Zenith-Archive.digest.vol-gn
February 20, 2007 - March 03, 2007
> kind of handle works best? Can anyone supply me with this info and
> possibly pictures?
> Thanks,
> Mack
> 601XL in final stages
>
> --------
> The poh-oh-unemployed farm boy from Idaho
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'331#96331
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
Install the wrap and...put a reflective heat shield of heavy BBQ type foil
inside the cowl. Try it for a circuit and then check the temp on the cowl.
Make sure there is no direct contact of the inside of the cowl with the hot
exhaust pipe.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of aprazer
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:17 PM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: 3300 Exhaust
>
>
>
> Ladies and Gents,
> Looking for a solution as what to do with my cowling. I have
> approximately 1/4 inch between the fiberglass and the exhaust
> pipe. I have considered wrapping the exhaust pipe with the
> insulating wrap that Aircraft Spruce sells for $43 for 50' 2"
> roll or trimming the cowling, which could be unsightly.
> Any and all suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Mack
> 601XL in final stages
>
> --------
> The poh-oh-unemployed farm boy from Idaho
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'329#96329
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.061.014).
> http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Ferris <mijniljj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diesel Zenith |
It is true that the old diesels were hard to start,
but since 1978 at least when i had a vw diesel it was
easy to start in cold weather, it had glow plugs and
just heat them for about 20 seconds and it would start
right up. It is interesting that almost all of the
truck engines are Detroit Diesels and eve the
catapiler uses Detropt Diesel parts. The General
motors Diesels were two stroke and had a blower and
they also make the locomotive engines that are two
stoke but too big for us (100 Hp/cylinder and twelve
and sixteen cylinders.
Jim
--- Noel Loveys wrote:
> No... There is more power (BTU) in a pound of Diesel
> than there is in a
> pound of Gasoline It also is not as volatile. One
> down side could be that
> diesels are notoriously hard to start in cold
> weather. They do need good
> size starters and probably heavy batteries.
>
>
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Craig Payne
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 6:44 PM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Diesel Zenith
>
>
> > Don't forget about the fuel efficiency.... you
> won't have to carry as
> much fuel either. Also no plugs to foul and no
> mixture to worry about!
>
> Somewhere it was pointed out that although Diesel
> engines get better miles
> per gallon they get about the same miles per pound
> of fuel. True?
>
> -- Craig
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 -
> 9.061.014).
> http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Ruddiman" <pacificpainting(at)comcast.net> |
I know this has been gone over before, but where is a good place to buy
.025 sheeting for a belly skin.
Dave in Salem
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Navaid AP1 Autopilot for 601xl |
yes got in touch with navaid and got a manual (great help) as my AP1 is with smart
couplerII build in what is missing now is the way how to connect the signal
from the GPS(Garmin295) to the 12 pin socket
for more help i would be very thankfull
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'453#96453
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Race" <mykitairplane(at)mrrace.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Strobes, part II |
Hi Bill:
Here are a some strobes for you to consider. www.aristuff.com has them.
Bright Star SR901C Clear Lens $49.00
Kuntzleman Strobe Double Wink KU001 $138.00
Illusion Strobe ILA25 $119.00
Several different styles to choose from.
George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick R <n701rr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | HomeBuilt Help does it |
Fellow builders..this is an unpaid plug.:
Two weeks ago I sat down and watched "How to License Your Homebuilt Aircraft".
As Jon suggested I got to know my DVD player's remote on an intimate level.
Yesterday I received an oblong postcard from the FAA which turned out to be a
Certificate of Aircraft Registration ! ! Plus it appears I'm an aircraft manufacturer..go
figure..look out General Dynamics..here I come!
N701RR is officially registered. I'm sure part two, the inspection paperwork
will yield the same results!
Thanks Jon...a million times over ! !
Low & Slow,
Rick
Rick
Sharpsburg, GA. USA
http://www.n701rr.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 601 XL w/ Corvair PowerPlant |
| From: | "Jason" <ingram20(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I should be so lucky as to be able to stroll on over to talk with WW about this
and get a demo ride on his 601. *grins* I think he's a pretty busy guy right
about now, so I'm not going to pester him when I don't even have an engine to
tinker with(however, did order and recieve his conversion manual).
Thanks for all your thoughts, I'm not sure if the 1320 is a "hard" limit, I'm assuming
that for us we should treat it as a hard cieling, but am glad to know
that more than a few of the XL/Corvair planes have and do fly loaded with some
healthy sized guys aboard without problem.
Jason
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'469#96469
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 1st Hundred Hours of Building (XL) |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
[quote="4rcsimmons(at)comcast.net"]Im a above the 400 hours mark and am on the
Fuselage sides.
Wings done and Tail section done.
Rich Simmons
601 XL
> [b]
Just curious, kit or from plans?
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'477#96477
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Diesel Zenith |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
2thesky wrote:
>
> Float Flyr wrote:
> > One down side could be that diesels are notoriously hard to start in cold
weather. They do need good size starters and probably heavy batteries.
>
>
> Only diesel engines that aren't properly cared for, have fuel pressure problems,
or are worn out are hard to start. I currently own five diesel engines and
have owned many more in the past. Every time I have had a hard to start engine,
I have been able to find and fix a problem that corrected the problem of
being hard to start. You can just crank on it loger, use bigger and more batteries
to suck fuel up to the injectors, and that will work and is, in fact, what
most folks do, but I have always been able to fix mine so that they start easily
through keeping the fuel system in top shape. I own one diesel in a Ford
F-250 pickup. I also own two tractor trailers with big 550 hp engines and smaller
diesel powered aux. power units on them, too. None of these are hard to
start in the cold because they are all equipped with block heaters that keep
the coolant warm. When it gets REALLY cold, I also use a heated dipstick that
tends to keep the engine oil close to 85 degrees. All of my trucks start just
fine in really cold weather. It has been hovering around 0 degrees here for
a couple of weeks and all of my trucks started everyday with no problems, usually
after just a couple of turns of the engine. One of my trucks sat outside
in North Dakota for three days last week. It started on the third turn. In
fact, I drive my diesel pickup more in the cold weather because the oil and coolant
is warm all the time, and my car has to start cold. The diesel engines
run smooth from the start and my car and farm tractor complain to me for the
first few seconds. It is my opinion that because of the block and oil heating
devices, my diesels suffer less wear than my gas engines from cold weather starts.
It is simply a matter of plugging it in to a 110 volt electrical outlet
at night, or just a couple of hours or so before starting (depending on the temp).
I prefer to leave them plugged in all the time when not in use. For an
airplane, I think I would leave the block heater off and just use the heated
dipstick !
so not t
o add any extra flying weight. To me, that sounds easier than the propane powered
pre-heater that I use on the PA-28 I rent now. Just show up at the hangar,
unplug and remove the heated dipstick, and replace the normal dipstick. You
are ready to rock and roll.
>
> As for the starters and batteries, both of my semi's are equipped with auxiliary
power units so that we don't need to idle the big engine for overnight stays
and still run the heat/AC, provide electricity in the sleeper for lights, refrigerator,
microwave, engine block heaters, battery charging for the big engine,
etc. These units use lighter twin cylinder diesel engines, made by Kubota,
and require only a single battery that is lighter than the one in my little
V-6 powered car. It will spin and start the little Kubotas very easily. The
starters are pretty much the same as a lawn mower. I doubt that for these lighter
aircraft diesels, any huge heavy battery or starter would be needed. We
do use huge starters on truck diesels, but I think that it is because manufacturers
realize that most will allow small air leaks in the fuel system exist.
I think these diesels could be great for airplanes if they can just keep the
installed weight down. I hope by the time I am finally ready to start building,
I will have a choice of engines that can run on diesel or Jet-A. I like it
more than gas because of the volatility of gasoline. Also, my auto and truck
diesels last a whole heck of a lot longer than my gas engine cars. One of
my truck engines has 1.2 million miles on it. I usually run trucks to 1.5 million
before trading them in or rebuilding them with meticulous maintenance, of
course. I am sure most aircraft owners, particularly folks who built them are
very good about maintenance. I hope that longevity will be the same in aircraft
diesels. Just my opinions.
Just the fact that diesel fuel is less volatile in a crash is a nice plus.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'510#96510
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Maxson <pmaxpmax(at)HOTMAIL.COM> |
| Subject: | 601 XL w/ Corvair PowerPlant |
This is my experience also. I'm not a skinny guy and Gus and I flew all ov
er Northern New Jersey for a couple of days. We flew with full tanks many
times and went through all phases of flight. I'm not saying we we were ove
r gross :-) I set my gross weight to be in line with the Sport Pilot regul
ations. My plane will climb nicely slightly over gross.
My performance numbers are in the archives including weights etc.Phil Maxso
n
601XL/Corvair
Northwest New Jersey
> From: craig(at)craigandjean.com> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 601 XL w/ Corvair
gandjean.com>> > Here is a quote from William Wynne's web site about their
Corvair-equipped> 601xl (look about 3/4s of the way down the page):> > "Lik
e Gus, Derek is a very burly guy. Together, they weigh more than 500> pound
s. But the 601's efficient airframe, and its 44" wide cabin flew both> of t
hem in comfort with a good rate of climb. In extreme cases like this, we> d
o not operate the airplane with full fuel. But two FAA sized people could>
fill up the 24 gallon tanks on the XL, still carry 86 pounds of baggage, an
d> be within gross weight. With the standard Corvair engine, this combinati
on> performs very well."> > http://www.flycorvair.com/601.html> > -- Craig
_________________________________________________________________
Explore the seven wonders of the world
BRE
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 601 XL w/ Corvair PowerPlant |
| From: | "Gig Giacona" <wr.giacona(at)cox.net> |
pmaxpmax(at)HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
> I'm not a skinny guy
No kidding :P
DO NOT ARCIVE
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'546#96546
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3300 Exhaust |
| From: | "aprazer" <aprazer(at)cableone.net> |
Thanks everyone -- you have been very helpful!
Mack
--------
The poh-oh-unemployed farm boy from Idaho
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'554#96554
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Parking brake |
| From: | "aprazer" <aprazer(at)cableone.net> |
Howdy Everyone,
A note of thanks to all for the input -- all your ideas are good, just now to decide
which I like the best
Thanks again,
Mack
--------
The poh-oh-unemployed farm boy from Idaho
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'557#96557
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 1st Hundred Hours of Building (XL) |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
Apparently the kit is much faster. Honestly, I'd say I spend about 3 to 4 times
as much time making the parts as I do assembling them. Seems to be reflected
in my log too.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'569#96569
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Strobes, part II |
Thanks, George, I'll look into it.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuselage
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: George Race
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:08 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: RE: Strobes, part II
Hi Bill:
Here are a some strobes for you to consider. www.aristuff.com has
them.
Bright Star SR901C Clear Lens $49.00
Kuntzleman Strobe Double Wink KU001 $138.00
Illusion Strobe ILA25 $119.00
Several different styles to choose from.
George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobes, part II |
Jay-
Based on everyone's input, I'm going to decide on a strobe and complete
the bracing, mounting holes, rivnuts/plates ASAP. Then the only contorting I
have to do is for the final installation. Don't think it's a good thing
having the glass and guts hanging out in the open while I'm jockeying
everything around the shop.
do not
archive
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuselage
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jaybannist(at)cs.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 7:45 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Strobes, part II
>
The rear & middle top skins can't be installed until you have installed
the baggage floor.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brandon Tucker <btucke73(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Parking brake |
While researching my next project, a long travel sand
car, I found this:
http://www.team-moto.com/index.cfm?action=ViewDetails&ItemID=62&Category=5
-this would work well for those of us that used
compression fittings and "Plastic" brake lines.
