the tip so it could fit into the holes in the rivets. For each
rivet I would punch down the stem, and then using a drill bit *larger* than the
existing rivet, I would carefully drill into the rivet head until it popped
off (without touching the underlying skin or enlarging the existing hole). Then
most rivets could be pushed out the rest of the way with a second pop from
the spring punch. Stubborn ones got drilled out with a smaller drill so as to
not enlarge the existing hole.
A4's are harder to remove than A5's, as A4's more often tend to "spin". To get
around that, I carefully drill into their heads at an acute angle until the heads
come off.
It took a while, but I've got one wing just about done now. By far the biggest
problem I've had is "garage rash" as these skins are taking a beating and getting
all scratched no matter how careful I am. I want to polish my skins, but
I don't know how it will look with some of the scratches I can already see.
--------
Patrick
XL/650/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298574#298574
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Oops! A6 Rivet question
Date: May 23, 2010
Hi Patrick,
I have found a slightly different approach for removing rivets. I do
nothing before drilling, and use the same size drill bit as the final rivet
hole. I drill very slowly - using a variable speed battery powered drill.
Most of the time the head starts to spin when the drill bit reaches the skin
and I am finished. In cases where the stem gets in the way the drill bit
goes off center and I stop before the bit reaches the skin. Then I use a
normal wood chisel and mallet to tap off the remaining part of the rivet
head. With the rivet partially drilled this goes very easily.
I have done a lot of wood work over the years, so it is easy for me to
position the wood chisel so it doesn't damage the skin. For less
experienced wood workers, I would recommend a little practice in partially
drilled rivets in scrap pieces.
After the rivet head is removed, I use a slightly smaller pin punch and
mallet to remove the remains from the hole. Some times this makes a bit of
a dent in the skin, but this is easily removed with auto body dolly and
hammer.
------
For removing the pre-existing rivets, I used one of those $3 "spring
punches". I ground down the tip so it could fit into the holes in the
rivets. For each rivet I would punch down the stem, and then using a drill
bit *larger* than the existing rivet, I would carefully drill into the rivet
head until it popped off (without touching the underlying skin or enlarging
the existing hole). Then most rivets could be pushed out the rest of the
way with a second pop from the spring punch. Stubborn ones got drilled out
with a smaller drill so as to not enlarge the existing hole.
------
I don't think you need to worry too much about scratches impacting your
polishing. The polishing process is designed to remove them. If you have
deep scratches you should probably smooth them out with emery cloth, but the
shallow ones will be polished out without much extra effort.
-----
It took a while, but I've got one wing just about done now. By far the
biggest problem I've had is "garage rash" as these skins are taking a
beating and getting all scratched no matter how careful I am. I want to
polish my skins, but I don't know how it will look with some of the
scratches I can already see.
--------
Paul
XL installing changes
N773PM
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Oops! A6 Rivet question
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: May 23, 2010
I used a spring loaded center punch to attempt to drive out the pin with no success.
Also tried a punch and a few gentle taps from a hammer... no luck. Even
worse, the top of the pin was broken on an angle resulting in the drill trying
to walk off center. I ended up using a #40 drill to start it while holding
the drill centered (as best as I could get it) with a drilling cup. This happened
only in the A5 rivets and to about 6 in the top skin.
Thanks for the advice!
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Tearing wings apart for modification
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298588#298588
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Oops! A6 Rivet question
Date: May 23, 2010
From: afterfxllc(at)aol.com
If your aircraft isn't painted you can use a wood chisel to remove all riv
ets and leave no dents and it makes the tail removal much easier also.
I use a chisel to remove the solid rivet heads then just punch out the sho
p end with a punch and hammer over a vise. I have gotten to the point that
I can disassemble the center spar and remove all the rivets in 30 minutes
. I do the same with the wing spar but I have to drill half way thru them
and use my 2X to punch the shop end out.
If you use a chisel you need to smooth the bottom so it doesn't scratch or
gouge the aluminum.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Juhl <juhl(at)avci.net>
Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 11:11 am
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Oops! A6 Rivet question
I used a spring loaded center punch to attempt to drive out the pin with
no
uccess. Also tried a punch and a few gentle taps from a hammer... no luck
.
ven worse, the top of the pin was broken on an angle resulting in the dril
l
rying to walk off center. I ended up using a #40 drill to start it while
olding the drill centered (as best as I could get it) with a drilling cup.
his happened only in the A5 rivets and to about 6 in the top skin.
Thanks for the advice!
Tim
--------
_____________
FII
hamp L16A flying
odiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
earing wings apart for modification
ead this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298588#298588
========================
===========
-= - 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: upgrade question
From: "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Date: May 23, 2010
afterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote:
> For what it is worth I have done 4 upgrades and built 3 flying 601's (None in
the dirt BTW) and I have taken apart 7 601's and have seen everything from 10
lb lead shot bags in the wingtip, wing AOA 50mm apart, loose spar bolts, bottomed
out spar bolts, smaller bolts for rear attach point. And non of these failed.
And as a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolts broke or were the cause
of wing failures. The spar snapped at the first bolt hole but the bolts remained.
Now as a matter of engineering of course the holes should be reamed if
at all possible but remember there are thousands of aircraft flying that have
drilled spar bolts and are safe. Zenith once told us alittle loose is ok but
not sloppy but after what has happened every thing has to be technically correct.
I use a reamer but wouldn't think one minute about drilling my own spars
with a drill bit because I know I can do it correctly and I now believe the spar
and center section wasn't the problem to begin with and after seeing the sloppy
building of some of these aircraft that didn't break apart I believe and
and have always believed flutter is the most likely reason for the failures.
>
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
> --
Jeff,
I want to point out that just because a substandard assembly has not failed yet,
doesn't mean that it won't fail in the future, or that it can some how be thought
of as safe.
Encouraging, justifying and or down playing the dangers of sloppy building practices
is irresponsible at best.
The last thing the 601 community needs is for "Up Graded" 601's falling out of
the sky.
That would cause serious trouble for everyone.
Your willingness to openly admit that you would cut such corners on your own plane
only makes people wonder what corners you cut or are willing to cut on their
airplanes.
Why would you hold a higher standard for the safety of others than you do your
own?
The fact that you think you can drill a hole with a 2 fluted drill bit that is
some how good enough with out reaming, when the directions specifically call for
a Reamed hole, only proves that you don't understand the reasons behind the
process.
>
> And as a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolts broke or were the cause
of wing failures. The spar snapped at the first bolt hole but the bolts remained.
>
This statement says it all:
Apparently you don't understand why the bolts are being over sized?
No one is concerned that the bolts are breaking.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason that spar broke at that hole was because
perhaps the fit between the bolt and the hole was too loose and it was able
to work the hole open further until it finally broke?
Or maybe it was one of those sloppy building techniques you mentioned earlier that
hadn't failed yet but finally did?
The difference between a professional and an armature is that a professional knows
enough to know what he doesn't know, and is able to park his ego long enough
to ask the questions he needs to do the job right.
Your personal attacks are only a sign that you have exhausted your technical experience
and knowledge.
The fact that you have built 3 flying 601s and upgraded 4 does not make me rest
easy, it causes me great concern.
I don't see this as a pissing contest, I see it as an opportunity to teach and
learn.
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298613#298613
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 23, 2010
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: upgrade question
Hey, Brady.
Not to be a picky twitch, but the word "armature" in your post to Jeff describes
a thing that spins around with a lot of motion, but in the end, goes nowhere.
"Amateur", on the other hand, is a thing that expends a lot of energy but ends
up with little to show for it.
Come to think of it, you're original usage may be correct after all...
Rick
-----Original Message-----
>From: Brady <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
>Sent: May 23, 2010 3:00 PM
>To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
>
>
>afterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote:
>> For what it is worth I have done 4 upgrades and built 3 flying 601's (None in
the dirt BTW) and I have taken apart 7 601's and have seen everything from 10
lb lead shot bags in the wingtip, wing AOA 50mm apart, loose spar bolts, bottomed
out spar bolts, smaller bolts for rear attach point. And non of these failed.
And as a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolts broke or were the
cause of wing failures. The spar snapped at the first bolt hole but the bolts
remained. Now as a matter of engineering of course the holes should be reamed
if at all possible but remember there are thousands of aircraft flying that have
drilled spar bolts and are safe. Zenith once told us alittle loose is ok but
not sloppy but after what has happened every thing has to be technically correct.
I use a reamer but wouldn't think one minute about drilling my own spars
with a drill bit because I know I can do it correctly and I now believe the
spar and center section wasn't the problem to begi!
> n with and after seeing the sloppy building of some of these aircraft that didn't
break apart I believe and and have always believed flutter is the most likely
reason for the failures.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> --
>
>
>Jeff,
>I want to point out that just because a substandard assembly has not failed yet,
doesn't mean that it won't fail in the future, or that it can some how be thought
of as safe.
>Encouraging, justifying and or down playing the dangers of sloppy building practices
is irresponsible at best.
>The last thing the 601 community needs is for "Up Graded" 601's falling out of
the sky.
>That would cause serious trouble for everyone.
>
>Your willingness to openly admit that you would cut such corners on your own plane
only makes people wonder what corners you cut or are willing to cut on their
airplanes.
>Why would you hold a higher standard for the safety of others than you do your
own?
>
>The fact that you think you can drill a hole with a 2 fluted drill bit that is
some how good enough with out reaming, when the directions specifically call
for a Reamed hole, only proves that you don't understand the reasons behind the
process.
>
>
>>
>> And as a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolts broke or were the cause
of wing failures. The spar snapped at the first bolt hole but the bolts remained.
>>
>
>
>This statement says it all:
>Apparently you don't understand why the bolts are being over sized?
>No one is concerned that the bolts are breaking.
>Did it ever occur to you that the reason that spar broke at that hole was because
perhaps the fit between the bolt and the hole was too loose and it was able
to work the hole open further until it finally broke?
>Or maybe it was one of those sloppy building techniques you mentioned earlier
that hadn't failed yet but finally did?
>
>The difference between a professional and an armature is that a professional knows
enough to know what he doesn't know, and is able to park his ego long enough
to ask the questions he needs to do the job right.
>
>Your personal attacks are only a sign that you have exhausted your technical experience
and knowledge.
>
>The fact that you have built 3 flying 601s and upgraded 4 does not make me rest
easy, it causes me great concern.
>
>I don't see this as a pissing contest, I see it as an opportunity to teach and
learn.
>
>--------
>Brady McCormick
>Poulsbo, WA
>www.magnificentmachine.com
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298613#298613
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
From: "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Date: May 23, 2010
tigerrick(at)mindspring.c wrote:
> Hey, Brady.
>
> Not to be a picky twitch, but the word "armature" in your post to Jeff describes
a thing that spins around with a lot of motion, but in the end, goes nowhere.
>
> "Amateur", on the other hand, is a thing that expends a lot of energy but ends
up with little to show for it.
>
> Come to think of it, you're original usage may be correct after all...
>
> Rick
>
>
> --
Spell check works in mysterious ways....
My intent was in fact "Amateur"
I'll try to proof read before posting.
Thanks,
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298622#298622
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
Date: May 23, 2010
From: afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Brady
I guess I could talk about your new Corvair crank that came apart but you
are the expert. When you get your first airplane flying come talk to me
but until then you sir are the amateur. And it's funny that only you and
Ron have had any problems with my post and could that have anything to do
with the Corvair?
Well enough time wasted on a wanna be airplane builder I am gonna go flyin
g in my 601 with a corvair now.
O BTW have fun cooling that 701 with a Corvair engine but what do I know
right mine run cooler than any with all the unsafe parts I designed and
BTW you copied.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Brady <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 3:00 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
m>
fterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote:
For what it is worth I have done 4 upgrades and built 3 flying 601's (Non
e in
he dirt BTW) and I have taken apart 7 601's and have seen everything from
10 lb
ead shot bags in the wingtip, wing AOA 50=C3=AF=C2=C2=BDmm apart, loose
spar bolts,
ottomed out spar bolts, smaller bolts for rear attach point. And non of th
ese
ailed. And as a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolts broke or were
the
ause of wing failures. The spar snapped at the first bolt hole but the bol
ts
emained. Now as a matter of engineering of course the holes should be ream
ed if
t all possible but remember there are thousands of aircraft flying that ha
ve
rilled spar bolts and are safe. Zenith once told us alittle loose is ok
but
ot sloppy but after what has happened every thing has to be technically
orrect. I use a reamer but wouldn't think one minute about drilling my own
pars with a drill bit because I know I can do it correctly and I now belie
ve
he spar and center section wasn't the problem to begin with and after seei
ng
he sloppy building of some of these aircraft that didn't break apart I bel
ieve
nd and have always believed flutter is the most likely reason for the fail
ures.
>
Jeff
--
eff,
want to point out that just because a substandard assembly has not failed
yet,
oesn't mean that it won't fail in the future, or that it can some how be
hought of as safe.
ncouraging, justifying and or down playing the dangers of sloppy building
ractices is irresponsible at best.
he last thing the 601 community needs is for "Up Graded" 601's falling out
of
he sky.
hat would cause serious trouble for everyone.
Your willingness to openly admit that you would cut such corners on your
own
lane only makes people wonder what corners you cut or are willing to cut
on
heir airplanes.
hy would you hold a higher standard for the safety of others than you do
your
wn?
The fact that you think you can drill a hole with a 2 fluted drill bit tha
t is
ome how good enough with out reaming, when the directions specifically cal
l for
Reamed hole, only proves that you don't understand the reasons behind the
rocess.
And as a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolts broke or were the
cause
f wing failures. The spar snapped at the first bolt hole but the bolts
emained.
his statement says it all:
pparently you don't understand why the bolts are being over sized?
o one is concerned that the bolts are breaking.
id it ever occur to you that the reason that spar broke at that hole was
ecause perhaps the fit between the bolt and the hole was too loose and it
was
ble to work the hole open further until it finally broke?
r maybe it was one of those sloppy building techniques you mentioned earli
er
hat hadn't failed yet but finally did?
The difference between a professional and an armature is that a profession
al
nows enough to know what he doesn't know, and is able to park his ego long
nough to ask the questions he needs to do the job right.
Your personal attacks are only a sign that you have exhausted your technic
al
xperience and knowledge.
The fact that you have built 3 flying 601s and upgraded 4 does not make me
rest
asy, it causes me great concern.
I don't see this as a pissing contest, I see it as an opportunity to teach
and
earn.
--------
rady McCormick
oulsbo, WA
ww.magnificentmachine.com
ead this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298613#298613
========================
===========
-= - 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: May 23, 2010
From: Bill Pagan <bill.pagan(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: upgrade question
I have a problem with you guys bringing your private argument to this forum
.- Give it a rest for the benefit of all of us.=0A-Bill Pagan =0A=0A=0A
=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: "afterfxllc(at)aol.com" <
afterfxllc(at)aol.com>=0ATo: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Sun, May 23,
2010 6:27:00 PM=0ASubject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question=0A=0AB
rady=0A=0AI guess I could talk about your new Corvair crank that came apart
but you are the expert. When you get your first airplane flying come talk
to me but until then you sir are the amateur. And it's funny that only you
and Ron have had any problems with my post and could that have anything to
do with the Corvair? =0AWell enough time wasted on a wanna be airplane buil
der I am gonna go flying in my 601 with a corvair now.=0A=0AO BTW have fun
cooling that 701 with a Corvair engine but what do I know right mine run co
oler than any with-all the unsafe parts I designed and BTW you copied.=0A
=0AJeff=0A-=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: Brady <brady@magnific
entmachine.com>=0ATo: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Sun, May 23, 201
0 3:00 pm=0ASubject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question=0A=0A=0A--> Zenit
h601-List message posted by: "Brady" =0A=0A
=0Aafterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote:=0A> For what it is worth I have done 4 upgr
ades and built 3 flying 601's (None in =0Athe dirt BTW) and I have taken ap
art 7 601's and have seen everything from 10 lb =0Alead shot bags in the wi
ngtip, wing AOA 50=EF=BDmm apart, loose spar bolts, =0Abottomed out spar
bolts, smaller bolts for rear attach point. And non of these =0Afailed. An
d as a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolts broke or were the =0Aca
use of wing failures. The spar snapped at the first bolt hole but the bolts
=0Aremained. Now as a matter of engineering of course the holes should be
reamed if =0Aat all possible but remember there are thousands of aircraft f
lying that have =0Adrilled spar bolts and are safe. Zenith once told us al
ittle loose is ok but =0Anot sloppy but after what has happened every thing
has to be technically =0Acorrect. I use a reamer but wouldn't think one mi
nute about drilling my own =0Aspars with a drill bit because I know I can d
o it correctly and I now believe =0Athe spar and center section wasn't the
problem to begin with and after seeing =0Athe sloppy building of some of th
ese aircraft that didn't break apart I believe =0Aand and have always belie
ved flutter is the most likely reason for the failures. =0A=0A> =0A>
=0A> =0A> =0A> Jeff=0A> =0A> --=0A=0A=0AJeff,=0AI want to point o
ut that just because a substandard assembly has not failed yet, =0Adoesn't
mean that it won't fail in the future, or that it can some how be =0Athough
t of as safe.=0AEncouraging, justifying and or down playing the dangers of
sloppy building =0Apractices is irresponsible at best.=0AThe last thing the
601 community needs is for "Up Graded" 601's falling out of =0Athe sky.=0A
That would cause serious trouble for everyone.=0A=0AYour willingness to ope
nly admit that you would cut such corners on your own =0Aplane only makes p
eople wonder what corners you cut or are willing to cut on =0Atheir airplan
es. =0AWhy would you hold a higher standard for the safety of others than y
ou do your =0Aown?=0A=0AThe fact that you think you can drill a hole with a
2 fluted drill bit that is =0Asome how good enough with out reaming, when
the directions specifically call for =0Aa Reamed hole, only proves that you
don't understand the reasons behind the =0Aprocess.=0A=0A=0A> =0A> And as
a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolts broke or were the cause =0Ao
f wing failures. The spar snapped at the first bolt hole but the bolts =0Ar
emained. =0A> =0A=0A=0AThis statement says it all:=0AApparently you don't u
nderstand why the bolts are being over sized?=0ANo one is concerned that th
e bolts are breaking. =0ADid it ever occur to you that the reason that spar
broke at that hole was =0Abecause perhaps the fit between the bolt and the
hole was too loose and it was =0Aable to work the hole open further until
it finally broke?=0AOr maybe it was one of those sloppy building techniques
you mentioned earlier =0Athat hadn't failed yet but finally did?=0A=0AThe
difference between a professional and an armature is that a professional
=0Aknows enough to know what he doesn't know, and is able to park his ego l
ong =0Aenough to ask the questions he needs to do the job right.=0A=0AYour
personal attacks are only a sign that you have exhausted your technical =0A
experience and knowledge.=0A=0AThe fact that you have built 3 flying 601s a
nd upgraded 4 does not make me rest =0Aeasy, it causes me great concern.=0A
=0AI don't see this as a pissing contest, I see it as an opportunity to tea
ch and =0Alearn.=0A=0A--------=0ABrady McCormick=0APoulsbo, WA=0Awww.magnif
icentmachine.com=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://for
ums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298613#298613=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
============0At" target=_blank>http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List===============
======================0Atp://foru
ms.matronics.com=0A==================
===================0A_blank>http://www.
matronics.com/contribution================
=====================0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
-========================
====================0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
Date: May 23, 2010
From: afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Your right Bill, See what a simple test can turn into? Thats why most don'
t post because other can't wait to flame you but I have been on these list
s since building RV's and they are all the same. I said I was done with th
e pissing match but they can't let it rest.
So now I am done with the pissing match again. LOL
BTW are you going with push pull tubes? The ones I installed work great bu
t it isn't a quick conversion as you know but when I talked to Sebastian
about them he seemed to like the way I went about doing it.