VR/
Brandon
601 HDS / TD / Corvair
70 hours
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Ruddiman" <pacificpainting(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | nose gear dimensions |
Can anyone out there give me actual dimensions for the axle hole to the
bottom of the 'U" part #8L2-4. Also the inside width. I want to see if
an 8.50 x 6 tire will fit on the nose.
Dave in Salem
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Ruddiman" <pacificpainting(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: nose gear dimensions |
I assume anyone reading this would realize I am talking about an 801. I
forgot to put that in.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Ruddiman
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:59 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: nose gear dimensions
Can anyone out there give me actual dimensions for the axle hole to
the bottom of the 'U" part #8L2-4. Also the inside width. I want to see
if an 8.50 x 6 tire will fit on the nose.
Dave in Salem
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "Half Deep" Rivets...? |
| From: | "Geoff Heap" <stol10(at)comcast.net> |
I understand your problem is fixed Patrick. When I hit that problem I ordered a
small quantity of shorter rivets from assco. There is a short one and an even
shorter one. I don't recall exactly but I think they were Cherry rivets. A bit
harder to pull than avex but whats the diff? I built from plans though so i
only had a few rivets that lined up.....Geoff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'631#96631
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Thank You Mark Townsend! |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
I concur, they have good info on their site and and are very patient and helpful
whenever I have questions. I'd also like to thank Geoff Heap who lives within
a 3 miles of me and is building a 701. He's been very helpful over the years
and we've had lots of opportunities to share ideas, but just having someone close
by who's also building is a real help particularly when you're first getting
started. A few hours answering head scratcher questions as well as just general
technique and whatnot goes a long way to help getting a project started
as well as keep it rolling along.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'634#96634
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Cable farings |
| From: | "Gig Giacona" <wr.giacona(at)cox.net> |
If I remember correctly, I cut the hole as per plans and then centered the faring
based on the hole and it all came out just right.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'650#96650
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robin Bellach" <601zv(at)ritternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Cable farings |
The fairings I received with the kit are oblong as pictured in the plans
and 60mm wide instead of 80mm. When placed several millimeters above the
bottom of the fuse as pictured, the centers come out at about 32 to
33mm, indicating that the "80x80" is an error in the plans and should be
80x60. I don't however have the rudder yet mounted so cannot determine
if alignment is correct without any up or down load.
Robin in AR
601XL Zen-Vair, N601ZV reserved
----- Original Message -----
From: Rich
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 7:55 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Rudder Cable farings
List,
I was preparing to place my rudder cable fairings on the fuselage
sides. I am at a loss on how it should really locate. My sides came with
the slot cut in both sides and I think they are too low.
1) The instructions show 30mm to 35mm from the bottom (Longeron or
Skin?)
2) However, the width of the faring is 80mm so 40mm should be
centerline at the exit.
3) is it a straight shot for the cable or does the fairlead carry a
load to change the line of the cable?
Zenith says that the cable exit should be parallel to the fuse bottom
so likewise the slot cut in the fairlead guide should on centerline to
the
slot.
Can any of you tell/show me what you did?
Thanks,
Rich Simmons
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mack Kreizenbeck" <aprazer(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Parking brake |
Brandon,
This parking brake is far cheaper than the $105 that I spent on the Matco!
Thanks for the heads up,
Mack
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Dominguez <bill_dom(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 1st Hundred Hours of Building (XL) |
Im plans building and I have spent 140 hours so far, I have rudder done
(from scratch, didnt go the seminar) elevator done, stabilizer skeleton done,
and currently working on skinning the stabilizer. This time includes the building
of my two bending brakes, skin bending jig and making the parts.
In my experience so far, making parts vs. assembly goes around 25/75. 25%
of time making parts and 75% assembly. Ive found that mistakes during assembly
are more time consuming to recover than mistakes done while making parts.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami, Florida
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff " <jeffrey_davidson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | JS-AIR Strobe Power pack with Whelen fixtures |
Does anyone have experience using the JS-AIR XPAK 604-HR power pack with the
Whelan A650 position/strobe light fixtures? The JS-AIR is considerably
cheaper and uses less amperage that the Whelen power pack.
Jeff Davidson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jaybannist(at)cs.com |
List,
Here is my version of a homemade parking brake. Two ball valves from Home Depot,
four Adel clamps and some 1/8" aluminum. I bolted the 1/8" bars together because
I was afraid that A5 rivets weren't long enough.
With the levers down, the valves are open. Levers up they are closed and pressure
is trapped in the lines from the valves to the brake calipers.
I used a bar for a control rod because I couldn't figure out how to make a cable
work with the large arc of the levers.
Jay in Dallas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Meltonoso" <meltonoso(at)cox.net> |
Pls unsubscribe me from the Zenith List. meltonoso(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Parking brake |
| From: | "eddies" <eddie.seve(at)clarity.com> |
Hi Jay,
I love the parking brake idea, but I have to ask where did you re-locate your gascolator
and fuel pump to
Eddie
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'717#96717
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Top Window, Bubble Doors and Windshield on 701 |
| From: | Jeffrey A Beachy <beachyjeff(at)juno.com> |
I am ready to install my top window, Zenith bubble doors and the
windshield on my CH701. I have several questions for those who have
completed these tasks:
1. What is the top window made of, plexiglass or lexan? How about the
windshield? Bubble doors?
2. The plans call for rivets for the top window. With all the talk of
cracking lexan or plexiglass, is it wise to use screws instead of rivets?
3. Is the idea of the diagonal stiffener 7F12-3 to put a bow in the top
window?
4. Has anyone used some type of weatherstripping or silicone between the
window and the upper tubes to keep out water?
5. It seems like the rivets at the front upper tube/cabin frame
connection will put pressure on the top window, since the cabin frame and
rivets are higher than the upper tubes. The same goes for the back
gusset, though the plans call for that area to be cut out.
6. What about silicone or weatherstripping for the front windshield?
Roger at Zenith says his 701 leaks pretty badly during rain. Has anyone
managed to keep the water out?
7. The list archives show that some have used the rubber channel 05-01500
from ACS for the windshield. How did you fasten the channel?
8. Is there any problem with installing the top window, bubble doors and
front windshield before installing the wings?
Thanks in advance for your ideas.
Jeff Beachy
CH701, 85% completed
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Elevator trailing edge bent flange on CH701 |
| From: | Jeffrey A Beachy <beachyjeff(at)juno.com> |
I have heard that Roger recommends bending the bent flange of the
elevator down to remove the upsweep of the trailing edge. What say you
CH701 builders who are flying?
Jeff Beachy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Ruddiman" <pacificpainting(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Top Window, Bubble Doors and Windshield on 701 |
I don't know about the rest of your questions, but you might check on
whether using silicone on these parts is alright or not. Make sure it is
compatible.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey A Beachy" <beachyjeff(at)juno.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:43 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Top Window, Bubble Doors and Windshield on 701
>
> I am ready to install my top window, Zenith bubble doors and the
> windshield on my CH701. I have several questions for those who have
> completed these tasks:
>
> 1. What is the top window made of, plexiglass or lexan? How about the
> windshield? Bubble doors?
>
> 2. The plans call for rivets for the top window. With all the talk of
> cracking lexan or plexiglass, is it wise to use screws instead of rivets?
>
> 3. Is the idea of the diagonal stiffener 7F12-3 to put a bow in the top
> window?
>
> 4. Has anyone used some type of weatherstripping or silicone between the
> window and the upper tubes to keep out water?
>
> 5. It seems like the rivets at the front upper tube/cabin frame
> connection will put pressure on the top window, since the cabin frame and
> rivets are higher than the upper tubes. The same goes for the back
> gusset, though the plans call for that area to be cut out.
>
> 6. What about silicone or weatherstripping for the front windshield?
> Roger at Zenith says his 701 leaks pretty badly during rain. Has anyone
> managed to keep the water out?
>
> 7. The list archives show that some have used the rubber channel 05-01500
> from ACS for the windshield. How did you fasten the channel?
>
> 8. Is there any problem with installing the top window, bubble doors and
> front windshield before installing the wings?
>
> Thanks in advance for your ideas.
>
> Jeff Beachy
> CH701, 85% completed
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | 1st Hundred Hours of Building (XL) |
>> Roger that..... oredered my 3300 in July and received it last week.
With the cowling?
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
Also see here for another low-cost solution:
www.matronics.com/photoshare/pitcher035(at)adelphia.net.05.07.2006/
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Arnold" <arno7452(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | CH701 Landing Lights |
Listers,
I am going to install a ldg light on my 701. The most obvious
attachment location is the bracket connecting the landing gear bow.
However, there are some lights available that might fit in the forward
slat. Xevision has one measuring about 4"Wx4L"x2"H. Has anyone
installed a light in their slats?
Thanks in advance,
Ken Arnold
Building CH701 QB Kit; target completion May 2007
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | john butterfield <jdbutterfield(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | sealing fuel senders |
hi list
is the rubber gasket enough to seal the fuel sender
housing, or should i put some sealer on the gasket.
john butterfield
601XL, corvair
torrance, ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | NYTerminat(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator trailing edge bent flange on CH701 |
That is what I did with mine per Rogers suggestion. Don't know why they
don't correct that in the dwgs.
Bob Spudis
N701ZX/CH-701/912S
In a message dated 2/22/2007 3:52:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
beachyjeff(at)juno.com writes:
I have heard that Roger recommends bending the bent flange of the
elevator down to remove the upsweep of the trailing edge. What say you
CH701 builders who are flying?
Jeff Beachy
**************************************
AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MElrod3732(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator trailing edge bent flange on CH701 |
I took the bend out on my 701 elevator. On my first flight last August, I
ran out of out of NOSE UP elevator trim where the trim tab was in the full
down position and I still had to hold back stick pressure to hold the nose up.
Posing this problem on the list resulted in several responses suggesting
taking the TE bend out to a neutral position. It worked like a charm. I now
have the trim range to trim off all stick pressures at all airspeeds.
I bent the elevator TE by cutting a slot in the edge of a long 2 X 4,
placing the TE in the 2 X 4 slot and rotated downward.
Hope this helps,
Mike Elrod
**************************************
AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk(at)alltel.net> |
Matt -
Lately I keep getting "Failure Notice from Mailer@DAEMON...."
Is this you, or is it physhing? I'm burning them out as soon as I
get them, so my apologies if they're legit.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuselage
Townville, Pa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | NYTerminat(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Top Window, Bubble Doors and Windshield on 701 |
In a message dated 2/22/2007 3:47:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
beachyjeff(at)juno.com writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Jeffrey A Beachy
Jeff
I am ready to install my top window, Zenith bubble doors and the
windshield on my CH701. I have several questions for those who have
completed these tasks:
Top is lexan,bubble doors and windshield are plexi( at least that's what
mine was)
1. What is the top window made of, plexiglass or lexan? How about the
windshield? Bubble doors?
I used rivets, no problem
2. The plans call for rivets for the top window. With all the talk of
cracking lexan or plexiglass, is it wise to use screws instead of rivets?
Yes
3. Is the idea of the diagonal stiffener 7F12-3 to put a bow in the top
window?
I used a 3/16" x 1/2" self stick weatherstripping
4. Has anyone used some type of weatherstripping or silicone between the
window and the upper tubes to keep out water?
Weatherstripping took care of some of that
5. It seems like the rivets at the front upper tube/cabin frame
connection will put pressure on the top window, since the cabin frame and
rivets are higher than the upper tubes. The same goes for the back
gusset, though the plans call for that area to be cut out.
I used GE clear silicone between the windshield and the top window,no leaks
6. What about silicone or weatherstripping for the front windshield?
Roger at Zenith says his 701 leaks pretty badly during rain. Has anyone
managed to keep the water out?
I used a U rubber channel and secured with some automotive weatherstrip
sealant(very small bead below the U channel) Hint use masking tape to get a
straight bead
7. The list archives show that some have used the rubber channel 05-01500
from ACS for the windshield. How did you fasten the channel?
I set my wings to get everything lined up and the correct angles, then
removed them and installed the top window, windshield and doors
8. Is there any problem with installing the top window, bubble doors and
front windshield before installing the wings?
Bob Spudis
Thanks in advance for your ideas.
Jeff Beachy
CH701, 85% completed
**************************************
AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 1st Hundred Hours of Building (XL) |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
[quote="bill_dom(at)yahoo.com"]I?m plan?s building and I have spent 140 hours so
far, I have rudder done (from scratch, didn?t go the seminar) elevator done,
stabilizer skeleton done, and currently working on skinning the stabilizer.
This time includes the building of my two bending brakes, skin bending jig and
making the parts.
In my experience so far, making parts vs. assembly goes around 25/75. 25%
of time making parts and 75% assembly. I?ve found that mistakes during assembly
are more time consuming to recover than mistakes done while making parts.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami, Florida
> [b]
Actually, that's abut the same pace I found it to be for those components. I'm
now about halfway through the right wing. Making the wing ribs took a fair amount
of time.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'766#96766
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Your Profile |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
You may now e-mail. Not that you can't just pick up the phone. haha
Hey, where's your e-mail? I didn't show up the last time I refreshed this page.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'769#96769
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Arnold" <arno7452(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Prospective 701 flyer - Performance questions |
I have not seen any messages from 701s flying with the new Zenith cowling.
I talked with Zenith in Mexico, MO today and they are seeing about 100mph
cruise with the 100hp Rotax. They also give caution to stay within the Vne
of 115mph.
Regards,
Ken Arnold
CH701 QB Kit building
----- Original Message -----
From: "StolBrit" <john.hunter(at)lineone.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 7:11 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Prospective 701 flyer - Performance questions
>
> Many Thanks to Dick, Max and Dan who have already replied direct by email
> reporting the experience of themselves and colleagues.
>
> Standard 20 USG tanks Standard is good (up to 5hrs endurance and 400
> miles), unless fuel availability en route is an issue.
>
> Rotax 80 v 100hp Seems that the 80hp Rotax is 'more than adequate' for
> landplane T/O, but the 100hp can add up to 15mph to the cruise (and the
> relatively slow cruise is the 701's only real downside - but you can't
> have it all). So, 80hp = 85mph and 100hp = 100mph cruise then.
>
> BRS STOL performance and strength say its not required, but why would you
> not fit it?
>
> This summary does not do justice to their emails and the words are mine.
> I'll be back here when a new route for a UK QBK becomes possible again
> following the termination of the CZAW arrangement with Zenair last
> summer - and this seems partly tied up with EASA's resolution of European
> LSA rules ...
>
> In the meantime, I'll keep reading the boards - and plan for a 80hp rotax
> with standard tanks and a BRS! (Oh and a Dynon panel!)
>
> ... unless of course anyone else wants to re-open the debate!
>
> Good building and flying - Regards,
> John
>
>
> [/b]
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'379#96379
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "george may" <gfmjr_20(at)HOTMAIL.COM> |
| Subject: | sealing fuel senders |
John-
I had leaks in both tanks until I sealed them with gasket sealer. I would
add some to the existing gaslet.
George May
601xL 912s
>From: john butterfield <jdbutterfield(at)yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>To: Zenith-List Digest Server
>Subject: Zenith-List: sealing fuel senders
>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:09:53 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>
>hi list
>is the rubber gasket enough to seal the fuel sender
>housing, or should i put some sealer on the gasket.
>john butterfield
>601XL, corvair
>torrance, ca
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Refi Now: Rates near 39yr lows! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate
new payment
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Sagerser <alaskajim(at)cox.net> |
I'm sad to sell my 701 project but have other priorities (second home
close to grandchildren). So would like to sell my Custom Zenith Ch-701
project. 85% plus complete. New, latest model (40% more cooling area &
hydraulic lifters), 120hp, Jabiru 3300-A engine ($14,900), Jabiru
factory FWF package. PegaStol aftermarket wings (retractable slats),
long range tanks, custom extended Grove gear and brakes. Extra beefing
for bush flying. Customized for tall person. Save yourself 700 hours
of labor and be flying this spring. Yours for the cost of the kits,
options, engine and FWF package. $34,107 firm. Call Jim at
480-766-0003 or email: alaskajim(at)cox.net for pictures. Much thanks to
Larry Martin and Steven Johnston for all their help and support getting
it this far along. Jim Sagerser
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Burns" <lsapilot(at)HOTMAIL.COM> |
| Subject: | 12 Gal fuel tanks - mount optical sensor |
Has anyone mounted the optical sensor announciators from Aircraft Extras and
what fuel level you decided on?
If so, do you happen to remember where you put the mounting holes for the
sensors?
I already cut the holes for the fuel level senders...
Thanks,
Jon Burns
Little Elm, TX
(North of Dallas)
601 XL, Tail done, wings in progress
_________________________________________________________________
With tax season right around the corner, make sure to follow these few
simple tips.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTips.aspx?icid=HMFebtagline
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | CH701 Landing Lights |
Ken,
I installed a landing light in a slat but don't know how effective it will
be. Not hard to do, I cut out a elliptical hole, and curved some 1/8th inch
thick lexon to the slat shape by heating it to 300F in my oven while it was
sitting on the piece that I cut out. Then I found a small 55W 12V light in
an auto shop and mounted it so that it could be adjusted after attaching the
wing.
Tune in in about a half year when the plane is ready and I'll tell you how
well it works.
Regards,
Les
_____
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken Arnold
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:03 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: CH701 Landing Lights
Listers,
I am going to install a ldg light on my 701. The most obvious attachment
location is the bracket connecting the landing gear bow. However, there are
some lights available that might fit in the forward slat. Xevision has one
measuring about 4"Wx4L"x2"H. Has anyone installed a light in their slats?
Thanks in advance,
Ken Arnold
Building CH701 QB Kit; target completion May 2007
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben52425(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your Profile |
**************************************
AOL now offers free email to
everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Top Window, Bubble Doors and Windshield on 701 |
| From: | Jeffrey A Beachy <beachyjeff(at)juno.com> |
Some answers to your questions. Hopefully helpful.
1. What is the top window made of, plexiglass or lexan? How about the
windshield? Bubble doors?
ans: The top window is made of lexan its tough in that it won't crack
easy but it will scratch easy.
The windshield is plexiglass and will crack easy. Make sure to use the
special drill bits to go thru both of them though. You can drill through
the lexan/plexiglass right into the tubing by the way with these bits.
The bubble doors are plexiglass so be careful drilling also. For cutting
plexiglass I used a hand grinder with a fiberglass
disc. Cutting the lexan, I scored it with a utility knife and straight
edge and snapped the peices off.
2. The plans call for rivets for the top window. With all the talk of
cracking lexan or plexiglass, is it wise to use screws instead of rivets?
ans: The lexan is very tough and the rivets work fine. You can use screws
but most of the installations
I've seen are rivets. No cracking at all. I did both
installations this past summer in 95 deg weather
without issues. I'd be careful working in cold weather with the
windshield. My garage is so cold
now that I don't even want to look at the project.
3. Is the idea of the diagonal stiffener 7F12-3 to put a bow in the top
window?
ans: Yes it puts a bow in the top to keep it from flopping around, and
tightens it up. It looks good also.
4. Has anyone used some type of weatherstripping or silicone between the
window and the upper tubes to keep out water?
ans: I used silicone on the side tubes but it just squeezes out to the
sides of the tube. The window sits
on the top of the tube which does not give a goood surface for silicon. A
very thin weather strip would be
better or nothing at all since the wing root will cover this area when
installed. I would say most of the leakage will occur at the front
corners around the windshield/front wing mounts. I will use a cover when
its outside.
5. It seems like the rivets at the front upper tube/cabin frame
connection will put pressure on the top window, since the cabin frame and
rivets are higher than the upper tubes. The same goes for the back
gusset, though the plans call for that area to be cut out.
ans: This is an area where the instructions do not give any info. Since
the cabin frame to the tubes is an important structural area, I did not
rivet thru the lexan into the tubes here. At the front, just set the top
window on top of the rivets and rivet thru the side tubes only, a little
bowing or pressure but it doesn't
matter.
6. What about silicone or weatherstripping for the front windshield?
Roger at Zenith says his 701 leaks pretty badly during rain. Has anyone
managed to keep the water out?
ans: I shopped around for the channel and got some useless stuff. I
finally got some from Wicks or Spruce
that worked great. It makes the windshield look very nice. The
stuff they use on the Czec 701's is really nice but I couldn't find it
anywhere.
7. the list archives show that some have used the rubber channel 05-01500
from ACS for the windshield. How did you fasten the channel?
ans: I will look thru my receipts and see if I can get the part number I
used but that sounds familiar.
I used polyzap from Tower Hobbies to fasten the channel to the windshied.
I would recommend using very
fine sandpaper on the windshield to roughen it up a bit where the channel
contacts it inside and outside.
This will allow the polyzap to bond better. Run a thin line inside the
channel and install it quickly, and don't
cut the channel to exact size before, trim it off at the ends after
installation. This is one of those moments
of high stress to not get the stuff all over the windshield. After the
windshield was screwed down I ran a line
of weather stripping adhesive under the channel where it contacts the
airframe.
8. Is there any problem with installing the top window, bubble doors and
front windshield before installing the wings?
ans: I hope not because I installed mine. You can tape poster board on
the top window while installing the
wing root to keep from damaging it.
Jeff, I'll post the pics I have of this installation right away on my
website http://701builder.com so you can get an idea of what I did at
least. The site is still under construction, its more of a photo essay of
what I
have done, and I'll be adding descriptions of work later. I'll try to get
it up there in the morning. It will be under the category fuselage.
Making a website is definately time consuming.
Hope some of this helps for now.
Brian
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ROBERT SCEPPA <rjscep(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CH701 Landing Lights |
> How about in the nose bowl?
--- Ken Arnold wrote:
> Listers,
>
> I am going to install a ldg light on my 701. The
> most obvious attachment location is the bracket
> connecting the landing gear bow. However, there are
> some lights available that might fit in the forward
> slat. Xevision has one measuring about 4"Wx4L"x2"H.