We are Flying 962T again tomorrow and that will end the 5 hour Phase 1 and
I think Thomas is coming to pick it up this week.
I am going to install a Van's slider canopy in my next 601 that I am build
ing now along with a Corvair and push pull tubes. Believe it or not the 60
1 is 20 mm wider than the RV-7 and I think the only thing that I need to
modify is the turtle deck as the RV has bulkheads that are flat at the to
p and rounds as it nears the tail.
Have a good one
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Pagan <bill.pagan(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
I have a problem with you guys bringing your private argument to this foru
m. Give it a rest for the benefit of all of us.
Bill Pagan
From: "afterfxllc(at)aol.com" <afterfxllc(at)aol.com>
Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 6:27:00 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
Brady
I guess I could talk about your new Corvair crank that came apart but you
are the expert. When you get your first airplane flying come talk to me
but until then you sir are the amateur. And it's funny that only you and
Ron have had any problems with my post and could that have anything to do
with the Corvair?
Well enough time wasted on a wanna be airplane builder I am gonna go flyin
g in my 601 with a corvair now.
O BTW have fun cooling that 701 with a Corvair engine but what do I know
right mine run cooler than any with all the unsafe parts I designed and
BTW you copied.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Brady <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 3:00 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
m>
fterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote:
For what it is worth I have done 4 upgrades and built 3 flying 601's (Non
e in
he dirt BTW) and I have taken apart 7 601's and have seen everything from
10 lb
ead shot bags in the wingtip, wing AOA 50=C3=AF=C2=C2=BDmm apart, loose
spar bolts,
ottomed out spar bolts, smaller bolts for rear attach point. And non of th
ese
ailed. And as a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolts broke or were
the
ause of wing failures. The spar snapped at the first bolt hole but the bol
ts
emained. Now as a matter of engineering of course the holes should be ream
ed if
t all possible but remember there are thousands of aircraft flying that ha
ve
rilled spar bolts and are safe. Zenith once told us alittle loose is ok
but
ot sloppy but after what has happened every thing has to be technically
orrect. I use a reamer but wouldn't think one minute about drilling my own
pars with a drill bit because I know I can do it correctly and I now belie
ve
he spar and center section wasn't the problem to begin with and after seei
ng
he sloppy building of some of these aircraft that didn't break apart I bel
ieve
nd and have always believed flutter is the most likely reason for the fail
ures.
>
Jeff
--
eff,
want to point out that just because a substandard assembly has not failed
yet,
oesn't mean that it won't fail in the future, or that it can some how be
hought of as safe.
ncouraging, justifying and or down playing the dangers of sloppy building
ractices is irresponsible at best.
he last thing the 601 community needs is for "Up Graded" 601's falling out
of
he sky.
hat would cause serious trouble for everyone.
Your willingness to openly admit that you would cut such corners on your
own
lane only makes people wonder what corners you cut or are willing to cut
on
heir airplanes.
hy would you hold a higher standard for the safety of others than you do
your
wn?
The fact that you think you can drill a hole with a 2 fluted drill bit tha
t is
ome how good enough with out reaming, when the directions specifically cal
l for
Reamed hole, only proves that you don't understand the reasons behind the
rocess.
And as a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolts broke or were the
cause
f wing failures. The spar snapped at the first bolt hole but the bolts
emained.
his statement says it all:
pparently you don't understand why the bolts are being over sized?
o one is concerned that the bolts are breaking.
id it ever occur to you that the reason that spar broke at that hole was
ecause perhaps the fit between the bolt and the hole was too loose and it
was
ble to work the hole open further until it finally broke?
r maybe it was one of those sloppy building techniques you mentioned earli
er
hat hadn't failed yet but finally did?
The difference between a professional and an armature is that a profession
al
nows enough to know what he doesn't know, and is able to park his ego long
nough to ask the questions he needs to do the job right.
Your personal attacks are only a sign that you have exhausted your technic
al
xperience and knowledge.
The fact that you have built 3 flying 601s and upgraded 4 does not make me
rest
asy, it causes me great concern.
I don't see this as a pissing contest, I see it as an opportunity to teach
and
earn.
--------
rady McCormick
oulsbo, WA
ww.magnificentmachine.com
ead this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298613#298613
========================
===========
" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List==
========
p://forums.matronics.com
=========
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution==========
========================
===========
-= - 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: Ronald Steele <rsteele(at)rjsit.com>
Subject: Re: slider canopy
Date: May 23, 2010
An RV has pretty much straight sides where the 601/50 has a pretty
good flare front to back. How are you planning to have the narrow
front part slide over the wider back part? I've been thinking about
this, and it seem like the canopy would have to lift up, a lot, more
than on an RV, before sliding. For what it's worth, the 601 also has
more head and leg room the than an RV7 (only one I've attempted to get
into - and failed).
I really hope you do this, I'd love to see your solution.
Ron
On May 23, 2010, at 9:25 PM, Afterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote:
> Your right Bill, See what a simple test can turn into? Thats why
> most don't post because other can't wait to flame you but I have
> been on these lists since building RV's and they are all the same. I
> said I was done with the pissing match but they can't let it rest.
>
> So now I am done with the pissing match again. LOL
>
> BTW are you going with push pull tubes? The ones I installed work
> great but it isn't a quick conversion as you know but when I talked
> to Sebastian about them he seemed to like the way I went about doing
> it.
>
> We are Flying 962T again tomorrow and that will end the 5 hour Phase
> 1 and I think Thomas is coming to pick it up this week.
> I am going to install a Van's slider canopy in my next 601 that I am
> building now along with a Corvair and push pull tubes. Believe it or
> not the 601 is 20 mm wider than the RV-7 and I think the only thing
> that I need to modify is the turtle deck as the RV has bulkheads
> that are flat at the top and rounds as it nears the tail.
>
> Have a good one
>
> Jeff
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Pagan <bill.pagan(at)yahoo.com>
> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 7:03 pm
> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
>
> I have a problem with you guys bringing your private argument to
> this forum. Give it a rest for the benefit of all of us.
>
> Bill Pagan
>
>
> From: "afterfxllc(at)aol.com" <afterfxllc(at)aol.com>
> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 6:27:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
>
> Brady
>
> I guess I could talk about your new Corvair crank that came apart
> but you are the expert. When you get your first airplane flying come
> talk to me but until then you sir are the amateur. And it's funny
> that only you and Ron have had any problems with my post and could
> that have anything to do with the Corvair?
> Well enough time wasted on a wanna be airplane builder I am gonna go
> flying in my 601 with a corvair now.
>
> O BTW have fun cooling that 701 with a Corvair engine but what do I
> know right mine run cooler than any with all the unsafe parts I
> designed and BTW you copied.
>
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brady <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 3:00 pm
> Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
>
>
>
>
> afterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote:
> > For what it is worth I have done 4 upgrades and built 3 flying
> 601's (None in
> the dirt BTW) and I have taken apart 7 601's and have seen
> everything from 10 lb
> lead shot bags in the wingtip, wing AOA 50=EF=BDmm apart, loose
spar
> bolts,
> bottomed out spar bolts, smaller bolts for rear attach point. And
> non of these
> failed. And as a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolts broke
> or were the
> cause of wing failures. The spar snapped at the first bolt hole but
> the bolts
> remained. Now as a matter of engineering of course the holes should
> be reamed if
> at all possible but remember there are thousands of aircraft flying
> that have
> drilled spar bolts and are safe. Zenith once told us alittle loose
> is ok but
> not sloppy but after what has happened every thing has to be
> technically
> correct. I use a reamer but wouldn't think one minute about drilling
> my own
> spars with a drill bit because I know I can do it correctly and I
> now believe
> the spar and center section wasn't the problem to begin with and
> after seeing
> the sloppy building of some of these aircraft that didn't break
> apart I believe
> and and have always believed flutter is the most likely reason for
> the failures.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > --
>
>
> Jeff,
> I want to point out that just because a substandard assembly has not
> failed yet,
> doesn't mean that it won't fail in the future, or that it can some
> how be
> thought of as safe.
> Encouraging, justifying and or down playing the dangers of sloppy
> building
> practices is irresponsible at best.
> The last thing the 601 community needs is for "Up Graded" 601's
> falling out of
> the sky.
> That would cause serious trouble for everyone.
>
> Your willingness to openly admit that you would cut such corners on
> your own
> plane only makes people wonder what corners you cut or are willing
> to cut on
> their airplanes.
> Why would you hold a higher standard for the safety of others than
> you do your
> own?
>
> The fact that you think you can drill a hole with a 2 fluted drill
> bit that is
> some how good enough with out reaming, when the directions
> specifically call for
> a Reamed hole, only proves that you don't understand the reasons
> behind the
> process.
>
>
> >
> > And as a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolts broke or
> were the cause
> of wing failures. The spar snapped at the first bolt hole but the
> bolts
> remained.
> >
>
>
> This statement says it all:
> Apparently you don't understand why the bolts are being over sized?
> No one is concerned that the bolts are breaking.
> Did it ever occur to you that the reason that spar broke at that
> hole was
> because perhaps the fit between the bolt and the hole was too loose
> and it was
> able to work the hole open further until it finally broke?
> Or maybe it was one of those sloppy building techniques you
> mentioned earlier
> that hadn't failed yet but finally did?
>
> The difference between a professional and an armature is that a
> professional
> knows enough to know what he doesn't know, and is able to park his
> ego long
> enough to ask the questions he needs to do the job right.
>
> Your personal attacks are only a sign that you have exhausted your
> technical
> experience and knowledge.
>
> The fact that you have built 3 flying 601s and upgraded 4 does not
> make me rest
> easy, it causes me great concern.
>
> I don't see this as a pissing contest, I see it as an opportunity to
> teach and
> learn.
>
> --------
> Brady McCormick
> Poulsbo, WA
> www.magnificentmachine.com
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298613#298613
>
>
> ========================
===========
> t"
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List===
=======
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution==========
>
>
> ========================
===========
> t" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
> ========================
===========
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> ========================
===========
> _blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ========================
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Oops! A6 Rivet question
From: "w8n2bup" <johnrich(at)everestkc.net>
Date: May 23, 2010
I too, spent 2 years occasionally needing to remove a rivet only to run into the
stem and over sizing the hole. Then I heard from Mr. Garrett on the use of a
chisel. I absolutely could not believe I had never heard of this technique before.
I use a half inch wood chisel and have removed several hundred rivets now
and everyone of them left the hole completely untouched. The head just shears
right off and the back of the rivet can be pulled out with a pair of dikes or
pliers or if necessary, a light tap of a punch. I do not have any painted parts
but with the flat side polished a little, it leaves very little in the way
of a mark. In addition, you can get to any head at any angle unlike a drill.
I don't believe I will ever drill out another rivet. Try it. You just won't believe
it !
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298665#298665
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: May 23, 2010
Subject: Re: slider canopy
We have a RV-7 in the other hanger and I have done all the measurements an
d
it works out but the bulkheads have to be flattened at the turtle deck an
d
gradually round as it goes back.
Jeff
In a message dated 5/23/2010 10:02:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rsteele(at)rjsit.com writes:
An RV has pretty much straight sides where the 601/50 has a pretty good
flare front to back. How are you planning to have the narrow front part
slide over the wider back part? I've been thinking about this, and it se
em
like the canopy would have to lift up, a lot, more than on an RV, before
sliding. For what it's worth, the 601 also has more head and leg room th
e than
an RV7 (only one I've attempted to get into - and failed).
I really hope you do this, I'd love to see your solution.
Ron
On May 23, 2010, at 9:25 PM, _Afterfxllc(at)aol.com_ (mailt
o:Afterfxllc(at)aol.com) wrote:
Your right Bill, See what a simple test can turn into? Thats why most
don't post because other can't wait to flame you but I have been on these
lists
since building RV's and they are all the same. I said I was done with the
pissing match but they can't let it rest.
So now I am done with the pissing match again. LOL
BTW are you going with push pull tubes? The ones I installed work great
but it isn't a quick conversion as you know but when I talked to Sebastian
about them he seemed to like the way I went about doing it.
We are Flying 962T again tomorrow and that will end the 5 hour Phase 1 an
d
I think Thomas is coming to pick it up this week.
I am going to install a Van's slider canopy in my next 601 that I am
building now along with a Corvair and push pull tubes. Believe it or not
the 601
is 20 mm wider than the RV-7 and I think the only thing that I need to
modify is the turtle deck as the RV has bulkheads that are flat at the top
and
rounds as it nears the tail.
Have a good one
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Pagan <_bill.pagan(at)yahoo.com_ (mailto:bill.pagan(at)yahoo.com) >
Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
I have a problem with you guys bringing your private argument to this
forum. Give it a rest for the benefit of all of us.
Bill Pagan
____________________________________
From: "_afterfxllc(at)aol.com_ (mailto:afterfxllc(at)aol.com) "
<_afterfxllc(at)aol.com_ (mailto:afterfxllc(at)aol.com) >
Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 6:27:00 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
Brady
I guess I could talk about your new Corvair crank that came apart but you
are the expert. When you get your first airplane flying come talk to me
but
until then you sir are the amateur. And it's funny that only you and Ron
have had any problems with my post and could that have anything to do wit
h
the Corvair?
Well enough time wasted on a wanna be airplane builder I am gonna go
flying in my 601 with a corvair now.
O BTW have fun cooling that 701 with a Corvair engine but what do I know
right mine run cooler than any with all the unsafe parts I designed and
BTW
you copied.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Brady <_brady(at)magnificentmachine.com_
(mailto:brady(at)magnificentmachine.com) >
Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 3:00 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
<_brady(at)magnificentmachine.com_ (mailto:brady(at)magnificentmachine.com) >
afterfxllc(at)_aol.com_ (http://aol.com/) wrote:
> For what it is worth I have done 4 upgrades and built 3 flying 601's
(None in
the dirt BTW) and I have taken apart 7 601's and have seen everything fro
m
10 lb
lead shot bags in the wingtip, wing AOA 50=EF=BDmm apart, loose spar
bolts,
bottomed out spar bolts, smaller bolts for rear attach point. And non of
these
failed. And as a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolts broke or
were the
cause of wing failures. The spar snapped at the first bolt hole but the
bolts
remained. Now as a matter of engineering of course the holes should be
reamed if
at all possible but remember there are thousands of aircraft flying that
have
drilled spar bolts and are safe. Zenith once told us alittle loose is ok
but
not sloppy but after what has happened every thing has to be technically
correct. I use a reamer but wouldn't think one minute about drilling my
own
spars with a drill bit because I know I can do it correctly and I now
believe
the spar and center section wasn't the problem to begin with and after
seeing
the sloppy building of some of these aircraft that didn't break apart I
believe
and and have always believed flutter is the most likely reason for the
failures.
>
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
> --
Jeff,
I want to point out that just because a substandard assembly has not
failed yet,
doesn't mean that it won't fail in the future, or that it can some how be
thought of as safe.
Encouraging, justifying and or down playing the dangers of sloppy buildin
g
practices is irresponsible at best.
The last thing the 601 community needs is for "Up Graded" 601's falling
out of
the sky.
That would cause serious trouble for everyone.
Your willingness to openly admit that you would cut such corners on your
own
plane only makes people wonder what corners you cut or are willing to cut
on
their airplanes.
Why would you hold a higher standard for the safety of others than you do
your
own?
The fact that you think you can drill a hole with a 2 fluted drill bit
that is
some how good enough with out reaming, when the directions specifically
call for
a Reamed hole, only proves that you don't understand the reasons behind
the
process.
>
> And as a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolts broke or were the
cause
of wing failures. The spar snapped at the first bolt hole but the bolts
remained.
>
This statement says it all:
Apparently you don't understand why the bolts are being over sized?
No one is concerned that the bolts are breaking.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason that spar broke at that hole was
because perhaps the fit between the bolt and the hole was too loose and
it
was
able to work the hole open further until it finally broke?
Or maybe it was one of those sloppy building techniques you mentioned
earlier
that hadn't failed yet but finally did?
The difference between a professional and an armature is that a
professional
knows enough to know what he doesn't know, and is able to park his ego
long
enough to ask the questions he needs to do the job right.
Your personal attacks are only a sign that you have exhausted your
technical
experience and knowledge.
The fact that you have built 3 flying 601s and upgraded 4 does not make
me
rest
easy, it causes me great concern.
I don't see this as a pissing contest, I see it as an opportunity to teac
h
and
learn.
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
_www.magnificentmachine.com_ (http://www.magnificentmachine.com/)
Read this topic online here:
_http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298613#298613_
(http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298613#298613)
t"
target=_blank>_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List==
=========_ (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601
-List===========)
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank>_http://www.matronics.com/contribution=========
==_
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution===========)
t" target=_blank>_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List_
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List)
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank>_http://www.matronics.com/contribution_
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List)
========================
============
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
========================
============
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Aileron Stop after Mod
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: May 24, 2010
When I was fitting the doubler around the aileron pushrod hole I found it necessary
to remove the external aileron stop (although it wasn't mentioned in the
modification instructions.)
I did a search and see that Zenith wants the external stop retained even though
we're supposed to add a stop in the fuselage as well.
Did the rest of you just move the stop outboard to clear the doubler or what?
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Tearing wings apart for modification
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298780#298780
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ronald Steele <rsteele(at)rjsit.com>
Subject: Re: slider canopy
Date: May 24, 2010
Were you thinking of the 601 or 650 canopy? I'd hate to loose the
role bar on the 650.
Ron
On May 23, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Afterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote:
> We have a RV-7 in the other hanger and I have done all the
> measurements and it works out but the bulkheads have to be flattened
> at the turtle deck and gradually round as it goes back.
>
> Jeff
>
> In a message dated 5/23/2010 10:02:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rsteele(at)rjsit.com
> writes:
>
> An RV has pretty much straight sides where the 601/50 has a pretty
> good flare front to back. How are you planning to have the narrow
> front part slide over the wider back part? I've been thinking about
> this, and it seem like the canopy would have to lift up, a lot, more
> than on an RV, before sliding. For what it's worth, the 601 also
> has more head and leg room the than an RV7 (only one I've attempted
> to get into - and failed).
>
> I really hope you do this, I'd love to see your solution.
>
> Ron
>
>
> On May 23, 2010, at 9:25 PM, Afterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>> Your right Bill, See what a simple test can turn into? Thats why
>> most don't post because other can't wait to flame you but I have
>> been on these lists since building RV's and they are all the same.
>> I said I was done with the pissing match but they can't let it rest.
>>
>> So now I am done with the pissing match again. LOL
>>
>> BTW are you going with push pull tubes? The ones I installed work
>> great but it isn't a quick conversion as you know but when I talked
>> to Sebastian about them he seemed to like the way I went about
>> doing it.
>>
>> We are Flying 962T again tomorrow and that will end the 5 hour
>> Phase 1 and I think Thomas is coming to pick it up this week.
>> I am going to install a Van's slider canopy in my next 601 that I
>> am building now along with a Corvair and push pull tubes. Believe
>> it or not the 601 is 20 mm wider than the RV-7 and I think the only
>> thing that I need to modify is the turtle deck as the RV has
>> bulkheads that are flat at the top and rounds as it nears the tail.
>>
>> Have a good one
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bill Pagan <bill.pagan(at)yahoo.com>
>> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 7:03 pm
>> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
>>
>> I have a problem with you guys bringing your private argument to
>> this forum. Give it a rest for the benefit of all of us.
>>
>> Bill Pagan
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "afterfxllc(at)aol.com" <afterfxllc(at)aol.com>
>> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 6:27:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
>>
>> Brady
>>
>> I guess I could talk about your new Corvair crank that came apart
>> but you are the expert. When you get your first airplane flying
>> come talk to me but until then you sir are the amateur. And it's
>> funny that only you and Ron have had any problems with my post and
>> could that have anything to do with the Corvair?
>> Well enough time wasted on a wanna be airplane builder I am gonna
>> go flying in my 601 with a corvair now.