> Has anyone installed a light in their slats?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Ken Arnold
> Building CH701 QB Kit; target completion May 2007
Cheap talk?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dino Bortolin" <dbortol(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CH701 Landing Lights |
There is a benefit to having the lights on the wing, or at least
somewhere where you can see the light during flight; if you encounter
icing conditions, the ice is much easier to see. You'll be able to see
a reflection from the ice on the adjacent surfaces.
Dino
On 2/23/07, ROBERT SCEPPA wrote:
>
> > How about in the nose bowl?
>
> --- Ken Arnold wrote:
>
> > Listers,
> >
> > I am going to install a ldg light on my 701. The
> > most obvious attachment location is the bracket
> > connecting the landing gear bow. However, there are
> > some lights available that might fit in the forward
> > slat. Xevision has one measuring about 4"Wx4L"x2"H.
> > Has anyone installed a light in their slats?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Ken Arnold
> > Building CH701 QB Kit; target completion May 2007
>
>
> Cheap talk?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Schoenberger <hrs1(at)frontiernet.net> |
List . . . please be patient while I ask a bunch of probably dumb
questions re engines for my 701. I always thought I would use a Rotax
912 - 80 HP, but an awful lot of my buddies in my flying club are down
on Rotax due to the continual AD's (is that the right word?). I also
see a lot of service notices in the EAA mags. This sort of surprises me
since they have been around a long time, and one would think the bumps
would be smoothed out.
First dumb question - why do all of these engines for LSA and ultralites
operate at such a high RPM, i.e. in the 5,000 RPM range? I assume this
5,000 RPM range has some sort of gearbox. What are typical prop RPM's
at cruise?
If I'm not mistaken the engines which powered the Aeronca, Taylorcraft,
PIper Cub and the like were about 65 HP and were direct drive. Why
aren't such engines available for the 701, or are they? Wouldn't these
be much quieter (I"m big on quiet)? Those old classic birds just
seemed to putt putt along. My Piper Dakota of some years ago operated
in the 2,400 range.
Has anyone tried a 60HP HKS in a 701? I've heard nothing but good
things about the HKS's. Are cowlings and FWF packages available? I've
been impressed with the low 2 - 3 gph fuel consumption of these
engines. Would the 701 fly ok with 60 HP? It's my understanding that
the 701 was originally designed for something like 55 HP, but I may be
wrong about this.
Any other thought you might have will be appreciated. Thank you.
Robert Schoenberger 701 60%
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com> |
Robert,
I share your concern with the Rotax engines. They are the most popular,
but I'd be reluctant to use one because of company attitude and
continuous "AD" notes. The latest requiring a waterless coolant didn't
resolve a problem, but does acknowledge one. I'd have preferred they
found a better fix. Most re-drives are nearly 2 to1, but 5000 rpm is
only a number at which the peak HP is developed and it doesn't create
more than the problem with having a re-drive in the first place. There
are smaller engines that would perform just as well on a 701 and the HKS
would, but for its light weight, is extremely reliable and well proven
on trikes. Don't think a FWF kit is available at this time. The trend of
putting the largest engine possible on these light Zeniths fails to
realize the value of a "light aircraft". I'd also consider VW or the GEO
aircraft conversions or Suzuki conversion engines. See link,
http://www.ultralightnews.com/sunfun2000/ravenredrivesnf.htm.
You might possibly find a Cont A-65 or a 75 hp Franklin that's
available. Good engines! Simple! Somewhat Rare, as are some parts!
Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Robert Schoenberger wrote:
>
>
> List . . . please be patient while I ask a bunch of probably dumb
> questions re engines for my 701. I always thought I would use a Rotax
> 912 - 80 HP, but an awful lot of my buddies in my flying club are down
> on Rotax due to the continual AD's (is that the right word?). I also
> see a lot of service notices in the EAA mags. This sort of surprises
> me since they have been around a long time, and one would think the
> bumps would be smoothed out.
>
> First dumb question - why do all of these engines for LSA and
> ultralites operate at such a high RPM, i.e. in the 5,000 RPM range? I
> assume this 5,000 RPM range has some sort of gearbox. What are typical
> prop RPM's at cruise?
>
> If I'm not mistaken the engines which powered the Aeronca,
> Taylorcraft, PIper Cub and the like were about 65 HP and were direct
> drive. Why aren't such engines available for the 701, or are they?
> Wouldn't these be much quieter (I"m big on quiet)? Those old classic
> birds just seemed to putt putt along. My Piper Dakota of some years
> ago operated in the 2,400 range.
> Has anyone tried a 60HP HKS in a 701? I've heard nothing but good
> things about the HKS's. Are cowlings and FWF packages available? I've
> been impressed with the low 2 - 3 gph fuel consumption of these
> engines. Would the 701 fly ok with 60 HP? It's my understanding that
> the 701 was originally designed for something like 55 HP, but I may be
> wrong about this.
>
> Any other thought you might have will be appreciated. Thank you.
> Robert Schoenberger 701 60%
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Shoup" <zenith601xl(at)gmail.com> |
The HKS is also geared and develops max power at around 6,000 rpm.
On 2/23/07, LarryMcFarland wrote:
>
>
> Robert,
> I share your concern with the Rotax engines. They are the most popular,
> but I'd be reluctant to use one because of company attitude and
> continuous "AD" notes. The latest requiring a waterless coolant didn't
> resolve a problem, but does acknowledge one. I'd have preferred they
> found a better fix. Most re-drives are nearly 2 to1, but 5000 rpm is
> only a number at which the peak HP is developed and it doesn't create
> more than the problem with having a re-drive in the first place. There
> are smaller engines that would perform just as well on a 701 and the HKS
> would, but for it's light weight, is extremely reliable and well proven
> on trikes. Don't think a FWF kit is available at this time. The trend of
> putting the largest engine possible on these light Zeniths fails to
> realize the value of a "light aircraft". I'd also consider VW or the GEO
> aircraft conversions or Suzuki conversion engines. See link,
>
> http://www.ultralightnews.com/sunfun2000/ravenredrivesnf.htm.
>
> You might possibly find a Cont A-65 or a 75 hp Franklin that's
> available. Good engines! Simple! Somewhat Rare, as are some parts!
>
> Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
> Robert Schoenberger wrote:
> >
> >
> > List . . . please be patient while I ask a bunch of probably dumb
> > questions re engines for my 701. I always thought I would use a Rotax
> > 912 - 80 HP, but an awful lot of my buddies in my flying club are down
> > on Rotax due to the continual AD's (is that the right word?). I also
> > see a lot of service notices in the EAA mags. This sort of surprises
> > me since they have been around a long time, and one would think the
> > bumps would be smoothed out.
> >
> > First dumb question - why do all of these engines for LSA and
> > ultralites operate at such a high RPM, i.e. in the 5,000 RPM range? I
> > assume this 5,000 RPM range has some sort of gearbox. What are typical
> > prop RPM's at cruise?
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken the engines which powered the Aeronca,
> > Taylorcraft, PIper Cub and the like were about 65 HP and were direct
> > drive. Why aren't such engines available for the 701, or are they?
> > Wouldn't these be much quieter (I"m big on quiet)? Those old classic
> > birds just seemed to putt putt along. My Piper Dakota of some years
> > ago operated in the 2,400 range.
> > Has anyone tried a 60HP HKS in a 701? I've heard nothing but good
> > things about the HKS's. Are cowlings and FWF packages available? I've
> > been impressed with the low 2 - 3 gph fuel consumption of these
> > engines. Would the 701 fly ok with 60 HP? It's my understanding that
> > the 701 was originally designed for something like 55 HP, but I may be
> > wrong about this.
> >
> > Any other thought you might have will be appreciated. Thank you.
> > Robert Schoenberger 701 60%
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Deiterich" <cffd(at)pgrb.com> |
My direct drive Jabiru 2200 works just fine.
Chuck D.
N701TX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Schoenberger" <hrs1(at)frontiernet.net>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:41 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Engines
>
> List . . . please be patient while I ask a bunch of probably dumb
> questions re engines for my 701. I always thought I would use a Rotax
> 912 - 80 HP, but an awful lot of my buddies in my flying club are down
> on Rotax due to the continual AD's (is that the right word?). I also
> see a lot of service notices in the EAA mags. This sort of surprises me
> since they have been around a long time, and one would think the bumps
> would be smoothed out.
>
> First dumb question - why do all of these engines for LSA and ultralites
> operate at such a high RPM, i.e. in the 5,000 RPM range? I assume this
> 5,000 RPM range has some sort of gearbox. What are typical prop RPM's
> at cruise?
>
> If I'm not mistaken the engines which powered the Aeronca, Taylorcraft,
> PIper Cub and the like were about 65 HP and were direct drive. Why
> aren't such engines available for the 701, or are they? Wouldn't these
> be much quieter (I"m big on quiet)? Those old classic birds just
> seemed to putt putt along. My Piper Dakota of some years ago operated
> in the 2,400 range.
>
> Has anyone tried a 60HP HKS in a 701? I've heard nothing but good
> things about the HKS's. Are cowlings and FWF packages available? I've
> been impressed with the low 2 - 3 gph fuel consumption of these
> engines. Would the 701 fly ok with 60 HP? It's my understanding that
> the 701 was originally designed for something like 55 HP, but I may be
> wrong about this.
>
> Any other thought you might have will be appreciated. Thank you.
> Robert Schoenberger 701 60%
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Dolamore" <petes15515(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Top Window, Bubble Doors and Windshield on 701 |
Jeff...I'm at the same point in the construction process..I've got some
tinted .080" lexan for the top and was contemplating how best to seal it.
I'm thinking maybe a thin automotive type rubber channel or something
similar sitting on the edge of the door channel might work. I'm also
thinking that ss screws / cup washers might work better..in one of the ZAC
pics it show this so at some point I guess they thought it was good also !
Happy building..Peter in Ont. Canada. 80 % scratch built.
>From: Jeffrey A Beachy <beachyjeff(at)juno.com>
>Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Top Window, Bubble Doors and Windshield on 701
>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:43:29 -0500
>
>
>I am ready to install my top window, Zenith bubble doors and the
>windshield on my CH701. I have several questions for those who have
>completed these tasks:
>
>1. What is the top window made of, plexiglass or lexan? How about the
>windshield? Bubble doors?
>
>2. The plans call for rivets for the top window. With all the talk of
>cracking lexan or plexiglass, is it wise to use screws instead of rivets?
>
>3. Is the idea of the diagonal stiffener 7F12-3 to put a bow in the top
>window?
>
>4. Has anyone used some type of weatherstripping or silicone between the
>window and the upper tubes to keep out water?
>
>5. It seems like the rivets at the front upper tube/cabin frame
>connection will put pressure on the top window, since the cabin frame and
>rivets are higher than the upper tubes. The same goes for the back
>gusset, though the plans call for that area to be cut out.
>
>6. What about silicone or weatherstripping for the front windshield?
>Roger at Zenith says his 701 leaks pretty badly during rain. Has anyone
>managed to keep the water out?
>
>7. The list archives show that some have used the rubber channel 05-01500
>from ACS for the windshield. How did you fasten the channel?
>
>8. Is there any problem with installing the top window, bubble doors and
>front windshield before installing the wings?
>
>Thanks in advance for your ideas.
>
>Jeff Beachy
>CH701, 85% completed
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Your Space. Your Friends. Your Stories. Share your world with Windows Live
Spaces. http://spaces.live.com/?mkt=en-ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com> |
Scroll down to the bottom page of http://www.zenvair.com/
If you decide you are interested in further research with the Corvair engine, look at www.flycorvair.com
- Patrick
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'906#96906
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: sealing fuel senders |
| From: | japhillipsga(at)aol.com |
John, I used some red Permatex stuff that I have worried about ever since. I am
building my RV-8 tanks right now and would recommend ProSeal for sealing in the
sender unit. You can buy a pint and that should be more than enough for both
tanks and they should not leak. Best regards, Bill of Georgia
-----Original Message-----
From: jdbutterfield(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 6:09 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: sealing fuel senders
hi list
is the rubber gasket enough to seal the fuel sender
housing, or should i put some sealer on the gasket.
john butterfield
601XL, corvair
torrance, ca
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "billmileski" <mileski(at)sonalysts.com> |
> First dumb question - why do all of these engines for LSA and ultralites
> operate at such a high RPM, i.e. in the 5,000 RPM range? I assume this
> 5,000 RPM range has some sort of gearbox. What are typical prop RPM's
> at cruise?
>
> If I'm not mistaken the engines which powered the Aeronca, Taylorcraft,
> PIper Cub and the like were about 65 HP and were direct drive. Why
> aren't such engines available for the 701, or are they? Wouldn't these
> be much quieter (I"m big on quiet)? Those old classic birds just
> seemed to putt putt along. My Piper Dakota of some years ago operated
> in the 2,400 range.
The small displacement is for high volumetric efficiency (hp per displacement).
Make a small displacement engine breathe well at high rpm to maintain torque,
and inherit increasing hp with rpm. Small displacement equals low weight and
small footprint.
Regarding the fear of Rotax..
The service bulletin history reveals the most active closed-loop development process
of all the engine manufacturers. Rotax addresses engine issues, maintenance
procedures, storage issues, etc etc etc, down to the detail level (e.g. size
of vent hole in coolant overflow bottle), because they have a huge number of
engines, and a stable installation configuration. The "scary" bulletins are
usually a proactive reaction to a small number of incidents. For example, there
is a bulletin requiring mandatory inspection of cylinder bases for cracks.
Lockwood Repair told me that this issue has only been seen by them (maybe the
most experienced Rotax facility) in engines in towplanes seeing repeated, rapid
heating and cooling (and I'm guessing all aircooled engines are at risk here
too). A lot of the service bulletins are there to report upgrades (e.g. reporting
new clamps to hold carb sockets in place that automatically keep the 8mm
gap, to prevent overtightening by the end user, which was the cause of some carb
self-removals).
The 912S has the lowest prop speeds (5000rpm/2.43 57rpm) and matches the power-to-weight
of any engine. Best floats or stol performance for 701.
Regarding fuel economy, I see 3.2-3.5gph at 4600rpm cruise (cruise pitch). The
HKS is better here, and this is probably a tie with the Jabiru, but the Jabiru
requires 100LL, causing a 50% fuel cost addition.
Fuel type: The 912S requires premium auto fuel. The HKS has a similar compression
ratio (11.3:1) and will be no different. The Jabiru requires 100LL, and
if you want to run 100LL this is a good choice -- the Rotax suffers reduced gearbox
life if always using 100LL. There may be an issue with 10% ethanol in auto
fuel and the Rotax, but I am expecting them to say it's okay.
The Rotax is the LSA standard, with maintenance facilities adopting methods to
deal with them, at a greater pace than other engines. Cessna chose it for LSA
proof-of-concept. Also stand in the sidelines of the ultralight area at SNF,
listen to the announcer talk about the planes as they take off.. "..powered by
the Rotax 912S.." repeated as if a broken record.
All Lycomings, Continentals, and Franklins, and Subarus, exceed the max engine
weight limit listed on my 701 plans. Maybe the limit has been increased since
I checked last, dunno.
Rotax powered airplanes are very likely installed in a standard firewall-forward
package provided by a kit manufacturer, with standard results. Insurance companies
are most familiar with Rotax (of the non-certified engines).
Rotax has a very stringent documentation practice in order to support a certified
engine (installed on lots of certified aircraft, by the way), and we inherit
some of the benefit in the uncertified engine. We get lots of detailed info
on maintenance practices, operation in a variety of climates, etc. because of
the wider variety of uses and conditions these omnipresent engines are exposed
to.
Speaking of climates, the Rotax operates nicely with 200F/200F oil/water temps
in my 701, whether it's 95F or -10F outside, as long as I tape over the coolers
more as the temperature drops. I am wondering how the aircooled engines manage.
And you only have to run Evans waterless coolant if you want to push water
temps to 260F, otherwise 50/50 standard coolant is fine, and it actually provides
better heat removal due to its higer heat capacity.
All the other engine manufacturers are dealing with their own design limitiations
and review processes.. Jab with the cooling fin size changes and I think some
valve train redesign, plus the current service bulletins on their web site..HKS
with a total valve train redesign causing existing engines be replaced, the
Subaru conversions with valve guide float and resultant growing pains.. I
don't think you can assume their designs are happier just because their documentation
is less feverish.
Manufacturer of conversions are even more likely to be playing catch-up with problems
with their designs. They are small shops with limited resources, and each
installation by their customers is likely very unique. The rate of customer
feedback regarding issues is much slower because of the lower number of fielded
engines. Meanwhile Rotax is acquiring vast resources in the huge number of
sales of these expensive engines, and further increasing their data gathering
rate, and pumping more money into design improvements.
I like the Jabiru, the installation is cleaner, the engine is beautiful, I just
wanted the stol the plane could achieve with the higher efficiency of a longer
prop at lower rpm, and the few extra hp of the 912S might provide a little extra
too. The HKS is terrific, just forbids floats probably with only 60hp, and
again stol suffers. Everything else was too heavy in my opinion for the 701.
I flew into an airport to meet a friend (fellow builder) and the first words out
of his mouth were "gee, I didn't hear you at all until you taxied up", and he
was standing outside as I overflew at cruise power. I have made and received
cell phone calls in the cockpit at cruise without a headset adapter (can neither
confirm nor deny I was PIC at the time). The noise is similar to a C152.
Definitely not excessive.
In sum I would treat the active review process of the Rotax as a big advantage,
it was one of the reasons I chose it. I would look a little closer at the service
bulletins if you think you see a lot of "fear" issues there. And browse
the NTSB database to get a feel for Rotax related failures before discounting
what might be a very good overall choice for a 701. And none of the engines are
perfect by any means.
Bill Mileski
Ledyard, CT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'920#96920
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "billmileski" <mileski(at)sonalysts.com> |
> All the other engine manufacturers are dealing with their own design limitiations
and review processes.. Jab with the cooling fin size changes and I think
some valve train redesign, plus the current service bulletins on their web site..HKS
with a total valve train redesign causing existing engines be replaced,
the Subaru conversions with valve guide float and resultant growing pains.. I
don't think you can assume their designs are happier just because their documentation
is less feverish.
>
Just to clarify -- the problems with the Jab and HKS referred to, are the old problems,
not new ones. I meant to say "All the other engine manufacturers HAVE
DEALT with their own design.." instead of "are dealing with". I don't want to
imply that the Jab or HKS are undergoing major redesign, just that they did.
Sorry for any confusion.
Bill Mileski
Ledyard, CT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'923#96923
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Hi Robert,
I have been following the responses to your engine questions, and
noticed nobody seems to have answered your question about engine RPM
being so high.
There are two different kinds of engines used in airplanes: Ones
that were designed for aircraft use and ones designed for another
application that have been modified for aircraft use.
The big limiting factor in aircraft is the limit imposed by
propellers. A longer propeller generally works better than a shorter
one, but propeller RPM is limited by the propeller length. As RPM
increases, the speed of the propeller tip also increases according to
simple geometry. As the propeller tip approaches the speed of sound
it becomes inefficient, and if allowed to hit the speed of sound it
can be destroyed. So there is a trade off between RPM and propeller length.
Aircraft engines are designed to live with unusually low RPM limits
because of the propeller trade off. Engines designed for other
purposes tend to use much higher RPM that is limited by engine design
issues rather than propeller issues. To become more compatible with
propellers some sort of reduction gear or other reduction method is
used to make the final RPM compatible with propellers. Many use a
PSRU (Propeller Speed Reduction Unit?) while some others use belt and
pulley approaches. In other cases, the engine is used in direct
drive mode even though it is less efficient at the low RPM.
It is easy to tell that a Corvair or Subaru or VW engine is converted
from automobile use for airplane use. The Rotax is a little more
difficult to guess. This line of engines was originally designed to
operate snowmobiles and modified for aircraft use. It may well be
that more Rotax engines are currently sold for aviation than
snowmobile use, but that is their history.
Good luck with your engine hunt. We all go through this since
engines are a very significant part of the cost of a home built airplane.
Paul
XL Fuselage
At 07:41 AM 2/23/2007, you wrote:
>
>List . . . please be patient while I ask a bunch of probably dumb
>questions re engines for my 701. I always thought I would use a
>Rotax 912 - 80 HP, but an awful lot of my buddies in my flying club
>are down on Rotax due to the continual AD's (is that the right
>word?). I also see a lot of service notices in the EAA mags. This
>sort of surprises me since they have been around a long time, and
>one would think the bumps would be smoothed out.
>
>First dumb question - why do all of these engines for LSA and
>ultralites operate at such a high RPM, i.e. in the 5,000 RPM
>range? I assume this 5,000 RPM range has some sort of
>gearbox. What are typical prop RPM's at cruise?
>
>If I'm not mistaken the engines which powered the Aeronca,
>Taylorcraft, PIper Cub and the like were about 65 HP and were direct
>drive. Why aren't such engines available for the 701, or are
>they? Wouldn't these be much quieter (I"m big on quiet)? Those
>old classic birds just seemed to putt putt along. My Piper Dakota
>of some years ago operated in the 2,400 range.
>Has anyone tried a 60HP HKS in a 701? I've heard nothing but good
>things about the HKS's. Are cowlings and FWF packages
>available? I've been impressed with the low 2 - 3 gph fuel
>consumption of these engines. Would the 701 fly ok with 60
>HP? It's my understanding that the 701 was originally designed for
>something like 55 HP, but I may be wrong about this.
>
>Any other thought you might have will be appreciated. Thank you.
>Robert Schoenberger 701 60%
---------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Ruddiman" <pacificpainting(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: sealing fuel senders |
I cut a sender hole in the wrong place in one tank, so I made a larger
round metal patch, imbedded it in ProSeal I got from Van's and let it
set. It held pressure for several days until I let the air out. I don't
think it is called ProSeal anymore. The can says Flamemaster, but
everyone still calls it ProSeal.I also built 2 RV9A tanks with it. Good
Stuff.
----- Original Message -----
From: japhillipsga(at)aol.com
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: sealing fuel senders
John, I used some red Permatex stuff that I have worried about ever
since. I am building my RV-8 tanks right now and would recommend ProSeal
for sealing in the sender unit. You can buy a pint and that should be
more than enough for both tanks and they should not leak. Best regards,
Bill of Georgia
-----Original Message-----
From: jdbutterfield(at)yahoo.com
To: zenith-list-digest(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 6:09 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: sealing fuel senders
hi list
is the rubber gasket enough to seal the fuel sender
housing, or should i put some sealer on the gasket.
john butterfield
601XL, corvair
torrance, ca
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CH701 Landing Lights |
| From: | "billmileski" <mileski(at)sonalysts.com> |
Mine is on the underside of the cowling behind the oil cooler opening. It is an
enclosed 55W driving light, with a built-in lens, and a reasonably aerodynamic
enclosure. I've used it, but with the standard Rotax alternator, at lower rpm
(descent and landing) I can't have radio, transponder, intercom, instruments,
nav lights, strobes, and landing light on without watching my battery discharge.