>>
>> O BTW have fun cooling that 701 with a Corvair engine but what do I
>> know right mine run cooler than any with all the unsafe parts I
>> designed and BTW you copied.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brady <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
>> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 3:00 pm
>> Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
>>
> >
>>
>>
>> afterfxllc(at)aol.com wrote:
>> > For what it is worth I have done 4 upgrades and built 3 flying
>> 601's (None in
>> the dirt BTW) and I have taken apart 7 601's and have seen
>> everything from 10 lb
>> lead shot bags in the wingtip, wing AOA 50=EF=BDmm apart, loose
spar
>> bolts,
>> bottomed out spar bolts, smaller bolts for rear attach point. And
>> non of these
>> failed. And as a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolts broke
>> or were the
>> cause of wing failures. The spar snapped at the first bolt hole but
>> the bolts
>> remained. Now as a matter of engineering of course the holes should
>> be reamed if
>> at all possible but remember there are thousands of aircraft flying
>> that have
>> drilled spar bolts and are safe. Zenith once told us alittle loose
>> is ok but
>> not sloppy but after what has happened every thing has to be
>> technically
>> correct. I use a reamer but wouldn't think one minute about
>> drilling my own
>> spars with a drill bit because I know I can do it correctly and I
>> now believe
>> the spar and center section wasn't the problem to begin with and
>> after seeing
>> the sloppy building of some of these aircraft that didn't break
>> apart I believe
>> and and have always believed flutter is the most likely reason for
>> the failures.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Jeff
>> >
>> > --
>>
>>
>> Jeff,
>> I want to point out that just because a substandard assembly has
>> not failed yet,
>> doesn't mean that it won't fail in the future, or that it can some
>> how be
>> thought of as safe.
>> Encouraging, justifying and or down playing the dangers of sloppy
>> building
>> practices is irresponsible at best.
>> The last thing the 601 community needs is for "Up Graded" 601's
>> falling out of
>> the sky.
>> That would cause serious trouble for everyone.
>>
>> Your willingness to openly admit that you would cut such corners on
>> your own
>> plane only makes people wonder what corners you cut or are willing
>> to cut on
>> their airplanes.
>> Why would you hold a higher standard for the safety of others than
>> you do your
>> own?
>>
>> The fact that you think you can drill a hole with a 2 fluted drill
>> bit that is
>> some how good enough with out reaming, when the directions
>> specifically call for
>> a Reamed hole, only proves that you don't understand the reasons
>> behind the
>> process.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > And as a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolts broke or
>> were the cause
>> of wing failures. The spar snapped at the first bolt hole but the
>> bolts
>> remained.
>> >
>>
>>
>> This statement says it all:
>> Apparently you don't understand why the bolts are being over sized?
>> No one is concerned that the bolts are breaking.
>> Did it ever occur to you that the reason that spar broke at that
>> hole was
>> because perhaps the fit between the bolt and the hole was too loose
>> and it was
>> able to work the hole open further until it finally broke?
>> Or maybe it was one of those sloppy building techniques you
>> mentioned earlier
>> that hadn't failed yet but finally did?
>>
>> The difference between a professional and an armature is that a
>> professional
>> knows enough to know what he doesn't know, and is able to park his
>> ego long
>> enough to ask the questions he needs to do the job right.
>>
>> Your personal attacks are only a sign that you have exhausted your
>> technical
>> experience and knowledge.
>>
>> The fact that you have built 3 flying 601s and upgraded 4 does not
>> make me rest
>> easy, it causes me great concern.
>>
>> I don't see this as a pissing contest, I see it as an opportunity
>> to teach and
>> learn.
>>
>> --------
>> Brady McCormick
>> Poulsbo, WA
>> www.magnificentmachine.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298613#298613
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> t"
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List===
=======
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution=========
=
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> t" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
>>
>>
>
>
> ========================
===========
> t
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
> ========================
===========
> ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> ========================
===========
>
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ========================
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aileron Stop after Mod
From: "DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher(at)ge.com>
Date: May 24, 2010
I retained the external aileron stops.
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL/Jabiru 3300
First flight 7/24/08
Upgraded 3/19/10
120+ hours and climbing!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298799#298799
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: May 24, 2010
Subject: Re: slider canopy
601
In a message dated 5/24/2010 7:34:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rsteele(at)rjsit.com writes:
Were you thinking of the 601 or 650 canopy? I'd hate to loose the role
bar on the 650.
Ron
On May 23, 2010, at 11:07 PM, _Afterfxllc(at)aol.com_
(mailto:Afterfxllc(at)aol.com) wrote:
We have a RV-7 in the other hanger and I have done all the measurements
and it works out but the bulkheads have to be flattened at the turtle deck
and gradually round as it goes back.
Jeff
In a message dated 5/23/2010 10:02:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_rsteele(at)rjsit.com_ (mailto:rsteele(at)rjsit.com) writes:
An RV has pretty much straight sides where the 601/50 has a pretty good
flare front to back. How are you planning to have the narrow front part
slide over the wider back part? I've been thinking about this, and it se
em
like the canopy would have to lift up, a lot, more than on an RV, before
sliding. For what it's worth, the 601 also has more head and leg room th
e than
an RV7 (only one I've attempted to get into - and failed).
I really hope you do this, I'd love to see your solution.
Ron
On May 23, 2010, at 9:25 PM, _Afterfxllc(at)aol.com_
(mailto:Afterfxllc(at)aol.com) wrote:
Your right Bill, See what a simple test can turn into? Thats why most
don't post because other can't wait to flame you but I have been on these
lists
since building RV's and they are all the same. I said I was done with the
pissing match but they can't let it rest.
So now I am done with the pissing match again. LOL
BTW are you going with push pull tubes? The ones I installed work great
but it isn't a quick conversion as you know but when I talked to Sebastia
n
about them he seemed to like the way I went about doing it.
We are Flying 962T again tomorrow and that will end the 5 hour Phase 1 an
d
I think Thomas is coming to pick it up this week.
I am going to install a Van's slider canopy in my next 601 that I am
building now along with a Corvair and push pull tubes. Believe it or not
the 601
is 20 mm wider than the RV-7 and I think the only thing that I need to
modify is the turtle deck as the RV has bulkheads that are flat at the to
p and
rounds as it nears the tail.
Have a good one
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Pagan <_bill.pagan(at)yahoo.com_ (mailto:bill.pagan(at)yahoo.com) >
Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
I have a problem with you guys bringing your private argument to this
forum. Give it a rest for the benefit of all of us.
Bill Pagan
____________________________________
From: "_afterfxllc(at)aol.com_ (mailto:afterfxllc(at)aol.com) "
<_afterfxllc(at)aol.com_ (mailto:afterfxllc(at)aol.com) >
Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 6:27:00 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
Brady
I guess I could talk about your new Corvair crank that came apart but you
are the expert. When you get your first airplane flying come talk to me
but
until then you sir are the amateur. And it's funny that only you and Ron
have had any problems with my post and could that have anything to do wit
h
the Corvair?
Well enough time wasted on a wanna be airplane builder I am gonna go
flying in my 601 with a corvair now.
O BTW have fun cooling that 701 with a Corvair engine but what do I know
right mine run cooler than any with all the unsafe parts I designed and
BTW
you copied.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Brady <_brady(at)magnificentmachine.com_
(mailto:brady(at)magnificentmachine.com) >
Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 3:00 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
<_brady(at)magnificentmachine.com_ (mailto:brady(at)magnificentmachine.com) >
afterfxllc(at)_aol.com_ (http://aol.com/) wrote:
> For what it is worth I have done 4 upgrades and built 3 flying 601's
(None in
the dirt BTW) and I have taken apart 7 601's and have seen everything fro
m
10 lb
lead shot bags in the wingtip, wing AOA 50=EF=BDmm apart, loose spar
bolts,
bottomed out spar bolts, smaller bolts for rear attach point. And non of
these
failed. And as a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolts broke or
were the
cause of wing failures. The spar snapped at the first bolt hole but the
bolts
remained. Now as a matter of engineering of course the holes should be
reamed if
at all possible but remember there are thousands of aircraft flying that
have
drilled spar bolts and are safe. Zenith once told us alittle loose is ok
but
not sloppy but after what has happened every thing has to be technically
correct. I use a reamer but wouldn't think one minute about drilling my
own
spars with a drill bit because I know I can do it correctly and I now
believe
the spar and center section wasn't the problem to begin with and after
seeing
the sloppy building of some of these aircraft that didn't break apart I
believe
and and have always believed flutter is the most likely reason for the
failures.
>
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
> --
Jeff,
I want to point out that just because a substandard assembly has not
failed yet,
doesn't mean that it won't fail in the future, or that it can some how be
thought of as safe.
Encouraging, justifying and or down playing the dangers of sloppy buildin
g
practices is irresponsible at best.
The last thing the 601 community needs is for "Up Graded" 601's falling
out of
the sky.
That would cause serious trouble for everyone.
Your willingness to openly admit that you would cut such corners on your
own
plane only makes people wonder what corners you cut or are willing to cut
on
their airplanes.
Why would you hold a higher standard for the safety of others than you do
your
own?
The fact that you think you can drill a hole with a 2 fluted drill bit
that is
some how good enough with out reaming, when the directions specifically
call for
a Reamed hole, only proves that you don't understand the reasons behind
the
process.
>
> And as a matter of fact none of the wing attach bolts broke or were the
cause
of wing failures. The spar snapped at the first bolt hole but the bolts
remained.
>
This statement says it all:
Apparently you don't understand why the bolts are being over sized?
No one is concerned that the bolts are breaking.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason that spar broke at that hole was
because perhaps the fit between the bolt and the hole was too loose and
it
was
able to work the hole open further until it finally broke?
Or maybe it was one of those sloppy building techniques you mentioned
earlier
that hadn't failed yet but finally did?
The difference between a professional and an armature is that a
professional
knows enough to know what he doesn't know, and is able to park his ego
long
enough to ask the questions he needs to do the job right.
Your personal attacks are only a sign that you have exhausted your
technical
experience and knowledge.
The fact that you have built 3 flying 601s and upgraded 4 does not make
me
rest
easy, it causes me great concern.
I don't see this as a pissing contest, I see it as an opportunity to teac
h
and
learn.
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
_www.magnificentmachine.com_ (http://www.magnificentmachine.com/)
Read this topic online here:
_http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298613#298613_
(http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298613#298613)
t"
target=_blank>_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List==
=========_ (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601
-List===========)
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank>_http://www.matronics.com/contribution=========
==_
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution===========)
t" target=_blank>_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List_
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List)
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank>_http://www.matronics.com/contribution_
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
href="_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List_
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List)
">_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List_ (http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List)
href="_http://forums.matronics.com_ (http://forums.matronics.com/)
">_http://forums.matronics.com_ (http://forums.matronics.com/)
href="_http://www.matronics.com/contribution_
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ">_http://www.matronics.com/contri
bution_
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
t href="_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List_
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List)
">_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List_ (http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List)
ms.matronics.com/">_http://forums.matronics.com_
(http://forums.matronics.com/)
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">_htt
p://www.matronics.com/contribution_ (http://www.matronics.com/contribution
)
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List)
========================
============
========================
============
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
========================
============
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aileron Stop after Mod
From: "Ron Lendon" <ron.lendon(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 25, 2010
Keeping it in the same place only on top of the doubler. I will check the deflection
and correct as necessary at final assembly.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298829#298829
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2010
Subject: 601 XL Wing-Jig
From: Iberplanes IGD - Alberto Martin <iberplanes(at)gmail.com>
Hi there,
Anyone on the list with a used wing-jig for sale? Please, contact me
offline.
Thanks
--
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
Un ingles a Tom Lucero en la guerra de Malvinas: "=A1Piloto argentino mejor
aqu=ED con nosotros en camilla. Muy peligroso arriba, en su avi=F3n!=97".
Un pasaje del libro "Dios y Los Halcones" del Com. Pablo M. Carballo
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
From: "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Date: May 25, 2010
Jeff,
I would be happy to talk about off shore manufacturing, defective crankshafts,
Corvairs, my accomplishments as a professional or what ever else you might have
on your mind, but if you're going to change the subject at least start a new
thread.
Saying that you want to end a "pissing contest" and then taking a parting shot
is contradictory.
It is a common strategy for someone who has reached the end their argument/ debate
or what ever to try and create a diversion and or change the subject to try
and direct the attention away from themselves. We see this in the political
arena all the time.
It doesn't work here any better than it does there.
The fact that your airplane is done and flying only means that you started before
I did, you assembled a kit where as I am scratch building, and I would be happy
to compare workmanship at any venue of your choosing once I am done.
My 601 will be done far sooner than my 701 so at least we will have apples to compare
to apples.
Until then, Cheers!
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298868#298868
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
Date: May 25, 2010
From: afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Your right you win.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Brady <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Sent: Tue, May 25, 2010 6:18 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: upgrade question
m>
Jeff,
would be happy to talk about off shore manufacturing, defective crankshaf
ts,
orvairs, my accomplishments as a professional or what ever else you might
have
n your mind, but if you're going to change the subject at least start a ne
w
hread.
Saying that you want to end a "pissing contest" and then taking a parting
shot
s contradictory.
It is a common strategy for someone who has reached the end their argument
/
ebate or what ever to try and create a diversion and or change the subject
to
ry and direct the attention away from themselves. We see this in the polit
ical
rena all the time.
It doesn't work here any better than it does there.
The fact that your airplane is done and flying only means that you started
efore I did, you assembled a kit where as I am scratch building, and I wou
ld be
appy to compare workmanship at any venue of your choosing once I am done.
My 601 will be done far sooner than my 701 so at least we will have apples
to
ompare to apples.
Until then, Cheers!
--------
rady McCormick
oulsbo, WA
ww.magnificentmachine.com
ead this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298868#298868
========================
===========
-= - 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: upgrade question
From: "chuck960" <chuckde(at)roadrunner.com>
Date: May 25, 2010
If anyone is still interested It looks to me like 8 of the 12 holes have more than
enough edge distance and the 4 inboard holes would be out of tolerance if
drilled up to 3/8". So there may be an option for us sloppy back drillers.
Chuck
CH650
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298876#298876
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade question
From: "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Date: May 25, 2010
Chuck,
I found another source for the NAS6205-22x bolts.
these are New surplus and they want $12 each.
Not bad really....
I still have RFQ's out for the longer ones.
If you're interested:
Their phone # is 1-717-896-7570
I can't recall the name of the company?
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298881#298881
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aileron Stop after Mod
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: May 26, 2010
I heard from Caleb on the issue. It is OK to move the stop outboard enough to
clear the aileron rod hole doubler. It is also OK to trim back the edge of the
upper rear spar angle where it protrudes above the doublers if you are concerned
about interference with the aileron piano hinge.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Tearing wings apart for modification
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=298979#298979
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aileron Stop after Mod
From: "philand" <philand(at)msn.com>
Date: May 26, 2010
After installing the counterweights, if find that I am 10 mm. from the aileron
stop, when the cw. hits the skin. Spoke to Roger and he said that the stop had
been "redesigned" a couple of yrs. ago and would send a new stop. I'm drwg.
# 6419.
--------
Phil
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299002#299002
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aileron Stop after Mod
From: "Ron Lendon" <ron.lendon(at)gmail.com>
Date: May 27, 2010
This is from memory, I think the aileron movement is 11.5 degrees up and 11.5 degrees
down.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299051#299051
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Looking for wiring ideas
From: "w8n2bup" <johnrich(at)everestkc.net>
Date: May 27, 2010
I have completed most of the fuselage now and am at the point where I need to start
running some wires, i.e. elevator trim, tail light, flap motor. I can see
that there are many avenues from the elevator trim tab to the front. I have a
center stick and plan to put the trims on it unless there is some better reason
to put them on the panel. I would appreciate suggestions on type of clips,
grommets, tabs, splices at the motor end, etc. as there seem to be several possibilities
from the hardware store to Wicks. I especially would like a good route
from tail to stick. I don't know which side might be best to run down a longeron
or when to go through or around a bulkhead or if I need to go past the
stick and then back again on the floor or even when /where it will drop to floor.
I can figure a route for the wing wires but need some possibilities for the
tail and flap motor. Thanks again for ideas/products. John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299053#299053
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk(at)windstream.net>
Subject: Re: Looking for wiring ideas
Date: May 27, 2010
John
B+C Specialty has generic schematics available free at their site, and many
of the necessary components you'll need. Shouldn't take much to modify to
fit your situation, and they're good people.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "w8n2bup" <johnrich(at)everestkc.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:19 AM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Looking for wiring ideas
>
> I have completed most of the fuselage now and am at the point where I need
> to start running some wires, i.e. elevator trim, tail light, flap motor. I
> can see that there are many avenues from the elevator trim tab to the
> front. I have a center stick and plan to put the trims on it unless there
> is some better reason to put them on the panel. I would appreciate
> suggestions on type of clips, grommets, tabs, splices at the motor end,
> etc. as there seem to be several possibilities from the hardware store to
> Wicks. I especially would like a good route from tail to stick. I don't
> know which side might be best to run down a longeron or when to go through
> or around a bulkhead or if I need to go past the stick and then back again
> on the floor or even when /where it will drop to floor. I can figure a
> route for the wing wires but need some possibilities for the tail and flap
> motor. Thanks again for ideas/products. John
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299053#299053
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2010
From: Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Looking for wiring ideas
Hi John, I think I have detailed pictures of how I did it on my web site. I used
the MS21919 a lot...
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
--- On Thu, 5/27/10, w8n2bup wrote:
...> there is some better reason to put them on the panel. I
> would appreciate suggestions on type of clips, grommets,
> tabs, splices at the motor end, etc. as there seem to be
> several possibilities from the hardware store to Wicks. I
> especially would like a good route from tail to stick. I
...>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2010
From: Larry McFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>
Subject: Re: Looking for wiring ideas
Hi John,
I've got an electrical page on my site, www.macsmachine.com, that might
help you with the methodology of running wires throughout the plane.
Some electrical diagrams
that may be helpful too. Pictures clicked go large for a better view and
perhaps there and other pages will help you with specific routing etc.
See link, http://www.macsmachine.com/html/electrical.htm
Best regards,
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
w8n2bup wrote:
>
> I have completed most of the fuselage now and am at the point where I need to
start running some wires, i.e. elevator trim, tail light, flap motor. I can see
that there are many avenues from the elevator trim tab to the front.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2010
From: Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Bad takeoff, but still good landing
Last sunday was a beautiful day here in my region and I couldn't resist flying
after completing the engine portion of my annual inspection. I changed the oil,
tested the compression (150 +-5 on all cylinders), timing OK, removed valve
covers... all neat, cleaned air filter, etc, etc... all was GREAT :-)
Well, I did my preflight inspection, did my runnup (at about 3600 rpm) near runway
15 of Beloeil airport, positioned myself on the runway and applied full throttle.
The feeling of accelerating and taking off on such a beautiful day was
enjoyable... for about 4 seconds... I climbed to about 5 feet in the air and
then, total loss of power (like lack of fuel). I was getting close to mid-runway
(maybe even past it... don't remember), and I pulled the throttle, and
landed the plane. The engine was still running at low rpm.
Then I went to an area to check the engine behavior... when I raised the throttle
above 4000 rpm, it would do the same thing. I then tried at lower rpms...
would just take more time and at about 2100 rpm, the engine would run smooth,
miss and run smooth again.
My first idea was the fuel supply... so I disconnected the fuel line and filter
from the carburetor and tested the fuel flow.. very good.. certainly, the issue
is not that. I then removed the top of the carburetor (Holley 5200) to see
if the bowl has fuel and to see if the float valve operates properly... bowl
was OK (but with some small debrits on the bottom) and floats appeared to work
OK (I applied fuel pressure while playing with float movement and making a mess
besides the catch can I was using).