And this is while keeping the (incandescent Nu-Lite) instrument lights off.
At least with the Rotax the battery is not involved in the ignition circuit,
but it would be a drag if my radio dropped out at my towered home airport,
due to reduced battery voltage. I say all this in case you have a Rotax. To
do over I'd consider LED lighting. By the way, a friend of mine has some 3W LEDs
which are pretty amazingly bright, bright enough to make a landing light from
in quantity. Might be fun to mess with. Not sure of their price. Food for
thought.
Bill Mileski
Ledyard, CT
701/912S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'930#96930
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CH701 Landing Lights |
>> To do over I'd consider LED lighting
You can also drop the current consumption by using HID lamps. Expensive but
possibly cheaper than redesigning your charging circuit:
www.creativair.com
www.xevision.com
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | navaid servo installation |
hello, can someone please help me with some pics or any other help and suggestions
for installing navaid servo in my 601xl
thank you
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'933#96933
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clyde Barcus" <barcusc(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1st Hundred Hours of Building (XL) |
Impressive!
Clyde
----- Original Message -----
From: Rich
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 1st Hundred Hours of Building (XL)
I'm a above the 400 hours mark and am on the Fuselage sides.
Wings done and Tail section done.
Rich Simmons
601 XL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JAPhillipsGA(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 1st Hundred Hours of Building (XL) |
Rich, remember it's not a race. You're okay to enjoy it more. Drink a few
more adult beverages along the way, tell your wife how difficult the work is,
etc. We have all convinced our spouses it may take years and years and thousands
and thousands of dollars to get to where your at. Please keep this a secret or
they will have us painting the porch ceiling, changing the oil in their car
and mowing the lawn. Yeach ! Best regards, Bill of Georgia
**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about
what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Hoffman" <mhoffman9(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
I have my struts installed and now I am working on the jury struts. Using the dimension
on the prints, the jury strut lower horizontal (500 mm long piece) does
not work out if placed 1200 mm up from the center of the lower strut mounting
hole (it is to long). In addition, if I used the given location, the jury strut
angel brackets that are attached to the bottom of the wing would not intersect.
It looks like I have a couple of options. One would be to shorten the lower
horizontal piece and install it at the given location. I would have to remove
and change the bend in jury strut angle. The other option (more favorable)
would be to raise the location by about 40 to 60 mm and cut down the vertical
and diagonal pieces of the remaining jury strut pieces.
Has anyone else encountered this problem and if so, what changes did you make?
It would be nice if there were a n assembly guide for this operation.
Thanks in advance
Mike H
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'968#96968
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CH701 Landing Lights |
| From: | "Tommy Walker" <twalker(at)cableone.net> |
Take a look at this: http://www.ch701.com/builders/Steve%20Johnston/Steve_Mods.htm
If I were going to install a landing light, I think I would do this....
Tommy Walker in Alabama
N8701 92.31416....% complete
[quote="arno7452(at)bellsouth.net"]Listers,
I am going to install a ldg light on my 701. The most obvious attachment location
is the bracket connecting the landing gear bow. However, there are some
lights available that might fit in the forward slat. Xevision has one measuring
about 4"Wx4L"x2"H. Has anyone installed a light in their slats?
Thanks in advance,
Ken Arnold
Building CH701 QB Kit; target completion May 2007
> [b]
--------
Tommy Walker
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'978#96978
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "N601RT" <N601RT(at)comcast.net> |
Robert,
Don't make your choice based on opinions from people that may not have real facts.
Be careful to understand what are facts and what is rumor, possibly fear of
the unknown.
We all make significant investments (time and/or money) in our engines and therefore
tend to think we have made the best choice. I think this can color our opinions.
I agree the reason there are "lots of ADs" on Rotax 9xx engines is because there
are LOTs of Rotax engines in service. I was told that there are more than 20,000
9xx engines in service a year ago. I just read that Rotax is currently producing
5,000 9xx family engines per year. (Both figures from Eric Tucker who
teaches a GREAT Rotax maintenance class and who is THE technical guru for Kodiak
[North America Rotax distributor]. Lockwood is an example of a dealer who gets
their engines from Kodiak.)
All engines have their pluses and minuses. My perspective on Rotax +/-
Minuses:
Expensive (compared to Corvair and Subaru conversion, I believe similar price to
Jabaru)
Parts are relative expensive
18a alternator (which I think this is relatively low output)
Positive:
Reliable
Light overall installed weight for the horsepower
Quiet
Water cooled heads. (Different than water cooled engine, simpler)
Mine basically does not use oil. I assume this is typical
Nicasil plated cylinders, close tolerance pistons
Shock cooling is not a concern
Broad dealer network. (But your local A&P may not be familiar with it.)
Large corporation stands behind and supports the engine
LOTs of engines in service. Many examples of these have gone to TBO more than once.
Optional 2nd alternator available. (Corvair and Subaru conversions have option
for a variety of alternators. Jabaru has relatively low output alternator as does
9xx series.)
Service and installation manuals available on line for download.
Service Bulletins (ADs) available on line. These ARE NOT required for engines that
are not certified. Recommend that you carefully understand what and why they
are published.
My local EAA chapter has done some noise testing. Richard VanGrunsven, his brothers
and lots of other RV owner's are in the chapter. My plane was the quietest
tested during climb out at the end of the runway and tied for quietest with
the factory RV-10 for 1000 foot over flight at 90kts. The tests also include production
planes.
Paul's post to this thread has some misleading statements.
There is no need to guess the history of the Rotax 912, 914 engine series. The
Rotax 912, 914 series of engines are clean sheet, modern design aircraft engines.
Yes Bombardier (parent company Rotax) makes snowmobile engines, but the 9xx
series IS NOT related to the snowmobile engines. Before Bombardier created the
separate Recreational Products division, the company who owned Rotax also owned
Learjet. Maybe the 9xx was derived from a Learjet. [Wink]
Propeller tips that are supersonic lose efficiency. They can be destroyed, but
there are many propellers that go supersonic regularly. Not saying this is recommended,
just not a certain disaster.
Regards,
Roy
N601RT: CH601HDS, nose gear, Rotax 912ULS, All electric, IFR equipped, 681hrs,
802 landings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97013#97013
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ian McClelland" <macstar(at)raider.co.nz> |
Do any list members subscribe to the Zenair Newsletters?
If so any comments as to the quality/usefulness of the publication?
On the face of it to me it appears to be necessary to ensure you have the
latest recommendations and safety information from Zenith. I have some
reservations about having to pay money for safety related and technical
information that should be readily available to anyone who has purchased a
set of plans or a kit.
An E-mail service would be a low cost option.
Are there any opinions out there?
Ian McClelland
New Zealand
Plans builder of 601XL. Tail and flight controls done. Wings started.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brett Hanley <bretttdc(at)yahoo.com> |
Zenith has a revised drawing for jury struts. Call them and they will send
you a copy.=0A=0AGood luck=0ABrett=0A=0A have my struts installed and now
I am working on the jury struts. Using the dimension=0Aon the prints, the j
ury strut lower horizontal (500 mm long piece) does=0Anot work out if place
d 1200 mm up from the center of the lower strut mounting=0Ahole (it is to l
ong). In addition, if I used the given location, the jury strut=0Aangel bra
ckets that are attached to the bottom of the wing
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 2/24/2007 2:35:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
macstar(at)raider.co.nz writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Ian McClelland"
Do any list members subscribe to the Zenair Newsletters? Ian, I have
subscribed to Zenair news since it was first published.
If so any comments as to the quality/usefulness of the publication? The
quality is first class! Chris Heintz started publishing in the 1970's, then
turned it over to somebody else when he realized it was a huge task that kept
him
from his primary task of designing. The publication has continued to
improve, as a result of Chris' support for what he recognized (and apparently
still does) as a critical part of his business.
On the face of it to me it appears to be necessary to ensure you have the
latest recommendations and safety information from Zenith. I agree with your
assessment. Each newsletter contains the following, packed into 12 pages:
1. Bulletins (important notices/updates etc)
2. Column written by Chris Heintz
3. Fly-in announcements and reports
4. Construction updates from Chris Heintz
5. Other suggestions from builders
6. Flying Zenair aircraft
7. New subscriber list
8. General news from subscribers
9. For Sale and Wanted ads
I have some
reservations about having to pay money for safety related and technical
information that should be readily available to anyone who has purchased a
set of plans or a kit. My advice: Don't let your reservations cloud your
judgment to the extent you deny yourself a valuable resource, available at a
very reasonable cost. If I ask myself "Is the publication worth an additional
$25 per year?" the answer is "YES, very much so"!! Try offering submissions
to the newsletter (Item 5 in list above) you may win yourself a free
subscription!
An E-mail service would be a low cost option. Try sending an Email to
newsletter editors Steve & Sharon Krog and ask - _www.sskrog(at)zenair.org_
(http://www.sskrog@zenair.org)
Are there any opinions out there? Uh huh, I reckon so.
Ian McClelland
New Zealand
Plans builder of 601XL. Tail and flight controls done. Wings started.
Rgds,
Mike Creer
CH200 Plans Builder
**************************************
AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: navaid servo installation |
Here is how I did on my CH601-HD
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601/images/Dcp01144.jpg
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601/images/Dcp01145b.JPG
These pictures are on the following page:
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601/chcontrols2.htm
Michel
--- alex_001 <alex@midland-f3.com> wrote:
> <alex@midland-f3.com>
>
> hello, can someone please help me with some pics or
> any other help and suggestions for installing navaid
> servo in my 601xl
> thank you
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'933#96933
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel
bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tommy Walker" <twalker(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CH701 Landing Lights |
Check this out:
http://www.ch701.com/builders/Steve%20Johnston/Steve_Mods.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com> |
Hi Ian,
I've subscribed to the Zenith Newsletter for the last 6 years and it's
been mostly informative and
interesting reading. Always time to slow down and get detail not
normally covered by magazines
and some for sale items have been helpful.
Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Ian McClelland wrote:
>
> Do any list members subscribe to the Zenair Newsletters?
> If so any comments as to the quality/usefulness of the publication?
> On the face of it to me it appears to be necessary to ensure you have the
> latest recommendations and safety information from Zenith. I have some
> reservations about having to pay money for safety related and technical
> information that should be readily available to anyone who has purchased a
> set of plans or a kit.
> An E-mail service would be a low cost option.
> Are there any opinions out there?
>
> Ian McClelland
> New Zealand
> Plans builder of 601XL. Tail and flight controls done. Wings started.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "TxDave" <dclaytx2(at)HOTMAIL.COM> |
Hello Ian,
When I started building my XL from plans last year I subscribed to the newsletter
and also ordered 5 years of back issues. The newsletter is not "necessary",
but is fun to read. I enjoy the articles on other builders and their projects.
There is also a "For Sale" section in each issue that can be interesting at
times.
The latest information related to updates and technical issues can be found on
the Zenith online builder's pages. Personally, I think ZAC does a pretty good
job of posting plan and photo assembly guide updates.