My questions: what failures could create this condition?
1. fuel system ? (I think so)
2. ignition system ?
3. cam shaft ?
4. ?
Oh... a funny thing... I'm surprised to notice I did not get excited through this...
I don't think my heart beat got any faster during that failure.
I got a strange feeling that I'll miss many good days of flying opportunities now.
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2010
From: Larry McFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>
Subject: Re: Bad takeoff, but still good landing
Michel,
I'd look for a fuel restriction in the line, gascolator, filter or
anywhere ahead of the carb. This doesn't sound like an ignition, choke
or spark type failure.
A fuel restriction would allow you to get full throttle until the engine
need gets ahead of the flow. Then it would starve itself at full setting
after running full out
for a short time.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Michel Therrien wrote:
>
> Last sunday was a beautiful day here in my region and I couldn't resist flying
after completing the engine portion of my annual inspection. I changed the
oil, tested the compression (150 +-5 on all cylinders), timing OK, removed valve
covers... all neat, cleaned air filter, etc, etc... all was GREAT :-)
>
> Well, I did my preflight inspection, did my runnup (at about 3600 rpm) near
runway 15 of Beloeil airport, positioned myself on the runway and applied full
throttle. The feeling of accelerating and taking off on such a beautiful day
was enjoyable... for about 4 seconds... I climbed to about 5 feet in the air
and then, total loss of power (like lack of fuel). I was getting close to mid-runway
(maybe even past it... don't remember), and I pulled the throttle, and
landed the plane. The engine was still running at low rpm.
>
> ----------------------------
> Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
> http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
> http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2010
From: Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Bad takeoff, but still good landing
Indeed that was my first impression. The symptom is exactly it. I did check the
fuel flow right at the carb (disconnected the filter from the carb, put the
hose towards a container and activated each fuel pump) and all was nice. I did
check the float action and flow control of the float mechanism (as much as
I could do it). I suspect a carburetor defect, but I'm wondering it this could
be anything else.
At the parking lot, I tested the operation with my three fuel pumps and my two
ignition.. none would change anything in that bad engine behavior.
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
--- On Thu, 5/27/10, Larry McFarland wrote:
> From: Larry McFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>
> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Bad takeoff, but still good landing
> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
> Received: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 4:46 PM
> --> Zenith601-List message posted
> by: Larry McFarland
>
>
> Michel,
> I'd look for a fuel restriction in the line, gascolator,
> filter or anywhere ahead of the carb. This doesn't sound
> like an ignition, choke or spark type failure.
> A fuel restriction would allow you to get full throttle
> until the engine need gets ahead of the flow. Then it would
> starve itself at full setting after running full out
> for a short time.
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
> Michel Therrien wrote:
> Therrien
> >
> > Last sunday was a beautiful day here in my region and
> I couldn't resist flying after completing the engine portion
> of my annual inspection. I changed the oil, tested the
> compression (150 +-5 on all cylinders), timing OK, removed
> valve covers... all neat, cleaned air filter, etc,
> etc... all was GREAT :-)
> >
> > Well, I did my preflight inspection, did my
> runnup (at about 3600 rpm) near runway 15 of Beloeil
> airport, positioned myself on the runway and applied full
> throttle. The feeling of accelerating and taking off
> on such a beautiful day was enjoyable... for about 4
> seconds... I climbed to about 5 feet in the air and then,
> total loss of power (like lack of fuel). I was getting
> close to mid-runway (maybe even past it... don't remember),
> and I pulled the throttle, and landed the plane.
> The engine was still running at low rpm.
> > ----------------------------
> > Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
> >http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
> >http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bad takeoff, but still good landing
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: May 27, 2010
Did you check that your tank vents were not plugged up? Mud dauber wasps have
been known plug them up.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Tearing wings apart for modification
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299097#299097
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2010
From: Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Bad takeoff, but still good landing
Yes, I did.. forgot to mention. Thanks Tim.
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
--- On Thu, 5/27/10, Tim Juhl wrote:
>> Did you check that your tank vents were not plugged
> up? Mud dauber wasps have been known plug them up.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bad takeoff, but still good landing
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: May 27, 2010
Heat source near a fuel line causing vapor lock (possibly a dislodged heat shield)?
Air leak in the intake manifold?
Hope you find the solution. Let us know what it is when you find it...
- Pat
--------
Patrick
XL/650/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299103#299103
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 28, 2010
From: BobbyPaulk(at)comcast.net
Subject: Engine Stoppage
Michael,
Something else to look for is complete or partial collapse of intake pipe or hose.
On my first attempt at take off the higher vacuum generated plus the heat
in the engine compartment caused the radiator hose to collapse. I changed it to
fiberglass and have not had a problem since.
Bobby
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bad takeoff, but still good landing
From: "sonar1(at)cox.net" <sonar1(at)cox.net>
Date: May 28, 2010
I had a forced landing with an engine that was doing the same thing. Met a really
nice farmer. Problem was the fuel filter - small one from Aircraft Spruce.
I would change the filter or try a bigger one, and try again....Fred N9601 (sold)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299153#299153
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aileron Stop after Mod
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: May 28, 2010
well if there is a new stop designed,
can someone with the latest version of the plans ( 650 I guess) scan in the aileron
stop so we all can see how it is done? size wise / thickness?
Chris.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299195#299195
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: different upgrade Q
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: May 28, 2010
Hi all
Is it me or are other people confused with the Nose ribs section of the upgrade?
I have the 3 nose ribs and following the Zenith photo guide becomes confusing here
as their plane has the 4 nose ribs and so the photos don't match the plans.
With nose rib No 1 it would have been great if they could have put a top down view
as they do in nose rib 2.
What happens to the row of rivet holes through the original spar web at the back
of the spar? The nose rib 1 bracket is riveted on to the new .125 tho plate.
Are we to rivet a plate over the old holes or just leave them open??
Can someone shoot a couple of pictures of this area Front and Back of what this
nose rib 1 area is supposed to look like please.
also
I put it in, but why the bottom spar angle between 1 and 2 ribs?
Have we had buckling in that area, and why not a full piece between 1 and 3 as
you could still get an access panel hole if it was extended..
Chris
Zodiac Xl
Sydney
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299199#299199
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: different upgrade Q
From: "Ianrat" <ianrat(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: May 29, 2010
Chris i have use a small rivet from the back side of the wind just to close the
hole and make it look better.
Ianrat
CH601XL
Brisbane :D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299244#299244
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alan & Brenda" <alsmith(at)olemac.net>
Subject: Re: Aileron Stop after Mod
Date: May 29, 2010
T=.040 6061-T6
Bottom 108 deg bend 20 mm long,
Vertical 15 mm long,
56 deg bend 29 mm long,
56 deg bend Vertical 15 mm
Sorry I can not scan
Brenda Smith CH650
--------------------------------------------------
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 3:19 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Aileron Stop after Mod
>
>
> well if there is a new stop designed,
>
> can someone with the latest version of the plans ( 650 I guess) scan in
> the aileron stop so we all can see how it is done? size wise / thickness?
>
> Chris.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299195#299195
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 29, 2010
From: Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Bad takeoff, but still good landing
Hello all,
I found the problem today. I had another Holley 5200 carb at home that I studied.
I examined the fload mechanism. Then, I went back to the airport and opened
the carb and this time, noticed that the movement of the float was very restrained.
I then saw the issue. The floats activates a needle that seats in
the bottom of a female piece. That piece was unscrewed! (see picture attached)
So, the needle would seat and restrict the flow at low bowl fuel level.
That was easilly repared.
I tested my engine on the ground, holding it between 4600 and 4900 rpm with no
mis or anything like that.... so, I'll fly it may be tomorrow.
It is a bit frightening to see how we depend on so small things when we fly. An
annual inspection would not reveal this type of problem.
Thanks all who provided ideas of what to look for.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aileron Stop after Mod
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: May 29, 2010
thanks
I / we should be able to work with that.
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299299#299299
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "George Race" <mykitairplane(at)mrrace.com>
Subject: Chat Reminder for "Digesters"
Date: May 30, 2010
www.mykitairplane.com http://www.mykitairplane.com/ >
Check out my line of items for Experimental Airplane Builders
My Products: www.mykitairplane.com/Products/
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Upgrade Question - Main Spar Carry Through
From: "Scotsman" <james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za>
Date: Jun 01, 2010
Evening List, a quick couple of questions regarding the main spar carry through
piece:
Firstly, after having installed all the various new pieces on the spar carry through
I was trial fitting it onto the cabin floor. Obviously the assembly is
a bit wider than before to accommodate the thicker spar root. Ultimately when
I cleco in the aft set of holes to the cabin floor I had a quick look at the
forward set to see where they fall in relation to the holes forward holes. Basically
the new forward holes will "clip" the old forward holes. Is this correct
as it seems messy and makes me question a) whether I am doing it correctly
and b) whether this is structurally ok?
Secondly, after having trial fitted the spar carry through together I tried to
push my centre punch through a couple of the holes to test alignment (with the
holes on the other web). The two set of holes do not seem perfectly aligned.
Did anyone else encounter this and if so what was the solution? FYI the holes
on each web are very tight as I was concerned about the comments on the list
about loose fittings etc. Should the spar holes accept the bolt dropping in
or should it be tapped in with a rubber mallet or the like.
Any advice in regards to either question would be much appreciated and apologies
if anyone has already raised and answered the above questions.
James
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299587#299587
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Upgrade Question - Main Spar Carry Through
Date: Jun 01, 2010
Hi James,
I haven't made it that far yet, but I have started thinking about it a
little. The side skin will be a problem unless we do something to replace
the skin around the carry-through. This is not as bad as it sounds since
the new uprights are attached to both longerons instead of just the bottom
one as in the original design. That makes the skin question a little bit
less important. Perhaps some sort of patch over the old holes would solve
that problem - either with or without removing the old skin around this
area.
I don't have any ideas about the alignment question. Part of this problem
is the fact the front part of the fuselage "Floats" compared to the rear
part until the carry-through is fastened in place.
Good luck,
Paul
XL installing upgrade (slowly)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scotsman
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 10:41 AM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Upgrade Question - Main Spar Carry Through
Evening List, a quick couple of questions regarding the main spar carry
through piece:
Firstly, after having installed all the various new pieces on the spar carry
through I was trial fitting it onto the cabin floor. Obviously the assembly
is a bit wider than before to accommodate the thicker spar root. Ultimately
when I cleco in the aft set of holes to the cabin floor I had a quick look
at the forward set to see where they fall in relation to the holes forward
holes. Basically the new forward holes will "clip" the old forward holes.
Is this correct as it seems messy and makes me question a) whether I am
doing it correctly and b) whether this is structurally ok?
Secondly, after having trial fitted the spar carry through together I tried
to push my centre punch through a couple of the holes to test alignment
(with the holes on the other web). The two set of holes do not seem
perfectly aligned. Did anyone else encounter this and if so what was the
solution? FYI the holes on each web are very tight as I was concerned about
the comments on the list about loose fittings etc. Should the spar holes
accept the bolt dropping in or should it be tapped in with a rubber mallet
or the like.
Any advice in regards to either question would be much appreciated and
apologies if anyone has already raised and answered the above questions.
James
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299587#299587
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upgrade Question - Main Spar Carry Through
From: "wa7dvd" <wa7dvd(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jun 01, 2010
I was working on the same thing today. I talked to Roger (ZAC) this morning about
the same thing. Since I had not drilled the front flange yet I laid out a
complete to line of holes half way between to old holes. Roger said just leave
the old holes empty. With the spar out, we measured and pilot drilled the
new line through the floor. Then with the spar in place we back drilled up through
the floor and spar. It lined up well. So far as holes in the side skins,
the "T" stiffener will cover all visible holes along the uprights.
--------
BK Johnson
Zodiac 601XL
N601BK (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299694#299694
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upgrade Question - Main Spar Carry Through
From: "Scotsman" <james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za>
Date: Jun 01, 2010
Thanks wa7dvd. That seems to be a solution as I think that the upgrade manual
suggests drilling through the existing holes in the forward flange of the spar
which will clip the old cabin floor holes. I note that in one of the upgrade
videos you can see that their clecos are squint because of this. Is there sufficient
edge distance between the old and new holes in your method?
Anyone else got a solution for the bolt hole alignment on the upgraded spar?
James
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299698#299698
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upgrade Question - Main Spar Carry Through
From: "Scotsman" <james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za>
Date: Jun 01, 2010
Hi Paul, I was considering "extending" the T section on the side of the fuselage
downwards purely for aesthetic reasons. This would allow both covering all
of the old forward upright holes and allowing you to cleanly recut the hole for
the spar carry through to match the new upgraded dimensions.
Probably lots of work to get a nice fit though.
j
[Rolling Eyes] [Rolling Eyes]
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299699#299699
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upgrade Question - Main Spar Carry Through
From: "wa7dvd" <wa7dvd(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jun 01, 2010
Hi James,
The old rivet line is pitch 30 so going between still leaves 15mm. Roger told
me that would be just fine. Sorry for not signing my last note.
-Bruce-
--------
BK Johnson
Zodiac 601XL
N601BK (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299700#299700
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upgrade Question - Main Spar Carry Through
From: "Scotsman" <james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za>
Date: Jun 01, 2010
Thanks Bruce. I was being lazy and not walking downstairs to have a look. 15
mm is definitely sufficient. James
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299703#299703
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upgrade Question - Main Spar Carry Through
From: "dgardea(at)gmail.com" <dgardea(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 02, 2010
Bruce - thanks for making the call to ZAC in the rivet holes thru that forward
bottom doubler on the center spar. I unfortunately already backdrilled these so
will need to add additional rivet holes to miss the holes in the fuse floor.
On a related topic .. did anyone notice that the center spar doublers were shipped
at length 945 when the ZAC upgrade plans call for a length of 940 on all
the doublers. I just finished drilling and deburring all the doublers and wondering
if I will need to trim these to avoid interference with the front and aft
uprights? Someone who has already clecoed their center spar parts together
and tested for clearance may already know the answer. Thanks!
Dave Gardea
--------
Dave Gardea
601XL - Corvair
working on wiring panel and upgrade kit
http://home.comcast.net/~davegardea/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299754#299754
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upgrade Question - Main Spar Carry Through
From: "DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher(at)ge.com>
Date: Jun 02, 2010
Dave,
There will be trimming required of the doublers to provide clearance to the wing
uprights 6ZU2-6.
Good luck,
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL/Jabiru 3300
First flight 7/24/08
Upgraded 3/19/10
130+ hours and climbing!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299761#299761
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upgrade Question - Main Spar Carry Through
From: "dgardea(at)gmail.com" <dgardea(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 02, 2010
Dave,
Thanks for the heads up on this. Like James, I will be trial fitting the center
spar in the fuse and checking the fit before any riveting.
Thanks,
Dave Gardea
--------
Dave Gardea
601XL - Corvair
working on wiring panel and upgrade kit
http://home.comcast.net/~davegardea/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299770#299770
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Fuel line size
From: "dalemed" <dalemed(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 02, 2010
I've decided to replace the rubber hose fuel line from the tank with 3/8" aluminum
line. I've got 2 questions - should I use 6061-T6 Aluminum line and what
wall thickness should I use? Aircraft Spruce sells 4 different wall thicknesses
for 3/8" OD line - .035, .058, .065 and .083.
It seems to me any of these should give me adequate fuel flow for a Jabiru 3300.
The other issue might be strength, but I should be able to support it well
enough.
Thanks for any advice.
--------
Dale
Flying Cessna 170B
Building Zenith CH650
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299792#299792
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel line size
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: Jun 02, 2010
I'm not flying yet but I chose to go with 3/8 " 3003-0 versatube which has a wall
thickness of 0.035 and a working pressure of 520 psi. The versatube is fairly
easy to make bends and curves in without kinking. I plan to use aeroquip
hoses at points subject to flex or excessive vibration.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Tearing wings apart for modification
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299805#299805
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 02, 2010
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: Upgrade Question - Main Spar Carry Through
Hi James
I am far from taking my center spar apart, but I have been thinking about
that alignment problem for a while.
It seems to me that the best thing would be to actually bolt both wing
spars to the two sides of the center spar before riveting the two sides
together. That may be overkill, however. At a minimum, I think I'd want to
put all 12 bolts in place on the center spar, with appropriate spacers
between the top and bottom middle bolts, before I drilled the new doubler
that will tie the tops of the center spar together. They must line up, and
the holes must be tight. Since the holes are already drilled, they holes
must be aligned before the two sides of the spar are drilled and riveted
together.
However, I haven't even looked at the instructions for upgrading the center
spar, and it may be covered there. Let us know how you resolve this.
Terry
>Thanks wa7dvd. That seems to be a solution as I think that the upgrade
>manual suggests drilling through the existing holes in the forward flange
>of the spar which will clip the old cabin floor holes. I note that in one
>of the upgrade videos you can see that their clecos are squint because of
>this. Is there sufficient edge distance between the old and new holes in
>your method?
>
>Anyone else got a solution for the bolt hole alignment on the upgraded spar?
>
>James
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done;
Upgrading wings & ailerons per the AMD Safety Directive
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 02, 2010
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel line size
Hi Dale
I made the same decision.
I recommend that you check out Tony Bingellis' article, "About Aircraft
Plumbing," in his book Firewall Forward. You might be able to find the
article for free on the EAA website. A lot of his articles are published
there for members. Bngellis recommended 5052-1. 6061 is stiffer. The
article has a lot of info about fittings, design, etc. It is a good primer.
Terry
>I've decided to replace the rubber hose fuel line from the tank with 3/8"
>aluminum line. I've got 2 questions - should I use 6061-T6 Aluminum line
>and what wall thickness should I use? Aircraft Spruce sells 4 different
>wall thicknesses for 3/8" OD line - .035, .058, .065 and .083.
>
>It seems to me any of these should give me adequate fuel flow for a Jabiru
>3300. The other issue might be strength, but I should be able to support
>it well enough.
>
>Thanks for any advice.
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done;
Upgrading wings & ailerons per the AMD Safety Directive
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upgrade Question - Main Spar Carry Through
From: "Scotsman" <james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za>
Date: Jun 02, 2010
Hi Terry, Good to hear from you again.
The problem is that even without the actual wing spars in place I can see that
the alignment is very slightly off on the outside bolt holes only. If I turn
a wing spar bolt it twists into place (probably exerting some pressure on the
thread but if i use a 5/16 transfer punch (ie. an object with straight sides it
will not fit easily as it clips (very slightly) the edge of the web on the far
side's bolt hole). Oddly, the other in board bolt holes seem to be, in general,
well aligned.
I note that the bolt holes were drilled by Zenith (ie. this was a kit not plans
built) and the only modification I have made is in accordance with the upgrades
to the carry through spar.
I am very reluctant to ream the holes any further as on each web individually I
have a nice fit (very) fit...especially after all the incidents and conversations
on the forum.
Any help would be appreciated. Has anyone had this problem?
James
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299822#299822
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel line size
From: "Geoff Heap" <stol10(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jun 03, 2010
I bought a roll of 3003 and several pre cut 6' sections of 5052. I much prefer
the 5052. I had no success trying to unroll 3003 to straight. It looked awful.
I gave it away to a fellow builder. However, the 5052 is soft enough to work
with and has no bends in it except the ones I put there. Shipping cost is a little
more but not by much if you go 6' max. I had no runs where I needed more
than 6'...Geoff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299831#299831
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 03, 2010
From: Bill Pagan <bill.pagan(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel line size
Just a reminder to all using AN fittings on the aluminum and braided fuel l
ines that they require a 37 degree flare (and thus an aviation flaring tool
) and not a standard 45 degree flare as on automobiles.=0A-=0ABill Pag=E1
n=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Geoff Heap <stol10
(at)comcast.net>=0ATo: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Thu, June 3, 2010
8:22:48 AM=0ASubject: Zenith601-List: Re: Fuel line size=0A=0A--> Zenith601
-List message posted by: "Geoff Heap" =0A=0AI bought a
roll of 3003 and several pre cut 6' sections of 5052. I much prefer the 505
2. I had no success trying to unroll 3003 to straight. It looked awful. I g
ave it away to a fellow builder. However, the 5052 is soft enough to work w
ith and has no bends in it except the ones I put there. Shipping cost is a
little more but not by much if you go 6' max. I had no runs where I needed
more than 6'...Geoff=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp:/
/forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299831#299831=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
=================0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel line size
From: "dalemed" <dalemed(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 03, 2010
Thanks everybody :D Great advice!
--------
Dale
Flying Cessna 170B
Building Zenith CH650
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299850#299850
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel line size
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: Jun 03, 2010
If you are an EAA member or know someone who is, there is a nice article in this
months Sport Aviation on choosing and fabricating aluminum fuel lines. Check
it out!
Tim Juhl
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Tearing wings apart for modification
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299859#299859
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 03, 2010
Subject: Re: Fuel line size
Dale
Call Van's aircraft and order their 3/8 tubing it iust seems to be easier
to work with and then you know you are getting the right stuff. But if you
have to get it from Spruce this is the stuff you want.
_http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/mepages/3003versatube.php_
(http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/mepages/3003versatube.php)
Jeff
In a message dated 6/2/2010 6:50:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dalemed(at)gmail.com writes:
--> Zenith601-List message posted by: "dalemed"
I've decided to replace the rubber hose fuel line from the tank with 3/8"
aluminum line. I've got 2 questions - should I use 6061-T6 Aluminum line
and what wall thickness should I use? Aircraft Spruce sells 4 different
wall thicknesses for 3/8" OD line - .035, .058, .065 and .083.
It seems to me any of these should give me adequate fuel flow for a Jabiru
3300. The other issue might be strength, but I should be able to support
it well enough.
Thanks for any advice.
--------
Dale
Flying Cessna 170B
Building Zenith CH650
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299792#299792
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: AN-3 nyloc nut torque
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Jun 05, 2010
people
what torque are you doing these little nuts up to with the .125 th spar plate?
on the AC43-13B it talks about 25"lb. Zenith construction standards the same.
Problem is they are still loose when the torque wrench clicks, not bottomed out,
loose.
some one suggested adding the friction TQ of the nut. to the published TQ
The good book AC 43 said max 40"lb. So what have others been using as the TQ value??
At 40 its firm and you can still move the whole bolt and nut a little with
a spanner if u rotate the head.
the A4's are OK just the little A3's that worry me, logic says you should not be
able to move the bolt when done up to the correct torque.
Am I over worried?
Chris.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300106#300106
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 05, 2010
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: AN-3 nyloc nut torque
Hi Chris
I used the info from Zenair's construction standard CS#407, which says:
>Drag torque. Run the nut down to near contact with the washer and check
>the friction drag torque required to turn the nut. Add the drag torque to
>the desired torque. This is referred to as the final torque which should
>register on the indicator or setting on the torque wrench.
And, as you note, CS#407 specifies 20-25 in-lbs for AN3's with AN365 nuts.
The problem is, I do not see any way to measure the drag torque with a
"click" type torque wrench. So I chose a "beam" type wrench, the Park TW-1,
IIRC. It is actually sold as a bike tool, ~$40 USD.
With my bolts, nuts, and wrench, I measure a drag torque of ~4 in-lb, so I
torqued my AN3 to between 25 and 30 in-lb. That nut and bolt seem to be
plenty tight to me. Perhaps your click wrench is not accurate in the low
in-lb ranges.
Terry
>people
>what torque are you doing these little nuts up to with the .125 th spar plate?
>on the AC43-13B it talks about 25"lb. Zenith construction standards the
>same. Problem is they are still loose when the torque wrench clicks, not
>bottomed out, loose.
>some one suggested adding the friction TQ of the nut. to the published TQ
>
>The good book AC 43 said max 40"lb. So what have others been using as the
>TQ value?? At 40 its firm and you can still move the whole bolt and nut a
>little with a spanner if u rotate the head.
>
>the A4's are OK just the little A3's that worry me, logic says you should
>not be able to move the bolt when done up to the correct torque.
>Am I over worried?
>Chris.
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done;
Upgrading wings & ailerons per the AMD Safety Directive
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Floyd Wilkes" <fwilkes(at)gvtc.com>
Subject: AN-3 nyloc nut torque
Date: Jun 05, 2010
Chris,
Make sure you have the correct length bolt. If the bolt is too long, the
nut will hit the shoulder and not allow it to become tight. You are correct
you will not be able to move the bolt if all is right.
Floyd Wilkes
601XL
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris
Sinfield
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 6:29 AM
Subject: Zenith601-List: AN-3 nyloc nut torque
-->
people
what torque are you doing these little nuts up to with the .125 th spar
plate?
on the AC43-13B it talks about 25"lb. Zenith construction standards the
same. Problem is they are still loose when the torque wrench clicks, not
bottomed out, loose.
some one suggested adding the friction TQ of the nut. to the published TQ
The good book AC 43 said max 40"lb. So what have others been using as the TQ
value?? At 40 its firm and you can still move the whole bolt and nut a
little with a spanner if u rotate the head.
the A4's are OK just the little A3's that worry me, logic says you should
not be able to move the bolt when done up to the correct torque.
Am I over worried?
Chris.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300106#300106
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 05, 2010
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Upgrade Tools list on Matronics Wiki
I am working my 601XL upgrade.
A critical piece of information that I have not found in the Zenair upgrade
dwgs and the Photo Assembly Guides is a list of the tools needed to perform
the upgrades. I have been buying tools that I think will be useful. Some of
them have been vital to my work. Others have been a waste of money, at
least for the upgrade. I think that a tool list would be useful for
upgraders, so I put together an Excel worksheet summarizing my experience
with the tools I've purchased, good and bad. I've included my personal
rating of each tool, as well as, cost and ordering links.
I think that the Matronics Wiki provides an excellent vehicle to share this
information with the 601XL/650 community, because a Wiki lends itself to
editing--both revisions and additions--so any of you can weigh in with your
experience. If you've discovered a really good tool, add it to the list. If
I've panned some tool that you found useful--or vice versa, change the
rating. If you decide to edit the information, thank you, and be sure to
add your initials to the contributor's list. If you do edit the Wiki, you
might post a note with that information to the Matronics lists.
The link to the Wiki is:
http://www.matronics.com/wiki/index.php/Zenith#601XL.2F650_Upgrade_of_December_2009
I tried to add structure for adding in upgrade tips and tricks, for those
who would like to share your discoveries. I will be adding in some of my
own in the future, but I wanted to get this out there now. I hope that
those who are further along the upgrade path will add in your lessons learned.
Enjoy the build!
Terry
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done;
Upgrading wings & ailerons per the AMD Safety Directive
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upgrade Question - Main Spar Carry Through
From: "Louie928" <louieo(at)gorge.net>
Date: Jun 05, 2010
Terry,
Check Jake Reyna's blog on the Zenith.aero forum. Jake has a procedure and pictures
of how he handled the placement of the holes in the center spar front flange.
Basically, he used the floor doubler as a template and drilled new holes
between the existing holes. That gave him solid material all the way through the
bottom doubler, floor, and spar flange. No dealing with having to drill through
half misaligned holes in the floor. You drill through the bottom doubler
and front spar flange on the work table, then only have to back drill through
the floor with the doubler (template) in position under the fuselage. I did mine
that way and I'm satisfied with it.
Terry Phillips wrote:
> Hi James
>
> I am far from taking my center spar apart, but I have been thinking about
> that alignment problem for a while.
>
> It seems to me that the best thing would be to actually bolt both wing
> spars to the two sides of the center spar before riveting the two sides
> together. That may be overkill, however. At a minimum, I think I'd want to
> put all 12 bolts in place on the center spar, with appropriate spacers
> between the top and bottom middle bolts, before I drilled the new doubler
> that will tie the tops of the center spar together. They must line up, and
> the holes must be tight. Since the holes are already drilled, they holes
> must be aligned before the two sides of the spar are drilled and riveted
> together.
>
> However, I haven't even looked at the instructions for upgrading the center
> spar, and it may be covered there. Let us know how you resolve this.
>
> Terry
>
>
>
> > Thanks wa7dvd. That seems to be a solution as I think that the upgrade
> > manual suggests drilling through the existing holes in the forward flange
> > of the spar which will clip the old cabin floor holes. I note that in one
> > of the upgrade videos you can see that their clecos are squint because of
> > this. Is there sufficient edge distance between the old and new holes in
> > your method?
> >
> > Anyone else got a solution for the bolt hole alignment on the upgraded spar?
> >
> > James
> >
> >
>
>
> Terry Phillips
> ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
> Corvallis MT
> ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done;
> Upgrading wings & ailerons per the AMD Safety Directive
> http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
--------
Louis W. Ott
601XL beginner Quick Build
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300156#300156
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upgrade Tools list on Matronics Wiki
From: "Louie928" <louieo(at)gorge.net>
Date: Jun 05, 2010
The list looks good for starters with differences being mostly personal preference.
I'd suggest using a 4x rivet gun. The 3x will probably work ok, but the extra punch
of the 4x makes setting the #6 rivets quicker and less tendency for the gun
to bounce.
I like to use an adjustable size reamer rather than a single step fixed size. With
the adjustable, I can sneak up on the hole size to give me a better fit to
the bolt whatever small size difference it may have from it's nominal size.
I could add; Lathe, milling machine, TIG welder, metal brake, metal shear, more
rivets, longer #6 rivets than what Zenith sends. Mind reading course to help
with interpreting the drawings and instructions.
--------
Louis W. Ott
601XL beginner Quick Build
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300159#300159
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 05, 2010
Subject: Re: Upgrade Tools list on Matronics Wiki
From: Iberplanes IGD - Alberto Martin <iberplanes(at)gmail.com>
Terry,
I=B4d like to thank you very much for your list and the effort you=B4ve mad
e to
help us to build a safer plane.
I=B4m glad you=B4re me friend.
Thanks again,
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
Un ingles a Tom Lucero en la guerra de Malvinas: "=A1Piloto argentino mejor
aqu=ED con nosotros en camilla. Muy peligroso arriba, en su avi=F3n!=97".
Un pasaje del libro "Dios y Los Halcones" del Com. Pablo M. Carballo
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "George Race" <mykitairplane(at)mrrace.com>
Subject: Chat Reminder
Date: Jun 07, 2010
www.mykitairplane.com http://www.mykitairplane.com/ >
Check out my line of items for Experimental Airplane Builders
My Products: www.mykitairplane.com/Products/
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: upgrade oops. (maybe)
From: "Lee Steensland" <lee(at)steensland.net>
Date: Jun 08, 2010
I've been working my way through the upgrade of the center spar and I may have
made a boo-boo that may make me build another 6-zu-2-1.
I overlayed 6-zu-2-1 over 6w4-1 and back drilled through 6w4-1 where the spar cap
overlays and also through 6w4-1 and 6-zu-2-1 where 6w4-2 once was riveted.
After I did that, I realized I shouldn't have. Can I salvage 6-zu-2-1 or should
I make a new one?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300544#300544
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/2_445.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/1_543.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: upgrade oops. (maybe)
From: "Lee Steensland" <lee(at)steensland.net>
Date: Jun 10, 2010
I think I'll just order a new one from ZAC. That will be safer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300831#300831
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "david van lanen" <davevanlanen(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Zenith Work Table For Sale
Date: Jun 10, 2010
High quality, perfectly flat work table for building a Zenith aircraft. Has
adjustable legs, and built-in storage for clecos, rivets, tools and aircraft
parts. Hardly used, (I sold my 601XL project early in the build). Will
sell for half the cost of materials used to build. Can be partially or
completely disassembled for transport. U pick up (Madison, Wisconsin).
E-mail me offline for details and photos: davevanlanen(at)sbcglobal.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "david van lanen" <davevanlanen(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Zenith Aircraft Tools For Sale
Date: Jun 10, 2010
New Zenith builders: Here is a great opportunity to purchase most of the
tools needed to build a Zenith aircraft at a discount. Everything is
reduced 20% or more off the prices I paid. Tools were hardly used, as I
sold my 601XL project after completing the tail and flight controls. I am
looking to sell as a complete set. Purchase the complete set, and I will
pay for shipping within the continental U.S. E-mail me offline for a
detailed list of tools with photos: davevanlanen(at)sbcglobal.net.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "George Race" <mykitairplane(at)mrrace.com>
Subject: Chat Reminder
Date: Jun 14, 2010
http://www.mykitairplane.com/chat/
Check out my line of items for Experimental Airplane Builders
My Products: http://www.mykitairplane.com/Products/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Fuel Cap 601 XL.
Date: Jun 15, 2010
Hi Guys,
I am trying to remove the threaded flange cap assembly from one of my wing
tanks to seal the thread and stop some fuel leakage. I am having great
difficulty in removing it. Is there a way to do this without destroying it.
It is presently stuck so I can't thread it in or out.
Thanks
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
http://zodiac.cpc-world.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Fuel Cap 601 XL.
Date: Jun 14, 2010
Hi Peter.
When I put mine together I stuck a wide piece of wood in the top - in both
of the openings where the gas cap locks in place - and turned the threaded
neck with the piece of wood. I don't remember the actual size but I think
it was a 1 x 1.
Good luck,
Paul
Camas, WA
XL-fighting solid rivets for upgrade.
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter W
Johnson
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 4:24 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Fuel Cap 601 XL.
Hi Guys,
I am trying to remove the threaded flange cap assembly from one of my wing
tanks to seal the thread and stop some fuel leakage. I am having great
difficulty in removing it. Is there a way to do this without destroying it.
It is presently stuck so I can't thread it in or out.
Thanks
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
http://zodiac.cpc-world.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Fuel Cap 601 XL.
Date: Jun 14, 2010
OOPS, I meant 1x2. The end of the board should fit into the slots in the
gas cap mating area. Then you can grab the board and twist.
Perhaps some anti-seize compound would be a good idea when re-installing the
part.
Paul
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 4:42 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith601-List: Fuel Cap 601 XL.
Hi Peter.
When I put mine together I stuck a wide piece of wood in the top - in both
of the openings where the gas cap locks in place - and turned the threaded
neck with the piece of wood. I don't remember the actual size but I think
it was a 1 x 1.
Good luck,
Paul
Camas, WA
XL-fighting solid rivets for upgrade.
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter W
Johnson
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 4:24 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Fuel Cap 601 XL.
Hi Guys,
I am trying to remove the threaded flange cap assembly from one of my wing
tanks to seal the thread and stop some fuel leakage. I am having great
difficulty in removing it. Is there a way to do this without destroying it.
It is presently stuck so I can't thread it in or out.
Thanks
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
http://zodiac.cpc-world.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel Cap 601 XL.
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: Jun 14, 2010
I did the same as Paul. Don't use a soft wood as it will just tend to splinter.
Carve it so it fits the profile of the opening as close as possible. You might
try tapping the rim with a wood or rubber mallet and slip some oil between
the skin and the lip to remove some of the friction. It can be a real son-of-a-gun
to get off but be persistent. I just had to remove one as part of my
wing modification and know what you are facing.
If it originally turned in really hard you may have a problem with bad threads.
I had one like that and had to cut the cap flange out and buy a replacement.
I then borrowed the "big tap" from Zenith to clean out the threads in both tanks
and when I installed the new one I used teflon paste on the threads.
Good luck!
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Tearing wings apart for modification
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301249#301249
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Aileron bellcrank wear?
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: Jun 14, 2010
This question is for those who've opened their wings up for modification after
putting some flight hours on their aircraft.
Has anyone noticed any wear in the holes where the control cables attach to the
aileron bellcrank? Since there is tension on the cables I wonder whether the
hole is elongating in the direction of the tension being applied. If so, it
would seem to me that this would be a good place to install a bushing.
I own a taildragger and one of the things you watch for is that the holes on the
rudder horn where the tailwheel springs attach will often wear in such a manner.
The rudder horn is half-inch thick aluminum with steel springs attached
- much beefier than the bellcrank. The springs are under tension, just like the
control cables and over time the steel cuts into the softer aluminum.
Comments?
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Tearing wings apart for modification
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301264#301264
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel Cap 601 XL.
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Jun 15, 2010
Peter
I have the zenith tool for re working the tank cap threads if required.
Chris
in Sydney.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301283#301283
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel Cap 601 XL.
From: "dgardea(at)gmail.com" <dgardea(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2010
Peter,
When you get it apart, I recommend when you reassemble coat the threads with fuel lube (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/cspages/ezturnlube.php) to seal the filler neck. I used this last time I installed the filler neck and it came right out when opening the wing for the upgrade. Fuel lube does not harden and provides a great seal.
Regards,
Dave
--------
Dave Gardea
601XL - Corvair
working on wiring panel and upgrade kit
http://home.comcast.net/~davegardea/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301311#301311
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: Fuel Cap 601 XL.
Date: Jun 16, 2010
Chris,
Thanks, I'll let you know how I go.
Cheers
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris
Sinfield
Sent: Tuesday, 15 June 2010 11:22 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Fuel Cap 601 XL.
Peter
I have the zenith tool for re working the tank cap threads if required.
Chris
in Sydney.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301283#301283
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Damien" <dgraham7(at)TWCNY.RR.COM>
Subject: GSC In-Flight Adjustable Prop
Date: Jun 15, 2010
Hello. Is anyone using the GSC In-Flight Adjustable Prop on their
601/Rotax ?
Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuel Cap 601 XL.
From: "Ron Lendon" <ron.lendon(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2010
Boy do I know about that part coming out hard. When we did the CZAW teardown one
tank was difficult to remove the flange but it was a one man job and wood did
the trick. The second one was a three man 1.5 hour job using a steel insert
to turn the flange. We used penetrating oil and worked the flange both ways
and gradually it came out. The fit was not good and they used some type of hardening
sealer on the threads.
Used the Big tap from Zenith to chase the threads on both tanks and used Fuelube
to seal the threads.
P.S.
I ran a low pressure test on my tank the other day with only fuelube on the finger
tight threads of both the finger screen and the filler tube, RESULTS: no leaks.
Low pressure test is tying a latex glove over the vent tube, inflate the
glove and seal it up, wait to see if the glove deflates.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301374#301374
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: RE: Fuel Cap 601XL
Date: Jun 17, 2010
Thanks for the reply=92s guys,
I=92ll see if I can machine a piece of ally the same shape as the filler
cap
and try that.
Cheers
Peter
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jon Bateman
Sent: Thursday, 17 June 2010 1:24 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: RE: Fuel Cap 601XL
To aid in getting my tank neck on and off I machined down a piece of
nylon that just fit inside the neck with a hole near the top for a
screwdriver or what not to turn it with. This has works great as there
is
zero chance for marring the neck. Before re-installing the neck use anti
seize on the threads
Jon B.
2/3rds through upgrade.
_____
From: bressler(at)wyoming.com
Subject: Zenith-List: RE: Fuel Cap 601XL
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:24:17 -0600
Peter:
If your fuel cap is the same as ours which stuck pretty hard, I cut a
2=94
piece of =BC=94 by 1=94 aluminum bar and gripped it with a pair of vice
grips. I
inserted into the slots and used a crescent wrench to turn the vice
grips
until it would unscrew by hand. Good Luck with your build. DO NOT
ARCHIVE
Wes & Lurlene Bressler, Laramie WY, USA Working on the upgrade.
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
ronics.com
ww.matronics.com/contribution
_____
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars
with
Hotmail. Get busy.
<http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid
=PID2
8326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Zenith-List: RE: Fuel Cap 601XL
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Jun 16, 2010
Use a piece of wood, NOT alloy so there is no chance of damaging the fuel cap internals.