Dave Clay
Temple, TX
95% finished with my right wing
http://www.daves601xl.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97050#97050
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brandon Tucker <btucke73(at)yahoo.com> |
>> As RPM increases, the speed of the propeller tip
also increases >>according to simple geometry.
True.
>> As the propeller tip approaches the speed of sound
>>it becomes inefficient,
True.
>>and if allowed to hit the speed of sound it can be
destroyed.
I would love to see your reference on this one. The
Texan I fly on weekends has the tips go supersonic
just about every flight. I haven't done the math, and
don't care to, but you can hear the difference when it
takes off. When I take off, I pull back the prop as
soon as I get the gear up, and it purrs by. Most of
our pilots leave the prop up until at altitude. The
sound is a high pitched whine. The difference in RPM
is only 100 - 200. You can often hear the same thing
on Bonanzas and others if the prop is left up.
R/
Brandon
601 HDS / TD / Corvair
70 hours
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pat & charlene larson <pjl(at)sandcreektelco.com> |
| Subject: | For Sale 701 plans project |
Due to health reasons I'm forced to sell my 701 plans project. Wings,
tail group, rear fuselage with extended baggage, firewall completed, all
assembled parts zinc chromated. Forward fuselage almost completed, slat
and flaperon parts formed with jig to assemble. Have basic vfr
instruments except engine, Matco wheels, brakes and axles with turf
tires, electric trim, strobes, Flightcom headsets, Zenair amphibious
float plans and wheels, two turbo geo g10 engines with mount for Raven
re drive and Raven manual, GM engine manuals, extra 4x12 sheets of .025
and .032 plus extra .016, .040 etc. All 4130 plus needed for
completion, Lowrance hand held gps and Icom hand held , 6' homebuilt
heavy duty brake and more. $14,500. Please contact me of list.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Small" <zodiacjeff(at)msn.com> |
For the gent who wanted to take GPS info to his Navaid:
try
http://www.porcine.com/gps/sc/sc_index.shtml
c/sc_index.shtml>
Mine works fine with my Garmin 196. Doubt you'll use all the pins you
have on the back of the 296 but you could call Garmin help and I'm sure
they'll be on the ball as they are one of the most customer friendly
companies I've dealt with over the building/flying time period.
tailwinds jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Hi Brandon,
No, I don't have a specific reference on the supersonic prop tips. I
wonder if your Texan tips are actually going supersonic or if they
are just transonic. Do you get a sonic boom?
There is a nice prop tip speed calculator on the Culver prop web
site. You can plug in the RPM and prop diameter to get an estimate
of the mach number for the tips. Of course, mach number varies a
great deal with air conditions, but it still might be interesting to see.
I am amused by the responses I am getting to a post I didn't think
would be at all controversial. I was merely trying to help Robert
understand the answer to his question of why some engines run at such
high RPM. Your question about tips going over mach 1 was also
mentioned by Roy while he strongly defended the ancestry of the Rotax
engine design. I guess I am just an irritating guy . . .
Paul
At 09:00 AM 2/24/2007, you wrote:
>
>
> >> As RPM increases, the speed of the propeller tip
>also increases >>according to simple geometry.
>
>True.
>
> >> As the propeller tip approaches the speed of sound
>
> >>it becomes inefficient,
>
>True.
>
> >>and if allowed to hit the speed of sound it can be
>destroyed.
>
>I would love to see your reference on this one. The
>Texan I fly on weekends has the tips go supersonic
>just about every flight. I haven't done the math, and
>don't care to, but you can hear the difference when it
>takes off. When I take off, I pull back the prop as
>soon as I get the gear up, and it purrs by. Most of
>our pilots leave the prop up until at altitude. The
>sound is a high pitched whine. The difference in RPM
>is only 100 - 200. You can often hear the same thing
>on Bonanzas and others if the prop is left up.
>
>R/
>
>Brandon
>601 HDS / TD / Corvair
>70 hours
>
>
>Never miss an email again!
>Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
>http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
>
---------------------------------------------
Paul Mulwitz
32013 NE Dial Road
Camas, WA 98607
---------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rich" <4rcsimmons(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1st Hundred Hours of Building (XL) |
I truly understand! The garage time is sacred and is a necessity for ones
mental health!!
Rich
Do no archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rich" <4rcsimmons(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1st Hundred Hours of Building (XL) |
I totally agree on the adjustable time line!
As far as mistakes - I 've used this term before and need to again. I am
soon to pay some "More Stupid Tax" for not comprehending what I am reading
in the text / pictures / and drawings!
This leads me to another question; does Zenith sell an interpreter? :-)
Rich
Murfreesboro, TN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1st Hundred Hours of Building (XL) |
You grow wiser, grasshopper!
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuselage
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: Rich
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 1st Hundred Hours of Building (XL)
I totally agree on the adjustable time line!
As far as mistakes - I 've used this term before and need to again. I
am soon to pay some "More Stupid Tax" for not comprehending what I am
reading in the text / pictures / and drawings!
This leads me to another question; does Zenith sell an interpreter? J
Rich
Murfreesboro, TN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
I'm only going to tackle one question you asked.
About the high RPM of the newer engines. Horsepower is a factor of many
things a few of which are the displacement of the engine and the number of
power pulses per minute. Increase the number of power pulses and you
increase the horsepower. Of course there is a level of diminishing returns
on this or we would all be driving cars with thimble size engines turning 5
million RPM. And producing 500 hp.. Older engines were designed for the
props they would be turning. Those props were most efficient below 3000 RPM
so the engines were designed to have a max RPM of below 3000. They
increased their power by adding cubic inches. Basically bigger cylinders
and more cylinders. Quite a few of the radial engines had planetary
reduction gearing in the nose that allowed than to max out at around 5000.
A few things to consider are the improvements in engineering and materials
in the last seventy years. Newer bearings, cylinder walls and better
cooling methods allow much higher revving engines.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Robert Schoenberger
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 12:11 PM
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Engines
>
>
>
>
> List . . . please be patient while I ask a bunch of probably dumb
> questions re engines for my 701. I always thought I would
> use a Rotax
> 912 - 80 HP, but an awful lot of my buddies in my flying club
> are down
> on Rotax due to the continual AD's (is that the right word?). I also
> see a lot of service notices in the EAA mags. This sort of
> surprises me
> since they have been around a long time, and one would think
> the bumps
> would be smoothed out.
>
> First dumb question - why do all of these engines for LSA and
> ultralites
> operate at such a high RPM, i.e. in the 5,000 RPM range? I
> assume this
> 5,000 RPM range has some sort of gearbox. What are typical
> prop RPM's
> at cruise?
>
> If I'm not mistaken the engines which powered the Aeronca,
> Taylorcraft,
> PIper Cub and the like were about 65 HP and were direct drive. Why
> aren't such engines available for the 701, or are they?
> Wouldn't these
> be much quieter (I"m big on quiet)? Those old classic birds just
> seemed to putt putt along. My Piper Dakota of some years ago
> operated
> in the 2,400 range.
>
> Has anyone tried a 60HP HKS in a 701? I've heard nothing but good
> things about the HKS's. Are cowlings and FWF packages
> available? I've
> been impressed with the low 2 - 3 gph fuel consumption of these
> engines. Would the 701 fly ok with 60 HP? It's my
> understanding that
> the 701 was originally designed for something like 55 HP, but
> I may be
> wrong about this.
>
> Any other thought you might have will be appreciated. Thank you.
> Robert Schoenberger 701 60%
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: wow... web site usage. |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
Tim Juhl wrote:
> As an official "old geezer" (started my career before computers and ended it
as a school tech director) I must say that the web is a wonderful thing. Sure
there is a lot of junk out there but when you sift thru the sites there is an
incredible amount of info available. Sites like yours are a great help to those
of us who are building (or contemplating) building an aircraft. I ran a
network link for my laptop out to my workshop so I can study selected builders
sites when I bump into a question or obstacle. Builder's sites and this discussion
group make building so much easier than it would have been before the internet
age. Thanks to all for sharing!
>
> Tim
I used to be down on the Internet. When it first came out it seemed like a glorified
Yellow Pages to me. It is pretty amazing how much valuable info is out there
though. I'm surprised the government hasn't shut it down yet considering
the amount of factual information that flies in the face of their mainstream media
propaganda machine.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97178#97178
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John C. Edwards" <jedwards(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Newbie Questions |
I just joined this group in search of answers to a couple of questions on
the 601 XL. My apologies if these are answered somewhere on the
zenithair.com website, but I was unable to find them, and my questions
submitted to the website went unanswered. (I guess they are busy).
I am considering purchasing the tail kit first, and then see how things go
before purchasing a Quick Build kit. (First time builder). Is there any
difference between the Quick Build tail kit and the standard tail kit? I
assume I can subtract the cost of the tail kit from the QB when I finally
order. Is that true?
My second question is on Night/IFR and I was curious about engine choices.
I understand that Lycoming, Continental, and the certified version of the
Rotax is OK for building a 601XL IFR platform, but I was uncertain about the
Jabiru 3300. Does the Jabiru qualify for night and IFR? Any concerns or
other suggestions?
Thanks,
John Edwards
Tool gathering
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Re: Re: Engines |
| From: | BadBob <badbob0007(at)earthlink.net> |
I show 3200rpm if my math is correct. Thats still Mach 1.146.....thats
amazing! I have never had to figure Mach at temps that cold!!
BBRRRRRRRR!!! LOL
Bob in Oregon
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CH701 Landing Lights |
i have installed 12v halogen bulbs from home on my 601 same could be done on 701
mounted them in a perspex housing total costs 3,--usd
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97232#97232
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0018_120.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CH701 Landing Lights |
pic 2
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97233#97233
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0016_184.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jaybannist(at)cs.com |
Listers, a question:
It is my understanding that iIf a Zodiac 601XL is registered "Experimental," it
can be flown as an LSA or as any other experimental airplane and the builder
can do all the maintenance by filling out a form.
If it is registered "E-LSA," it can be flown only as an LSA and the builder must
attend a course on maintenance to qualify to do maintenance.
Why would anyone register a 601XL as E-LSA?
Jay in Dallas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "R.P." <zodie(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Registration |
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jaybannist(at)cs.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:21 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Registration
>
> Listers, a question:
> It is my understanding that iIf a Zodiac 601XL is registered
> "Experimental," it can be flown as an LSA or as any other experimental
> airplane and the builder can do all the maintenance by filling out a form.
>
> If it is registered "E-LSA," it can be flown only as an LSA and the
> builder must attend a course on maintenance to qualify to do maintenance.
>
> Why would anyone register a 601XL as E-LSA?
>
> Jay in Dallas
The only advantage(?) that I can see in Exp-LSA is *possibly* for resale.
The new owner can attend the maintenance course for Exp-LSA and do his own
yearly condition inspection instead of hiring an A&P mechanic. You can't do
that with Exp-AB (amatuer built).
Rick Pitcher
Zodiac 601HD/ Exp-AB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff " <jeffrey_davidson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Newbie Questions |
RE: My second question is on Night/IFR and I was curious about engine
choices. I understand that Lycoming, Continental, and the certified version
of the Rotax is OK for building a 601XL IFR platform, but I was uncertain
about the Jabiru 3300. Does the Jabiru qualify for night and IFR? Any
concerns orother suggestions?