When I put mine on originally I used some permatex on the threads but
it was still a bit hard coming off. Cheers
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301517#301517
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Aileron balance install
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: Jun 18, 2010
I'm getting ready to install the aileron balance in my right aileron. Looking at
the LAA drawings provided by Zenith for the upgrade I see that they set the
ribs that support the square tube used as a balance arm parallel to the other
ribs in the aileron. This would result in the tube not being at a right angle
to the rear spar. In my view, this would result in requiring a wider hole in
the spar to accommodate the lateral movement of the tube when the aileron is
deflected. I also believe there was an earlier discussion of the need to bend
the tube inwards to clear the wingtip rivet line.
I wonder how others have dealt with this issue. I'm consideringL
1.) installing the ribs supporting the tube so as to place the tube at a right
angle to the spar, &
2.) Moving the tube inwards slightly to assure clearance from structures in the
wing.
I'd appreciate your comments before I start cutting :)
Tim Juhl
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Tearing wings apart for modification
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301668#301668
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Aileron balance install
Date: Jun 18, 2010
Hi Tim,
On mine, I installed the balance rod perpendicular to the MAIN spar. That
means an angle (not perpendicular) to the rear spar and aileron hinge. I
don't know what all the issues are for this problem. One seems to be how
the weights move between the rear rib and wing tip as well as the two wing
skins.
Good luck,
Paul
XL - slowly installing upgrade - currently fighting removing large spar
rivets.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Juhl
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 7:12 AM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Aileron balance install
I'm getting ready to install the aileron balance in my right aileron.
Looking at the LAA drawings provided by Zenith for the upgrade I see that
they set the ribs that support the square tube used as a balance arm
parallel to the other ribs in the aileron. This would result in the tube
not being at a right angle to the rear spar. In my view, this would result
in requiring a wider hole in the spar to accommodate the lateral movement of
the tube when the aileron is deflected. I also believe there was an earlier
discussion of the need to bend the tube inwards to clear the wingtip rivet
line.
I wonder how others have dealt with this issue. I'm consideringL
1.) installing the ribs supporting the tube so as to place the tube at a
right angle to the spar, &
2.) Moving the tube inwards slightly to assure clearance from structures in
the wing.
I'd appreciate your comments before I start cutting :)
Tim Juhl
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Tearing wings apart for modification
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301668#301668
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 18, 2010
From: "Stephen R. Look" <slook(at)mchsi.com>
Subject: Rivet Removal
My two cents on removing solid spar rivets:
I'm drilling the heads with a #20 drill down to about even with the
sheet metal and then using a Stanley wood chisel to remove the head.
Three or four hits with my little hammer and the head goes flying.
Barely even scuffs the surface of the sheet metal.
When I'm all done the chisel won't be worth much, but it was pretty cheap.
Getting the rest of the rivet out I use a small pin punch and whack
it a few times.
Steve
Steve Look
Monticello, IL
www.ilrt66.com
"Dogs have owners, Cats have staff"
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 18, 2010
From: Mark Hubelbank <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Subject: Re: Aileron balance install
Tim,
I did two things. First I did not keep the arms parallel to the
ribs. I shifted them just enough so they would be far enough away from
the other structures so no interference was possible (including the
metal plates). I allowed about 1 inch from the end of the tube to any
other part.
Secondly, I filled about 7 inches of the end of the square tube
with lead. It melts at about 600-700F and alumimum is melts at around
1200F so as long as one keeps the lead at just above the melting point
it works. I stuffed and tamped aluminim foil into the tube to act as a
plug to define the area to be filled. A heat gun was used to pre-heat
the tube a bit so the lead would flow all the way to the plug. The lead
was melted using a 1500W hot plate with the lead in a metal coffee can
and with a larger metal can inverted over that to keep the heat in. It
took about 40 minutes to get the lead all melted. You will need about
1.5 pounds of lead for each side. I started with 5 pounds total and that
made it easy to pour.
Doing this I only needed two steel plates to balance. This allowed
one to use the specified holes by turning the aileron vertical to insert
the tube in the hole with the balance plates on. This way the aileron
can be removed in the future.
On 06/18/2010 10:11 AM, Tim Juhl wrote:
> --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "Tim Juhl"
>
> I'm getting ready to install the aileron balance in my right aileron. Looking
at the LAA drawings provided by Zenith for the upgrade I see that they set the
ribs that support the square tube used as a balance arm parallel to the other
ribs in the aileron. This would result in the tube not being at a right angle
to the rear spar. In my view, this would result in requiring a wider hole
in the spar to accommodate the lateral movement of the tube when the aileron is
deflected. I also believe there was an earlier discussion of the need to bend
the tube inwards to clear the wingtip rivet line.
> I wonder how others have dealt with this issue. I'm consideringL
> 1.) installing the ribs supporting the tube so as to place the tube at a right
angle to the spar,&
> 2.) Moving the tube inwards slightly to assure clearance from structures in the
wing.
>
> I'd appreciate your comments before I start cutting :)
>
> Tim Juhl
>
> --------
> ______________
> CFII
> Champ L16A flying
> Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
> Tearing wings apart for modification
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301668#301668
>
>
>
--
Mark Hubelbank
NorthEast Monitoring
2 Clock Tower Place
Suite 555
Maynard, MA, 01754 - USA
mhubel(at)nemon.com
978-443-3955
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 18, 2010
Subject: Re: Aileron balance install
I moved the balance arm 100 mm inboard and it clears with no bending of the
arm. If you install the ribs at the same angle as the other ribs it is a
bit more difficult to align everything but I feel looks better.
Jeff
In a message dated 6/18/2010 10:12:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
juhl(at)avci.net writes:
--> Zenith 601-List message posted by: "Tim Juhl"
I'm getting ready to install the aileron balance in my right aileron.
Looking at the LAA drawings provided by Zenith for the upgrade I see that they
set the ribs that support the square tube used as a balance arm parallel to
the other ribs in the aileron. This would result in the tube not being at
a right angle to the rear spar. In my view, this would result in
requiring a wider hole in the spar to accommodate the lateral movement of the
tube
when the aileron is deflected. I also believe there was an earlier
discussion of the need to bend the tube inwards to clear the wingtip rivet line.
I wonder how others have dealt with this issue. I'm consideringL
1.) installing the ribs supporting the tube so as to place the tube at a
right angle to the spar, &
2.) Moving the tube inwards slightly to assure clearance from structures
in the wing.
I'd appreciate your comments before I start cutting :)
Tim Juhl
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Tearing wings apart for modification
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301668#301668
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aileron balance install
From: "Ron Lendon" <ron.lendon(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 18, 2010
The one I just did I just made square to the hinge line and picked up two existing
rivets for the new rib rivet lines. I checked clearance with a large carpenters
square from the center of one rivet and wouldn't ya know, the next rivet
was 40mm away, ( just perfect for the rib lines) . It was very easy to draw
those lines around the aileron skin using a square. Once the lines were drawn
just mark and drill the end holes, and rivet fan for the 5 rivets on the end,
and 8 rivets top and bottom.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301722#301722
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/zu_108a_210.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/zu_104_442.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: keyed lock for old style handle
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Jun 19, 2010
Hi
I was wondering if someone had a part number and where you get the keyed locks
that fit the older style canopies?
I know I can by them from Zenith at 50 bucks but someone gave a location for a
cheaper $15 one
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301728#301728
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aileron balance install
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jun 19, 2010
I did mine kind of like Ron did, except I "split the difference" between the rivet
lines.
http://www.zenith.aero/photo/aileron-balance-ribs
Had plenty of clearance, and I didn't have to mess around with bending the arm.
Having 20/20 hindsight, if I could do it all over again I'd have put the aileron
trim on the right wing instead of the left. Between that and the counter weight,
the left wing is starting to get kind of heavy way out there by the tip,
and since the pilot sits on the left side anyway, it would have been nicer to
have all that weight on the other side to balance things out better.
I also like the idea of filling the end of that tube with lead and keeping the
whole thing "skinny" so the aileron could be removed in the future if need be.
I didn't do that, and hope I don't come to regret that.
- Pat
--------
Patrick
XL/650/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301742#301742
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aileron balance install
From: "merlin" <cw4jasper(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Jun 19, 2010
For what it's worth,,,
did my aileron balance per the instructions from Zenith and it work out perfect.
No interference with anything, no bending of the tube etc...
I did put a couple of L angles on the front side of the rear spar one on each
side of the "cut out" because I noticed with the weight installed, it (the rear
spar at that point) seemed to flex just a little. (Hinge less)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301745#301745
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: more upgrade questions
From: "Lee Steensland" <lee(at)steensland.net>
Date: Jun 19, 2010
Folks,
I feel like I'm a little thick sometimes. I have the center spar mostly assembled
and I have both the front and back in position for drilling up through the
top doubler (6-zu-2-1) However if I look closely through the holes I will just
clip the old hole in 6w4-1.
I appear to be making an aluminum sandwich with the new top doubler 6-zu2-1 and
the seat front angle 6-zu-2-2.
Should I just drill through the seat front angle, and into the top doubler, elongating
the hole and not worry about it. I suppose that is why they went to pitch
20 on that row of rivets.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301789#301789
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/holeoffset_105.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Sensenich prop for sale
From: "rickpitcher" <zodie(at)adelphia.net>
Date: Jun 20, 2010
I have a like-new Sensenich 64 x 49 wood prop that I had on a 6 cylinder Jabiru
3300 engine in a Zenith Zodiac. I think it was around $900 when I bought it new.
I'd like to get $500 for it.
I would prefer local pick-up in Lancaster, California.
I still have the original shipping box, but UPS shipping would probably run
around $100 because of the oversize length of the box.
Rick Pitcher
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301811#301811
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sensenich prop for sale
From: "rickpitcher" <zodie(at)adelphia.net>
Date: Jun 20, 2010
Contact info: email me at zodie(at)adelphia.net
I have a like-new Sensenich 64 x 49 wood prop that I had on a 6 cylinder Jabiru
3300 engine in a Zenith Zodiac. I think it was around $900 when I bought it new.
I'd like to get $500 for it.
I would prefer local pick-up in Lancaster, California.
I still have the original shipping box, but UPS shipping would probably run
around $100 because of the oversize length of the box.
Rick Pitcher
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301812#301812
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aileron bellcrank wear?
From: "Louie928" <louieo(at)gorge.net>
Date: Jun 20, 2010
I wondered the same thing when I saw the aileron bellcrank. I made different ones
using a ball bearing for the pivot bearing and bronze bushings for the cable
clevis attachments. The bearing and bushings are from Aircraft Spruce. The new
bellcrank is a bit lighter than the original. The thickness is the same so
the original attachments can be used with the holes drilled to fit the ball bearing
ID.
--------
Louis W. Ott
601XL beginner Quick Build
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301858#301858
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rightwingaileronbellcrankaccess_124.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/aileron_bellcrank_131.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 20, 2010
From: Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Aileron bellcrank wear?
I cannot say for the aileron bearing. However, it is certainly true for the upper
rudder bearing on the HD model. I made a new part after three years of flying.
After removing the part, however, I did feel that the part was still safe
(plenty of edge distance and no noticeable fluttering or vibration in flight).
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 20, 2010
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: Aileron bellcrank wear?
Louie
You are a true craftsman. You new bellcrank is a work of art. Do you have a
drawing of your design? It looks like a very good design improvement.
I'm thinking that I will replace the nylon fairleads for the aileron
control cables with pulleys. My hope is to reduce the drag in the aileron
control system, and thereby improve the control harmony. This would not be
a possibility without aileron counterbalance, but with the counterbalance,
it should not present a problem. I'm wondering if anyone else has put in
pulleys?
Terry
>I wondered the same thing when I saw the aileron bellcrank. I made
>different ones using a ball bearing for the pivot bearing and bronze
>bushings for the cable clevis attachments. The bearing and bushings are
>from Aircraft Spruce. The new bellcrank is a bit lighter than the
>original. The thickness is the same so the original attachments can be
>used with the holes drilled to fit the ball bearing ID.
>
>--------
>Louis W. Ott
>
>601XL beginner Quick Build
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done;
Upgrading wings & ailerons per the AMD Safety Directive
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Aileron bellcrank wear?
Date: Jun 20, 2010
Hi Terry,
Before you invest a lot of time and money in changing fairleads to pulleys,
I think you should consider another aspect of the "Control Harmony" issue.
The Zodiac XL has HUGE ailerons. This means force applied to the control
stick doesn't require much movement of the ailerons to produce roll torque.
It also means the ailerons work quite well all the down to stall speed where
most spam cans lose nearly all control effect. I believe it is the geometry
and size of the ailerons that makes them feel so stiff in flight rather than
any drag in the control cables.
Good luck,
Paul
XL fighting main spar rivet removal for the upgrade.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Phillips
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Aileron bellcrank wear?
Louie
You are a true craftsman. You new bellcrank is a work of art. Do you have a
drawing of your design? It looks like a very good design improvement.
I'm thinking that I will replace the nylon fairleads for the aileron
control cables with pulleys. My hope is to reduce the drag in the aileron
control system, and thereby improve the control harmony. This would not be
a possibility without aileron counterbalance, but with the counterbalance,
it should not present a problem. I'm wondering if anyone else has put in
pulleys?
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aileron bellcrank wear?
From: "Louie928" <louieo(at)gorge.net>
Date: Jun 20, 2010
Hi Terry,
I do have a drawing I made just to see if it would work. I Printed out a full size
example and cut it out from cardboard. I can't remember if any slight changes
were done when I cut it from aluminum. I don't think so. The drawing was done
in Solidworks. I exported a .jpg file of the drawing so the quality isn't
so great. The bronze bushings are Aircraft Spruce P/N FF303-01. Look under Hardware,
Bushings. They are $0.19 each. Drill the bushing hole in the bellcrank
slightly undersize and press in the bushing. The bellcrank bearing is Aircraft
Spruce P/N BC4W10 (AN218-4). Look under Airframe parts, Bearings. It costs $18.95.
This bellcrank doesn't require any changes to the normal mount and the geometry
is the same as the Zenith bellcrank. Use a washer on top and bottom of
the bearing to insure the bearing housing doesn't rub on the support when you
tighten the bolt.
I don't know how much drag the fairleads would add to the aileron movement. The
cables don't move very far to give full travel. It'll be something I'll check
when I connect the controls.
BTW, the SS rivets work great. Thanks
Louie
Terry Phillips wrote:
> Louie
>
> You are a true craftsman. You new bellcrank is a work of art. Do you have a
> drawing of your design? It looks like a very good design improvement.
>
> I'm thinking that I will replace the nylon fairleads for the aileron
> control cables with pulleys. My hope is to reduce the drag in the aileron
> control system, and thereby improve the control harmony. This would not be
> a possibility without aileron counterbalance, but with the counterbalance,
> it should not present a problem. I'm wondering if anyone else has put in
> pulleys?
>
> Terry
>
>
>
> > I wondered the same thing when I saw the aileron bellcrank. I made
> > different ones using a ball bearing for the pivot bearing and bronze
> > bushings for the cable clevis attachments. The bearing and bushings are
> > from Aircraft Spruce. The new bellcrank is a bit lighter than the
> > original. The thickness is the same so the original attachments can be
> > used with the holes drilled to fit the ball bearing ID.
> >
> > --------
> > Louis W. Ott
> >
> > 601XL beginner Quick Build
> >
> >
>
>
> Terry Phillips
> ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
> Corvallis MT
> ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done;
> Upgrading wings & ailerons per the AMD Safety Directive
> http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
--------
Louis W. Ott
601XL beginner Quick Build
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301885#301885
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/aileron_bellcrank_2d_406.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "George Race" <mykitairplane(at)mrrace.com>
Subject: Chat Reminder
Date: Jun 21, 2010
http://www.mykitairplane.com/chat/
DO NOT ENTER ANY PASSWORD, JUST YOUR USER NAME CHOICE
Check out my line of items for Experimental Airplane Builders
My Products: http://www.mykitairplane.com/Products/
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: more upgrade questions
From: "Lee Steensland" <lee(at)steensland.net>
Date: Jun 21, 2010
perhaps a little more data is in order:
I've attached a picture from from the latest set of upgrade drawings dated 25 Jan
2010. I've highlighted the rivets in question.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301937#301937
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rivetsinquestion_246.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2010
Subject: Re: more upgrade questions
From: Carlos Sa <carlossa52(at)gmail.com>
I would suggest a call to ZAC is in order...
Carlos
On 21 June 2010 13:01, Lee Steensland wrote:
> >
>
> perhaps a little more data is in order:
>
> I've attached a picture from from the latest set of upgrade drawings dated
> 25 Jan 2010. I've highlighted the rivets in question.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301937#301937
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/rivetsinquestion_246.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2010
From: Mark Hubelbank <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Subject: Re: more upgrade questions
Lee,
The drawing calls for rivets on a 20 mm pitch so some new holes
need to be made anyway. I did all new holes with the old holes half way
way between the new ones and offset enough so as to provide sufficient
hole to hole spacing. If the old holes in yours are positioned such that
there is no room to provide sufficient spacing, then ZAC will have to
come up with something.
On 06/21/2010 1:34 PM, Carlos Sa wrote:
> I would suggest a call to ZAC is in order...
>
> Carlos
>
> On 21 June 2010 13:01, Lee Steensland > wrote:
>
> >
>
> perhaps a little more data is in order:
>
> I've attached a picture from from the latest set of upgrade
> drawings dated 25 Jan 2010. I've highlighted the rivets in question.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301937#301937
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/rivetsinquestion_246.jpg
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
Mark Hubelbank
NorthEast Monitoring
2 Clock Tower Place
Suite 555
Maynard, MA, 01754 - USA
mhubel(at)nemon.com
978-443-3955
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 21, 2010
From: Mark Hubelbank <mhubel(at)nemon.com>
Subject: Rivet squeezer for solid rivets
If anyone is interested, I have a rivet squeezer along with the
required yokes and dies to put in the solid #6 rivets in the main spar
and the #5 solid rivets along the joint on the top of the center spar
connecting the two half's (the 20 mm pitch rivets). The yokes are not
big enough to do the solid rivets on the center spar on the vertical
surfaces. I found the latter to be the easiest ones to put in with a
rivet gun anyway.
I am willing to lend it to others or even sell the bunch. I have
about $450 tied up in all the parts. It might be a good tool for a club.
It will do up to #6 rivets.
--
Mark Hubelbank
NorthEast Monitoring
2 Clock Tower Place
Suite 555
Maynard, MA, 01754 - USA
mhubel(at)nemon.com
978-443-3955
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: more upgrade questions
From: "Lee Steensland" <lee(at)steensland.net>
Date: Jun 21, 2010
>From Caleb:
>
> Hi Lee,
> A doubler, such as this, is the proper way to repair ovalled holes. That is one
of the reasons for having the part installed at all. When you mess up a hole
and its ovalled, you put a doubler over the hole and rivet it to the web as
well as the flange. This will unload the ovalled hole and provide an alternate
load path (the load now goes through the doubler) into the web. In this case
the doubler is heavier than the flange material because we want to add strength
beyond the normal spar. The ovalled holes are a consequence of spacing the front
and rear halves further apart 1/8" but this has been accounted for in the
development of the upgrade package. You don't need to worry about ovalling those
holes, just so long as the holes in the doublers are all round.
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=301961#301961
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob McArdle" <rmacpunk(at)netzero.net>
Subject: Painting question
Date: Jun 22, 2010
Is it better to paint the control hinges or to tape them? Pins in or
out?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob McArdle" <rmacpunk(at)netzero.net>
Subject: Fw: Tip
Date: Jun 22, 2010
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob McArdle
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 12:00 PM
Subject: Tip
While browsing through my local big box plumbing dept I cam across Watts
PL-3000 quick connect coupling.Great for pitot/static lines between fus
and wing.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: panel trim
From: "chuck960" <chuckde(at)roadrunner.com>
Date: Jun 22, 2010
I've viewed photos of XL's with this nice looking trim around the instrument panel.
Can anyone tell me where this comes from?
Chuck,
CH650
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302155#302155
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Subject: panel trim
Date: Jun 22, 2010
Cleveland Tool has edge trim. Search their site for "trim":
http://www.cleavelandtoolstore.com
GSE54 Glare Shield Edge Trim 54
Glare Shield Edge Trim 54"
$14.00
GSE60 Glare Shield Edge Trim 60
Glare Shield Edge Trim 60"
$16.00
-- 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, June 22, 2010 9:13 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: panel trim
-->
I've viewed photos of XL's with this nice looking trim around the instrument
panel. Can anyone tell me where this comes from?
Chuck,
CH650
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302155#302155
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: panel trim
Date: Jun 23, 2010
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Chuck,
In my case, it came from Zenith. I think it was introduced with the 750.
Jay
I've viewed photos of XL's with this nice looking trim around the instrume
nt
panel. Can anyone tell me where this comes from?
Chuck,
CH650
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302155#302155
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net>
Subject: Wire stop
Date: Jun 23, 2010
Has anyone come up with a good way to fasten the wire control to the fuel
shut off valve? I've tried the whole through a bolt with nuts on both sides
and the threaded tube with the hole and bolt but both methods slip in time.
Got to be a better way.
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Paint Weight
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: Jun 23, 2010
Has anyone ever weighed an aileron before and after painting? I wonder how much
of a weight increase is seen with a typical paint job.
Obviously I'm thinking of issues that might occur with the aileron balance.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Tearing wings apart for modification
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302263#302263
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Paint Weight
Date: Jun 23, 2010
Hi Tim,
Just a guess . . . I would think a proper (i.e. thin) paint job would weigh
considerably less than one of those steel weights. It would take perhaps
one or two ounces of thinned paint per coat and maybe4 or 5 coats. Of
course, most of the weight of the liquid paint would be thinner.
Paul
XL - doing upgrade - fighting main spar rivet removal.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Juhl
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:07 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Paint Weight
Has anyone ever weighed an aileron before and after painting? I wonder how
much of a weight increase is seen with a typical paint job.
Obviously I'm thinking of issues that might occur with the aileron balance.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Tearing wings apart for modification
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302263#302263
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: panel trim
From: "Scotsman" <jaroberts(at)bdo.co.za>
Date: Jun 24, 2010
Does anyone have a picture of the trim installed in the aircraft?
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302367#302367
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: panel trim
Date: Jun 24, 2010
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Scotsman <jaroberts(at)bdo.co.za>
Sent: Thu, Jun 24, 2010 8:54 am
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: panel trim
Does anyone have a picture of the trim installed in the aircraft?
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302367#302367
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: panel trim
From: "chuck960" <chuckde(at)roadrunner.com>
Date: Jun 24, 2010
Yes that's the trim I'm looking for. Where did it come from?
Thanks for the photo.
Chuck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302444#302444
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: panel trim
From: "Scotsman" <jaroberts(at)bdo.co.za>
Date: Jun 24, 2010
Ditto Chuck's comment.
BTW what is the lever arm that extends to the cabin floor...a fuel cut off or parking
brake?
j
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302447#302447
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: panel trim
Date: Jun 25, 2010
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Chuck, That is the trim I got from Zenith. - Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: chuck960 <chuckde(at)roadrunner.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 24, 2010 10:29 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: panel trim
Yes that's the trim I'm looking for. Where did it come from?
Thanks for the photo.
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: panel trim
Date: Jun 25, 2010
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
That is a lever for the parking brake, which I made with ball valves from
Lowes aviation department.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Scotsman <jaroberts(at)bdo.co.za>
Sent: Fri, Jun 25, 2010 12:16 am
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: panel trim
Ditto Chuck's comment.
BTW what is the lever arm that extends to the cabin floor...a fuel cut off
or
parking brake?
j
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=302447#302447
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 25, 2010
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: Aileron bellcrank wear?
Hi Paul
I do not have personal experience on the 601XL control harmony problem. My
total time in 601XL is a 30 minute flight in the factory demo plane.
I am just reacting to various posts on line that suggest that control
harmony is not good on the 601XL. I think that it is likely that high
friction in the aileron controls were an important factor in the
pre-upgrade design to avoid aileron flutter. Normal design practice is to
eliminate flutter with counterbalanced control surfaces. (If you look at
almost any certificated airplanes with aluminum skinned ailerons, you will
find counterbalances.) If one can count on the aileron counterbalances to
eliminate flutter in the 601XL, then one should be able to replace the
aileron fairleads with pulleys w/o introducing a new risk of aileron
flutter. Since the elevator and rudder are not counterbalanced, I would not
consider replacing the fairleads in those control links.
If you are correct that the high forces for roll control reported for the
601XL are simply due to the geometry and size of the ailerons, then
installing pulleys will not improve the control harmony. However, if
friction in the control links proves to be significant then pulleys might
make a useful difference. I'm a long way from building my fuselage, so my
ultimate decision on this item is not imminent. Some other builders have
replaced the control cables with push-pull rods. I'm very curious if any
one has replaced the aileron fairleads with pulleys.
Terry
>Hi Terry,
>
>Before you invest a lot of time and money in changing fairleads to pulleys,
>I think you should consider another aspect of the "Control Harmony" issue.
>
>The Zodiac XL has HUGE ailerons. This means force applied to the control
>stick doesn't require much movement of the ailerons to produce roll torque.
>It also means the ailerons work quite well all the down to stall speed where
>most spam cans lose nearly all control effect. I believe it is the geometry
>and size of the ailerons that makes them feel so stiff in flight rather than
>any drag in the control cables.
>
>Good luck,
>
>Paul
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done;
Upgrading wings & ailerons per the AMD Safety Directive
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 26, 2010
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: Aileron bellcrank wear?
Hi Louie
Thank you for the details.
Have you tried exporting the drawing to a .png? I find that png's do not
have the noise that creeps into jpg's at the sharp, black-white boundaries
in drawings and text. If you could email me a copy of your image, I'd
appreciate it. Another alternative to jpg's is a pdf. The Windows freebie
pdf creator from SourceForge is invaluable to me. I'm sure that there are
Linux equivalents.
'Glad to hear that the SS rivets are proving useful. I used a bunch of them
on my garage door and they have been perfect. If and when I get the invoice
from Lehigh-Armstrong, I'll work out the cost split and let you know. I
called L-H Friday, but it was late and I just got their voice mail.
Thanks for the great idea on improving the aileron bellcrank.
Terry
>Hi Terry,
>I do have a drawing I made just to see if it would work. I Printed out a
>full size example and cut it out from cardboard. I can't remember if any
>slight changes were done when I cut it from aluminum. I don't think so.
>The drawing was done in Solidworks. I exported a .jpg file of the drawing
>so the quality isn't so great. The bronze bushings are Aircraft Spruce P/N
>FF303-01. Look under Hardware, Bushings. They are $0.19 each. Drill the
>bushing hole in the bellcrank slightly undersize and press in the bushing.
>The bellcrank bearing is Aircraft Spruce P/N BC4W10 (AN218-4). Look under
>Airframe parts, Bearings. It costs $18.95. This bellcrank doesn't require
>any changes to the normal mount and the geometry is the same as the Zenith
>bellcrank. Use a washer on top and bottom of the bearing to insure the
>bearing housing doesn't rub on the support when you tighten the bolt.
>
>I don't know how much drag the fairleads would add to the aileron
>movement. The cables don't move very far to give full travel. It'll be
>something I'll check when I connect the controls.
>
>BTW, the SS rivets work great. Thanks
>
>Louie
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done;
Upgrading wings & ailerons per the AMD Safety Directive
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 26, 2010
From: Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Rudder hinge wear - solution anyone?
Hi group,
I mentionned about the rudder upper bearing (hinge) becoming loose with time.
I already replaced it once. It appears somewhat loose again. Did anyone invent
a fix for this?
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 26, 2010
Subject: Re: Rudder hinge wear - solution anyone?
From: Carlos Sa <carlossa52(at)gmail.com>
How about that bearing that was discussed a few days ago? It was meant for
the aileron bell crank, but maybe it could be used on the rudder...?
Salut bien
Carlos
On 26 June 2010 22:37, Michel Therrien wrote:
>
> Hi group,
>
> I mentionned about the rudder upper bearing (hinge) becoming loose with
> time. I already replaced it once. It appears somewhat loose again. Did
> anyone invent a fix for this?
>
> ----------------------------
> Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 27, 2010
From: Larry McFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>
Subject: Re: Rudder hinge wear - solution anyone?
Michel Therrien wrote:
>
> Hi group,
>
> I mentionned about the rudder upper bearing (hinge) becoming loose with time.
I already replaced it once. It appears somewhat loose again. Did anyone invent
a fix for this?
>
> ----------------------------
> Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
> http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
> http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
>
> Michel,
>
> I had to machine new bushings. The paragraphs below, from my
> journal, describe, I believe, the same issue and my solution.
>
>
>
> The top bolt on the rudder rattled so the bolt was inspected and found
to be worn and sloppy.
>
> Began again today with removal of the rudder I removed the press-fit bushing
from the upper rudder plate by grinding a 3/16th inch Allen screw head to
.250-diameter and used a 3/8-inch socket and nut to pull it
> from the plate. Once home, I made 4 more bushings on the lathe that were
> better lengths for the rudder bracket gap. The loose bolt had caused wear at
the
> top angle bracket holes and to the bolt.
>
>>>
>>> This morning, the first press fit of the best-length bushing went
>>> well. The same screw used to remove the former bushing was used to
>>> pull it to a force-fit into place. The rudder was placed on the
>>> upper bushing and bolted. The bottom bushing was replaced with a
>>> slightly longer one and it too was given a fresh new bolt. Both were
>>> snugged to stop bolt rotation and secured with castle nut and cotter
>>> pins. Now bolt and bushing were the only working surfaces as intended.
>>>
>>> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "George Race" <mykitairplane(at)mrrace.com>
Subject: Chat Reminder
Date: Jun 28, 2010
http://www.mykitairplane.com/chat/
DO NOT ENTER ANY PASSWORD, JUST YOUR USER NAME CHOICE
Check out my line of items for Experimental Airplane Builders
My Products: http://www.mykitairplane.com/Products/
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2010
From: Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Rudder hinge wear - solution anyone?
Larry, I think I did it differently than you.. in my case, the upper plate rotates
around the bushing that itself is captured in a fixed position between the
two angles attached to the rudder. The bolt does not rotate on any part.
Are you saying that the bushing should stay "with" the upper plate attached to
the fuselage and that the friction should be between the bolt and the bushing?
If so, that must be hard to lubricate...?
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
--- On Sun, 6/27/10, Larry McFarland wrote:
> From: Larry McFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>
> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Rudder hinge wear - solution anyone?
> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
> Received: Sunday, June 27, 2010, 10:27 AM
> --> Zenith601-List message posted
> by: Larry McFarland
>
> Michel Therrien wrote:
> Therrien
> >
> > Hi group,
> >
> > I mentionned about the rudder upper bearing (hinge)
> becoming loose with time. I already replaced it
> once. It appears somewhat loose again. Did
> anyone invent a fix for this?
> >
> > ----------------------------
> > Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
> >http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
> >http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
> >
> > Michel,
> >
> > I had to machine
> new bushings. The paragraphs below, from my
> > journal, describe, I believe, the same issue and my
> solution.
> >
> >
> > The top bolt on the
> rudder rattled so the bolt was inspected and found to be
> worn and sloppy. Began again
> today with removal of the rudder I removed the
> press-fit bushing from the upper rudder plate by grinding a
> 3/16th inch Allen screw head to .250-diameter and used a
> 3/8-inch socket and nut to pull it from the plate. Once
> home, I made 4 more bushings on the lathe that were better
> lengths for the rudder bracket gap. The loose bolt had
> caused wear at the top angle bracket holes and to the bolt.
> >
> >>>
> >>> This morning, the first press fit of the
> best-length bushing went well. The same screw used to remove
> the former bushing was used to pull it to a force-fit into
> place. The rudder was placed on the upper bushing and
> bolted. The bottom bushing was replaced with a slightly
> longer one and it too was given a fresh new bolt. Both were
> snugged to stop bolt rotation and secured with castle nut
> and cotter pins. Now bolt and bushing were the only working
> surfaces as intended.
> >>>
> >>> Larry McFarland 601HDS at
> www.macsmachine.com
> >>>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 28, 2010
From: Larry McFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>
Subject: Re: Rudder hinge wear - solution anyone?
Michel,
The bushing was made as a press fit in the large plate. The bolt secures
center within the bushing and was easy to lubricate by greasing the bolt
on assembly.
The upper and lower plates held to center by the bolt are strong enough
to not allow the bolt to rotate in them. The actual rotation forces are
borne by
the largest surfaces of the bolt and inside the bushing. The top and
bottom bushing surfaces are not strained at all in flight. Wear on my
bolt occurred because
it was not tight and locked to allow no pivot within the upper and lower
plates. The bolt now rotates with the rudder and the bushing is fixed by
its fit
in the plate. I had to make 4 bushings to get it right. The bottom plate
holds the rudder at elevation as well so that the top bushing isn't
doing all the lifting.
If the bushing were allowed to rotate in the top and bottom plates, I
believe wear would be a significant issue at the top pivot assembly.
Doubt bronze would be as good in holding a press fit and that's why I
made mine of steel.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Michel Therrien wrote:
>
> Larry, I think I did it differently than you.. in my case, the upper plate rotates
around the bushing that itself is captured in a fixed position between the
two angles attached to the rudder. The bolt does not rotate on any part.
>
> Are you saying that the bushing should stay "with" the upper plate attached to
the fuselage and that the friction should be between the bolt and the bushing?
If so, that must be hard to lubricate...?
>
>
> ----------------------------
> Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
> http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
> http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <Z601c(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: How much paint?
Date: Jul 03, 2010
The list has been fairly quiet lately, so I thought I'd ask one of those
questions that must be burning in everyone's mind: How much paint (in gallons)
does it take to do a 601XL?
I realize I also need primer, thinner, etchant, etc, but if I knew how much
paint some of you needed, I might be able to factor those other numbers. Of
course, if someone happens to have those at hand, I wouldn't mind real numbers
there, either.
--
=======================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS,MS Physics
A&P/IA
General Radio Telephone Certificate
Instrument Rated Pilot
Retired Aerospace Technical Manager
Semi-proficient Househusband
=======================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How much paint?
From: "Ken" <hror1(at)pld.com>
Date: Jul 03, 2010
I used a white undercoat on the entire airplane. It seems like it took 5-6 qts. Kirker is a great cost / quality compromise. http://www.autobodytoolmart.com/ultra-glo-acrylic-urethane-enamel-paints-c-895.aspx There are more expensive paints out there and perhaps they come with higher quality but in the end you'll end up doing it a 2nd time due to upgrades. At least that has been my experience.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303609#303609
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Solid rivet confusion
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: Jul 03, 2010
OK, maybe I need glasses but I have been unable to find some of the info I need
in Zenith's drawings or guide. Perhaps those of you who have done the wing upgrade
will help me out.
Dwg. 6ZU-1 states (paraphrased) "...install extrusion using --AD6-14 and --AD6-15
(qty 4) and --AD6-10 solid rivets"
[1] The packing list does not show any --AD-14 rivets, only --AD-15's. I assume
these are to be used on the inboard section of the top spar. Did anyone have
any trouble using the longer rivets supplied by Zenith?
[2] The outboard rivets I drilled out were all --AD5's yet it looks like Zenith
supplied AD6-10's for that location. Am I correct that I am to replace these
outermost rivets with the larger diameter ones? They also sent some AD5-10's
but I think they are for the center section. Comments?
As always I appreciate your comments.
Tim Juhl
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Tearing wings apart for modification
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303616#303616
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Solid rivet confusion
Date: Jul 03, 2010
Hi Tim,
I am at the exact stage you are discussing, but I have taken a different
path.
I decided to use bolts instead of rivets when installing the new spar cap
angle. I will use AN4 bolts in the inner section where the original 3/6
rivets are used and AN3 bolts where the smaller rivets are used. I already
have the correct drill and reamer for the AN4 bolts, but I have not yet
acquired a reamer for the smaller ones. I ordered it yesterday, but A/S
seems to have them on back order.
It is necessary to move up to AN4 bolts because the original holes used for
the 3/16 rivets are too large for AN3 bolts. They would just rattle around
in the oversized holes. The smaller holes, 5/32, don't have a corresponding
bolt size so I will increase them to 3/16 for use with AN3 bolts. I realize
the bolts are heavier than aluminum rivets, but I feel my skills are
adequate to install the bolts and insufficient to install the huge rivets.
If I had your exact situation I would merely order the required rivet sizes
from Aircraft Spruce or a similar vendor to meet my needs. I was surprised
the upgrade kit had exactly the required number of solid rivets when the
first time builders have never used solid rivets before. This compares
unfavorably with the supply of A4 and A5 Avex rivets which seems to be an
ample supply measured by the pound rather than the exact number that matches
the number of expected holes.
I know I have an attitude problem when it comes to Zenith and the Heintz
family, but I would not depend on them being around much longer to complete
my plane. I am glad we got a "Blessed" design upgrade, but since we still
have no clue what the actual problem is that led to all the deaths I have
very little confidence the upgrade will fix the real (but still unknown)
problem.
I will just do my best to install the upgrade and then take my plane into
phase I testing. I still have not decided whether to take it into phase II
or not.
Good luck,
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Juhl
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 2:44 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Solid rivet confusion
OK, maybe I need glasses but I have been unable to find some of the info I
need in Zenith's drawings or guide. Perhaps those of you who have done the
wing upgrade will help me out.
Dwg. 6ZU-1 states (paraphrased) "...install extrusion using --AD6-14 and
--AD6-15 (qty 4) and --AD6-10 solid rivets"
[1] The packing list does not show any --AD-14 rivets, only --AD-15's. I
assume these are to be used on the inboard section of the top spar. Did
anyone have any trouble using the longer rivets supplied by Zenith?
[2] The outboard rivets I drilled out were all --AD5's yet it looks like
Zenith supplied AD6-10's for that location. Am I correct that I am to
replace these outermost rivets with the larger diameter ones? They also
sent some AD5-10's but I think they are for the center section. Comments?
As always I appreciate your comments.
Tim Juhl
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Tearing wings apart for modification
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303616#303616
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 03, 2010
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: Solid rivet confusion
Hi Tim
The 3/16" solid rivets supplied in my upgrade kit were all AN470AD-6-14's
and AN470AD-6-10's.I thought that AN470AD-6-14's were too short for the
spar cap-spar web-spar cap doubler-extrusion joint. So, for that joint, I
used AN470AD-6-16 that I had purchased from Spruce. I used the
AN470AD-6-14's supplied by Zenair for the outboard section beyond the end
of the spar cap doubler where the joint is 1/4" thinner. My Avery rivet
length gage showed the -16's being ~1/32" too long and the -14's being
~3/32" too short. My interpretation of the plans was to replace the 5/32"
rivets in the spar cap beyond the spar cap doubler with 3/16" rivets,
except for the most outboard one which was replaced with a 3/16" AN bolt.
I was never able to develop what I considered adequate skills to set the
3/16" rivets with my 3X rivet gun. Fortunately, I was able to borrow what I
call a "pounder" tool to set the rivets and it worked perfectly, so long as
I didn't hit the spar with the hammer. It is possible that I would have
been able to set Zenair's shorter rivets with my 3X gun, but I doubt that
the shop heads would have met both the minimum diameter and minimum
thickness specs.
Like Paul, I found that the 3/16" rivet holes in my spar caps are too large
diameter for AN3 bolts, so I bought AN4's to attach the spar root doubler
plate. That's my next step. If you're interested in excruciating detail,
you are welcome to check my Kitlog.
Terry
>OK, maybe I need glasses but I have been unable to find some of the info I
>need in Zenith's drawings or guide. Perhaps those of you who have done
>the wing upgrade will help me out.
>
>Dwg. 6ZU-1 states (paraphrased) "...install extrusion using --AD6-14 and
>--AD6-15 (qty 4) and --AD6-10 solid rivets"
>
>[1] The packing list does not show any --AD-14 rivets, only --AD-15's. I
>assume these are to be used on the inboard section of the top spar. Did
>anyone have any trouble using the longer rivets supplied by Zenith?
>
>[2] The outboard rivets I drilled out were all --AD5's yet it looks like
>Zenith supplied AD6-10's for that location. Am I correct that I am to
>replace these outermost rivets with the larger diameter ones? They also
>sent some AD5-10's but I think they are for the center section. Comments?
>
>As always I appreciate your comments.
>
>Tim Juhl
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done;
Upgrading wings & ailerons per the AMD Safety Directive
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Solid rivet confusion
From: "Ron Lendon" <ron.lendon(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jul 03, 2010
I used a 4X gun and a 5lb bucking block of steel. The AN470AD-6-15's set just
fine. The trick is to not pull or let off the trigger without having pressure
(arm strong) against the factory head. The bucking bar just has to touch to
shop head, you don't have to press hard with the bucking bar. Once you have set
a few you can hear and feel when it is set right.
The 3X gun wasn't doing a good job. There were a couple I had to remove and reset,
the 4X gun expanded the rivets much better, the 3X gun rivets came out real
easy, not so with the 4X gun, it took more work to get them out and that is
a good thing here.
All they sent me were the 15's and the 10's for the wing spars. They all finished
within the Mil Specs. I think the reference to the 14's is an error in the
print, call zenith or post to their zenith.aero site directly to Mathieu Heintz.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303636#303636
________________________________________________________________________________
From: N601xl(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 04, 2010
Subject: 601xl down
a 601xlb crashed around frankfort ky. around the end of June Has anyone
heard about this?
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ella" <ella_rhodes(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: 601xl down
Date: Jul 04, 2010
Hi
What is the difference between a 601 xl vs 601xlb
Thanks don
----- Original Message -----
From: N601xl(at)aol.com
To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com ; zenith-list(at)matronics.com ;
zenith650-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 7:20 AM
Subject: Zenith601-List: 601xl down
a 601xlb crashed around frankfort ky. around the end of June Has
anyone heard about this?
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 601xl down
Date: Jul 04, 2010
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
An XLB is an XL that has had the upgrade modifications done.
do not ardchive
-----Original Message-----
From: ella <ella_rhodes(at)att.net>
Sent: Sun, Jul 4, 2010 8:04 am
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 601xl down
Hi
What is the difference between a 601 xl vs 601xlb
Thanks don
----- Original Message -----
From: N601xl(at)aol.com
-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 7:20 AM
Subject: Zenith601-List: 601xl down
a 601xlb crashed around frankfort ky. around the end of June Has anyone
heard about this?
Frank
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List">http://www.matr
onics.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: Jul 04, 2010
From: Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Back to the workshop!
Thanks for sharing!- There were two good pictures of my 601.
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
--- On Sun, 7/4/10, Carlos Sa wrote:
I posted some pictures of the fly-in on Picasa, in case you are interested:
=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 04, 2010
Subject: stabilizer attachment
From: Carlos Sa <carlossa52(at)gmail.com>
Hello, all
I am building the rear fuselage, and before committing to the position of
parts, I decided to check how the stabilizer would align.
Looks like I'll have to move it forward somewhat (2 or 3 cm), and perhaps
add a little shim to the rear attachment, so the width looks ok.
My question to the group is about edge distance: the (CH601-HD) construction
manual (Edition 3, Jan 1995) says, in the "tail installation on the
fuselage" section (page 26): "watch for a minimum edge distance of 13 mm to
any edge."
While the dimensions of 6F2-7 and -8 (6B3-3/4 on the XL) allow for this,
6T2-1 and 6T2-3 do not - or at least I don't see how.
Therefore, I am assuming that the 13 mm statement refers to the HT
attachment brackets only (6F2-7 / 8 on the 601-HD and 6B3-3 / 4 on the XL).
I would appreciate the group's comments on this.
Thanks in advance
Carlos
CH601-HD, plans
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Solid rivet confusion
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: Jul 04, 2010
Thanks for the info... I appreciate all your comments. I was planning on using
a mix of rivets and bolts, assuming I can set the rivets OK with my 3x gun.
I haven't a lot of experience riveting (took an EAA class) and plan to set up
a practice jig to see how it goes. I did buy a 5 lb bucking bar which I understand
should help.
The features that attracted me to the XL in the first place haven't changed. My
hope is that experience with the modified aircraft will allow all of us to fly
our planes with confidence as long as we stay within the envelope, which is
true of all aircraft. I didn't mean to rekindle old arguments but we all know
that we'll have to wait for some time to pass to get our answers.
Happy 4th of July!
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Tearing wings apart for modification
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303743#303743
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 601xl down
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: Jul 05, 2010
I checked the NTSB, FAA Preliminary database and Google and found no mention of
a accident with a 601, modified or not. There were plenty of other experimental
and factory builts that met grief during the period.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Tearing wings apart for modification
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303804#303804
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "George Race" <mykitairplane(at)mrrace.com>
Subject: Chat Reminder
Date: Jul 05, 2010
http://www.mykitairplane.com/chat/
DO NOT ENTER ANY PASSWORD, JUST YOUR USER NAME CHOICE
Check out my line of items for Experimental Airplane Builders
My Products: http://www.mykitairplane.com/Products/
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 601xl down
From: "philand" <philand(at)msn.com>
Date: Jul 05, 2010
After reading the post of "601xlb down", I checked the www.flightsafty.org site and there was no mention of any 601 down. The site was updated through 7/3, worldwide. Sounds like another red herring.
:? Phil
--------
Phil
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=303815#303815
________________________________________________________________________________
From: JohnDRead(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 05, 2010
Subject: Re: Solid rivet confusion
Paul;
Please go away. You certainly get the prize for being a pain in
the butt! Why don't you buy a C-172 then you can bitch at a big boy.
Regards, John
CH701 - Colorado - Jabiru 3300
Cell: 719-494-4567
Home: 303-648-3261
________________________________________________________________________________
From: JohnDRead(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 05, 2010
Subject: Re: Solid rivet confusion
I've said it before and I will repeat my statement - PILOT ERROR. You
cannot expect to fly outside the recommended limits and live. which part of
that needs more explanation?
Regards, John
CH701 - Colorado - Jabiru 3300
Cell: 719-494-4567
Home: 303-648-3261
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Baker" <pbaker4(at)windstream.net>
Subject: Re: 601xl down
Date: Jul 07, 2010
from what I understand from someone who was there,. the 601xlb was
being test flown after the modification. The owner-pilot was told that
there was very little gas in the tank. so....as things will happen when
you don't use a
check list. he took off and ....well you guessed it, the engine quit
from lack of gas. the pilot landed hard with
no damage to himself and minimal damage to the plane.
It is hard to protect yourself from stupidity..
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Solid rivet confusion
From: "Ianrat" <ianrat(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: Jul 08, 2010
Tim I put a call through to Zenith and was told that the rivets can be between
1.2 to 1.75 bigger than the metal you are fixing. When I clamp my spar tight together
the AD-14 come within specs.
Ian Rat
CH601XL
Brisbane Australia.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304158#304158
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Patrick J Papania" <papaniapatrick(at)aol.com>
Subject: Upgrade Complete and Testing going well
Date: Jul 08, 2010
We completed the upgrade on our 601 XL recently. As soon as we got the
annual completed we put it back into the sky. So far we have noticed a much
more solidly performing airplane. We stay well within the envelop that the
plane was designed for and are having a blast. When I decide to sell
eventually, someone is going to get one hell-ov-an airplane. We have the
3300 Jabiru with an MGL Enigma EFIS along with the Trio Auto pilot and
Altitude hold.
Pat
AMF Aviation
Alliance, Ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Upgrade Complete and Testing going well
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jul 08, 2010
Congrats Pat!
Do you have any pics?
What "envelope" are you flying within?
How much weight did it add?
How long did it take?
Here are a couple pics of my "new" bird... added 13 pounds, took 13 hours, total
cost $390...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304206#304206
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/23_184.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/24_198.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 08, 2010
From: Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 601xl down
One thing that made me chose the Zenith Aircraft -is their robust landing
gear... -Just land in rough strips holding the front wheel up as much as
possible, both in the 701 and in any of the 601's... - in any emergency
fly the airplane all the way down, yes lets all use the check list always.
Gary Gower701 R912601 XL -installing the upgrade.
--- On Wed, 7/7/10, Paul Baker wrote:
From: Paul Baker <pbaker4(at)windstream.net>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 601xl down
Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2010, 8:28 AM
=0A=0A =0A =0A=0A=0A =0Afrom what I understand from someone who was =0Ather
e,.- the- 601xlb was being test flown after the modification. The =0Aow
ner-pilot was told that there was very little gas in the tank. so....as thi
ngs =0Awill happen when you don't use a =0Acheck list. he took off and- .
...well you =0Aguessed it, the engine quit from lack of gas. the pilot land
ed hard with =0A=0Ano damage to himself and minimal damage to the =0Aplane.
=================0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Solid rivet confusion
From: "chuck960" <chuckde(at)roadrunner.com>
Date: Jul 08, 2010
Inrat,
Thanks for the info but can you be more specific? You lost me at 1.2 to 1.75 bigger.
Are we talking about diameter, length, rivet or hole?
Chuck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304260#304260
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Solid rivet confusion
From: "Ianrat" <ianrat(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: Jul 08, 2010
Sorry about that. Yes 1.2 to 1.75 times the Dia of the rivet.
Most people say it has to be 1.5 times the Dia this is the ideal length but Zenith
state in the CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS section CS #403 page 28 the Max - Min
- and Nominal settings. After setting a rivet i measures it and it was within
specs.
Ian Rat
CH601XL
Brisbane Australia.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304264#304264
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 10, 2010
From: Jerry <jlatimer1(at)cox.net>
Subject: First flight of N316JL
N316JL (CH601HDS w/912ULS) took to the air this morning. She made one exciting
trip around the circuit. Ran out of aileron trim trying trim out a left turning
tendency. Had fumes in the cockpit from what appeared to be oil. Oil temps
and pressure were good. After landing inspection showed no oil leaks. Must
be the new burning off the exhaust system. Landing was uneventful, actually
one of the best Ive made. This was probably due to the amount of concentration
I was giving to the flight at the time.
Thanks to Don Honabach letting me have some stick time in HDS a week ago.
Without this time the flight could have been a lot more exciting.
This has been a 10 year 10 month adventure from the rudder the workshop to
the first flight. Im still flying high.
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
From: LHusky(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 10, 2010
Subject: Re: First flight of N316JL
GOOD JOB! Hopefully I will follow soon.
Larry Husky
Madras, Oregon
In a message dated 7/10/2010 8:55:47 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jlatimer1(at)cox.net writes:
--> Zenith601-List message posted by: Jerry
N316JL (CH601HDS w/912ULS) took to the air this morning. She made one
exciting trip around the circuit. Ran out of aileron trim trying trim ou
t a
left turning tendency. Had fumes in the cockpit from what appeared to be
oil. Oil temps and pressure were good. After landing inspection showed
no
oil leaks. Must be the new burning off the exhaust system. Landing was
uneventful, actually one of the best I=99ve made. This was probabl
y due to the
amount of concentration I was giving to the flight at the time.
Thanks to Don Honabach letting me have some stick time in HDS a week ago.
Without this time the flight could have been a lot more exciting.
This has been a 10 year 10 month adventure from the rudder the workshop
to
the first flight. I=99m still flying high.
Jerry
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: First flight of N316JL
Date: Jul 10, 2010
Well Done Jerry!
Ten years is a long time . . .
Paul
XL slowly doing upgrade
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 8:55 AM
Subject: Zenith601-List: First flight of N316JL
N316JL (CH601HDS w/912ULS) took to the air this morning. She made one exciting
trip around the circuit. Ran out of aileron trim trying trim out a left turning
tendency. Had fumes in the cockpit from what appeared to be oil. Oil temps
and pressure were good. After landing inspection showed no oil leaks. Must
be the new burning off the exhaust system. Landing was uneventful, actually
one of the best Ive made. This was probably due to the amount of concentration
I was giving to the flight at the time.
Thanks to Don Honabach letting me have some stick time in HDS a week ago.
Without this time the flight could have been a lot more exciting.
This has been a 10 year 10 month adventure from the rudder the workshop to
the first flight. Im still flying high.
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: First flight of N316JL
From: "Ron Lendon" <ron.lendon(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jul 10, 2010
Congratulations Jerry, you now belong to a very select group, those who can and
do.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=304441#304441
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Seats for my 601XL B
From: "AZFlyer" <millrML(at)aol.com>
Date: Jul 11, 2010
List,
Does anybody know of other suppliers of seats (finished) for 601XL? I know FlightCrafters
in FL. Any others?
Thanks,
Mike
Upgrade finished...yuck!
--------
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=304477#304477
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Seats for my 601XL B
Date: Jul 11, 2010
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Yes. You. You can make your own. It's just not that hard. It is simply
another part of building your own airplane. Let me know if you want more
information.
Jay Bannister
List,
Does anybody know of other suppliers of seats (finished) for 601XL? I know
FlightCrafters in FL. Any others?
Thanks,
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <Z601c(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: Seats for my 601XL B
Date: Jul 11, 2010
On Sunday 11 July 2010 12:57:38 you wrote:
> Yes. You. You can make your own. It's just not that hard. It is simply
> another part of building your own airplane. Let me know if you want more
> information.
>
> Jay Bannister
Actually, Jay, I'm also at about that point. I've seen how a couple of others
did it, and there was a fair discussion in Kitplanes a couples of months back.
But I'd like to see whatever you have in mind. Lots of choices means we're
better informed!
--
=======================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS,MS Physics
A&P/IA
General Radio Telephone Certificate
Instrument Rated Pilot
Retired Aerospace Technical Manager
Semi-proficient Househusband
=======================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Seats for my 601XL B
Date: Jul 11, 2010
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Jim,
Here a few photos of how I did it. Mine are certainly not "Ferrari" class
, but they are comfortable and not obnoxious. A lot of folks get the base
and foam done, then take them to an upholstery shop. I got seat covers
at Pep Boys and made do. The foam came from Wicks, I think. The plywood
base for the back was flat. The plywood base for the bottom was kerfed
for bending and pressed into the seat pan. The wheels kept them pressed
in tight while the epoxy coating set up to hold the shape.
Let me know if you have questions.
Jay
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Returned Mail: Re: Seats for my 601XL B
Date: Jul 11, 2010
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Hmmm. All my photos had a .jpg extension, which is about as "valid" as yo
u can get, So I don't know what the problem was.
Jim, I will send them directly to you, OK?
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sun, Jul 11, 2010 3:00 pm
Subject: Returned Mail: Re: Seats for my 601XL B
The following message from jaybannist(at)cs.com was not authorized for entry
in the
Matronics Email Lists forum.
Reason: There were problems with the attachments [Attachment must have a
valid
extension to be saved to a forum.]
Visit this URL to register: http://forums.matronics.com//index.php
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Subject: Re: Seats for my 601XL B
****************************************
Jim,
Here a few photos of how I did it. Mine are certainly not "Ferrari" class
, but
they are comfortable and not obnoxious. A lot of folks get the base and
foam
done, then take them to an upholstery shop. I got seat covers at Pep Boys
and
made do. The foam came from Wicks, I think. The plywood base for the back
was
flat. The plywood base for the bottom was kerfed for bending and pressed
into
the seat pan. The wheels kept them pressed in tight while the epoxy coati
ng set
up to hold the shape.
Let me know if you have questions.
Jay
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Subject: Re: Returned Mail: Re: Seats for my 601XL B
Date: Jul 11, 2010
I get individual e-mails and received 8 photos.
I thought the tires went on the outside of the plane. :-)
-- Craig
_____
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jaybannist(at)cs.com
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 1:10 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Returned Mail: Re: Seats for my 601XL B
Hmmm. All my photos had a .jpg extension, which is about as "valid" as you
can get, So I don't know what the problem was.
Jim, I will send them directly to you, OK?
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sun, Jul 11, 2010 3:00 pm
Subject: Returned Mail: Re: Seats for my 601XL B
The following message from jaybannist(at)cs.com was not authorized for entry in
the
Matronics Email Lists forum.
Reason: There were problems with the attachments [Attachment must have a
valid
extension to be saved to a forum.]
Visit this URL to register: http://forums.matronics.com//index.php
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Subject: Re: Seats for my 601XL B
****************************************
Jim,
Here a few photos of how I did it. Mine are certainly not "Ferrari" class,
but
they are comfortable and not obnoxious. A lot of folks get the base and
foam
done, then take them to an upholstery shop. I got seat covers at Pep Boys
and
made do. The foam came from Wicks, I think. The plywood base for the back
was
flat. The plywood base for the bottom was kerfed for bending and pressed
into
the seat pan. The wheels kept them pressed in tight while the epoxy coating
set
up to hold the shape.
Let me know if you have questions.
Jay
________________________________________________________________________________
From: LHusky(at)aol.com
Date: Jul 11, 2010
Subject: Re: Returned Mail: Re: Seats for my 601XL B
I had no problem with them. Thanks Jay
Larry Husky
Madras, Oregon
In a message dated 7/11/2010 1:12:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jaybannist(at)cs.com writes:
Hmmm. All my photos had a .jpg extension, which is about as "valid" as
you can get, So I don't know what the problem was.
Jim, I will send them directly to you, OK?
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sun, Jul 11, 2010 3:00 pm
Subject: Returned Mail: Re: Seats for my 601XL B
The following message from _jaybannist(at)cs.com_ (mailto:jaybannist(at)cs.com)
was not authorized for entry in the
Matronics Email Lists forum.
Reason: There were problems with the attachments [Attachment must have a
valid
extension to be saved to a forum.]
Visit this URL to register: _http://forums.matronics.com//index.php_
(http://forums.matronics.com//index.php)
From: _jaybannist(at)cs.com_ (mailto:jaybannist(at)cs.com)
To: _zenith601-list(at)matronics.com_
(mailto:zenith601-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: Seats for my 601XL B
****************************************
Jim,
Here a few photos of how I did it. Mine are certainly not "Ferrari"
class, but
they are comfortable and not obnoxious. A lot of folks get the base and
foam
done, then take them to an upholstery shop. I got seat covers at Pep Boys
and
made do. The foam came from Wicks, I think. The plywood base for the back
was
flat. The plywood base for the bottom was kerfed for bending and pressed
into
the seat pan. The wheels kept them pressed in tight while the epoxy
coating set
up to hold the shape.
Let me know if you have questions.
Jay
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Karl Polifka" <jfowler120(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Seats for my 601XL B
Date: Jul 11, 2010
Second time around for seats for us. I had separate backs and seats
made by a local auto upholstery shop. No plywood or anything else.
Works fine. Cost was about $300. I made the side panels myself --
about $60 for material. Will send pix if you like.
Karl
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Seats for my 601XL B
Jim,
Here a few photos of how I did it. Mine are certainly not "Ferrari"
class, but they are comfortable and not obnoxious. A lot of folks get
the base and foam done, then take them to an upholstery shop. I got
seat covers at Pep Boys and made do. The foam came from Wicks, I think.
The plywood base for the back was flat. The plywood base for the bottom
was kerfed for bending and pressed into the seat pan. The wheels kept
them pressed in tight while the epoxy coating set up to hold the shape.
Let me know if you have questions.
Jay
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Karl Polifka" <jfowler120(at)verizon.net>
Subject: seats