Pete answered this way previously:
"This email below is factually incorrect regarding flying Jabiru engines at
night. The only application of JAR22H engine certification in the USA is
for Primary Category Aircraft under 750 kg. Primary category aircraft under
750 kg can use a JAR22H engine if limited to day VFR.
JAR22H does not come into play in the LSA area. Engines are compliant to
ASTM F2339.
Jabiru engines used in experimental amateur built aircraft can be flown in
any condition that the aircraft operating limitations allow, night usually
being one of them. Under a LSA certificate there is no prohibition on the
part of Jabiru against night operation. There is no specific prohibition in
the FAR's prohibiting night flight in S-LSA aircraft. The implied
restriction is in the certificate in that it is based on ASTM F2245-04. It
is stated in the scope of that standard that it applies to LSA aircraft
operated day VFR.
To be clear - it is not the Jabiru engine that limits an aircraft to day
VFR.
Pete"
You can find this post and the thread leading up to it in the archives.
Jeff Davidson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | NYTerminat(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Newbie Questions |
In a message dated 2/25/2007 11:25:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jedwards(at)digital.net writes:
Thanks Bryan,
As I understand it now, the engine manufacturing operating instructions on
limiting the use to VFR only (e.g. Rotax 912UL) applies to S-LSA and not
E-LSA. Great! The more I learn about experimental aircraft, the more I
like.
I just read an article in the Atlantic Flyer that Rotax is removing the
night restriction from their UL/ Uls version of their uncertified engines and
just calling it VFR. Feb 07 issue page 31.
Bob Spudis
**************************************
AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Registration |
Hi Jay,
As always, there are trade-offs.
The issue regarding maintenance is actually a little better than your
comments suggest. Anyone can work on any experimental aircraft no
matter whether it is E-LSA or E-AB. The regulations get involved
when it comes to signing off the annual condition inspection. This
can always be done by an A&P with appropriate license. In the case
of E-AB it can also be done by the builder if he has the repairman's
certificate that can only be issued to the builder. For E-LSA there
is a similar certificate that can be earned by attending a 2 day
class. In this case you don't have to be the builder, but I think
you need to be the owner.
There is no 51% rule for E-LSA certificate. The other difference I
know about is the number of hours needed to fly off the Phase 1
flight testing. This is 25 or 40 hours for E-AB certificated
planes. I have seen E-LSA get as little as 5 hours of Phase 1 flight
test requirement. This is the amount of flight testing you need to
do before carrying passengers or leaving the limited flight test area.
One last point. The question of flying "as LSA" doesn't need to
consider how the plane is certified. It only matters that the
performance and other qualities qualify the plane as meeting the LSA
requirements. A Sport Pilot or higher licensed pilot flying under
Sport Pilot privileges can fly any plane that meets the LSA
definition. Similarly, a plane with an E-LSA certificate can be
flown at night or IFR if properly equipped.
Have fun,
Paul
XL fuselage
>
>Listers, a question:
>It is my understanding that iIf a Zodiac 601XL is registered
>"Experimental," it can be flown as an LSA or as any other
>experimental airplane and the builder can do all the maintenance by
>filling out a form.
>
>If it is registered "E-LSA," it can be flown only as an LSA and the
>builder must attend a course on maintenance to qualify to do maintenance.
>
>Why would anyone register a 601XL as E-LSA?
>
>Jay in Dallas
-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Hoffman" <mhoffman9(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
Thanks Brett, I e-mailed Zenith with my question, appears you and I are the only
people that had this problem. I wish more people would jump in on this so I
don't have to wait for ZAC to answer back.
Mike H
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97259#97259
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 701 Jury Struts |
| From: | "Mike Hoffman" <mhoffman9(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
Hello, any body out there that can help??
:?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97260#97260
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Registration |
It might be a little bit easier to sell an E-LSA than an E-AB because
the new owner can obtain certification to perform the annual
inspections without having to be an A&P mechanic. The night and IFR
restrictions apply to the Sport Pilot not to the Sport Aircraft. A
sport pilot may not fly at night or IFR. A sport aircraft, if
properly equipped (and, for S-LSA, approved by the airframe and
engine manufacturers) can be flown at night or in IFR.
http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=24
Question :
Who can perform maintenance and inspections on an E-LSA?
Answer :
Anyone can perform maintenance, repair, or modification on an
experimental light-sport aircraft. No certificate or rating of any
kind is required.
The annual condition inspection on E-LSA can be completed by:
a) A repairman (light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating; or
b) A repairman (light-sport aircraft) with a inspection rating on
aircraft owned by the repairman; or
c) An appropriately rated mechanic (A&P), or
d) An appropriately rated repair station.
http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=540
Question :
i am building a kitplane which has been approved for the 51 % rule. i
would like to know what all the pros and cons are whether to finally
register it as e-ab or e-lsa.
Answer :
The only difference of any consequence in certification of the
aircraft as either experimental amateur-built or experimental LSA is
the issue of the repairman certificate. This certificate is necessary
if an individual wishes to perform the condition inspection each year
as required by the aircraft's operating limitations. (No certificate
of any kind is necessary in order to perform maintenance, repair, or
modification.)
Here's the deal:
For amateur-built aircraft, only the original primary builder is
eligible for the repairman certificate. There is no training
requirement. The individual simply needs to prove that he/she is the
original primary builder of the aircraft. No subsequent owners are
eligible, so they would have to have an A&P mechanic perform the
condition inspection each year.
For ELSA, the owner must attend a 16 hour course of instruction and
pass a test in order to be eligible for the repairman certificate.
This is true regardless of whether the person built the aircraft or
not. Even the original builder would have to take this course.
However, subsequent owners would be eligible for the repairman
certificate after passing the 16 hour course, even though they had
nothing to do with the building of the aircraft.
Yes, it is true that you must have the certification completed by 31
January 2008 in order to certificate the aircraft as ELSA. There is
no deadline for amateur-built certification, but you must be able to
prove that amateur-builders did the major portion of the fabrication
and assembly tasks.
Other than the repairman certificate issue, there is no operational
difference in ELSA as compared to amateur-built.
On Feb 25, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
>
> Listers, a question:
> It is my understanding that iIf a Zodiac 601XL is registered
> "Experimental," it can be flown as an LSA or as any other
> experimental airplane and the builder can do all the maintenance by
> filling out a form.
>
> If it is registered "E-LSA," it can be flown only as an LSA and the
> builder must attend a course on maintenance to qualify to do
> maintenance.
>
> Why would anyone register a 601XL as E-LSA?
>
> Jay in Dallas
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "wade jones" <wjones(at)brazoriainet.com> |
Hello group ,I am a little slow thinking .I have been plans building for
seven months and during that time I must make at least 8 or 10 trips
daily from the shop to my computer to look at the CD . I have cut out
this time robbing step by printing the assembly CD into a three hole
binder to keep in my shop . I am too cheap to buy a used computer for
this and my shop is getting crowded .
Wade Jones South Texas
601XL plans building
Cont. 0200
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brad DeMeo <demeo(at)sonic.net> |
| Subject: | Registration related |
I am filling out the forms for registration of my 601xl. I want to
register as E-LSA. Everything is fairly simple until I get to form
8130-6 which is the "Application for U.S. Airworthiness Certificate".
Under "certification requested" I check "B" - Special Airworthiness
Certificate", and "4" - Experimental". Now, under "4" do I also check
"2" Amateur Built" and/or "8" - "Operating Light Sport"? and "8c" -
"Operating light-sport previously issued special light-sport category
airworthiness certificate under 21.190"?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Brad DeMeo
Working on Canopy
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: sealing fuel senders |
| From: | "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams(at)yahoo.com> |
I would be hesitant to seal the senders in with proseal. I have had to replace
a sender and it was relatively simple, however if it is stuck on there with proseal
you'll have quite a job getting it off and cleaned up. I used the rubber
gaskets with seal lube and they have been leak free for 350 hours.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97370#97370
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 701 National Geographic |
For 701 Fans,
In the March 2007 National Geographic:
There is a pic of a 701 that made an emergency landing (propellor damage
only) on page 156. The plane was used to help complete the article Ivory Wars on
page 34.
Brian Unruh
_www.701builder.com_ (http://www.701builder.com)
**************************************
AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | john butterfield <jdbutterfield(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | fuel send location |
hi list.
after searching the archives, i can't see any
particular advantage on putting the fuel senders on
top, except maybe a little less chance to leak. any
comments on location, i have not considered.
john butterfield
601XL, corvair
torrance, ca
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
Anybody have any problems setting these to .281 shophead diameter? I'm getting
to like .260 before it seems to get work hardened at which point I don't want
to overdo it.
Thanks
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97414#97414
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Newbie Questions |
| From: | "Gig Giacona" <wr.giacona(at)cox.net> |
I don't know where you are located but I strongly suggest to just about everyone
to go to the factory and build the rudder there.
Yes the cost of the rudder is deducted from the kit.
Engine choice in the experimental is a non issue as far as regulations go.
jedwards(at)digital.net wrote:
> I just joined this group in search of answers to a couple of questions on
> the 601 XL. My apologies if these are answered somewhere on the
> zenithair.com website, but I was unable to find them, and my questions
> submitted to the website went unanswered. (I guess they are busy).
>
> I am considering purchasing the tail kit first, and then see how things go
> before purchasing a Quick Build kit. (First time builder). Is there any
> difference between the Quick Build tail kit and the standard tail kit? I
> assume I can subtract the cost of the tail kit from the QB when I finally
> order. Is that true?
>
> My second question is on Night/IFR and I was curious about engine choices.
> I understand that Lycoming, Continental, and the certified version of the
> Rotax is OK for building a 601XL IFR platform, but I was uncertain about the
> Jabiru 3300. Does the Jabiru qualify for night and IFR? Any concerns or
> other suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Edwards
> Tool gathering
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97415#97415
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
I think I would have spent the time (6000 hrs) building a real Corsair, but holy
hell! Amazing.
http://www.craftsmanshipmuseum.com/Park.htm
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97424#97424
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/corsair_147.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Prop Pitch to start |
| From: | george.mueller(at)aurora.org |
I am getting to the point were I need to mount the prop on my 701 with a
80hp 912 UL with the Skyshops FWF kit. What have others used for starting
prop pitch with the Woodcomp 3 blade and the 80hp Rotax? Any tips for
setting pitch, mounting the prop, etc?
George in Milwaukee
701 Rotax 912UL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
Do the rivets you are using have a single small dimple in the factory head?
If so:
What is the hole diameter?
How long is the tail undriven?
How are you driving them? If using an air hammer, they should be driven in about
6-8 impacts. If driving them using a manual table riveter setup like the RV
guys like then a larger mass hammer is the only way to reduce the number of
impacts (that is why the various "X" values are available in rivet guns - they
drive different size rivets with similar exposure).
Keep in mind that the design mechanical properties of the hard rivets are developed
by the combination of the alloy and temper of the rivet, the diameter of
the hole, the depth of the hole to be filled, and the amount of work hardening
that occurs when you upset the .280" tail length into the .280" diameter shop
head.
The mass of the bucking bar and the rivet gun setting are the driving variables.
When you have everythign set at optimum you can set the rivets with 6-8 strokes
of the rivet gun in a single burst. During that burst, you can learn to
hear the hardness as the timbre of the impacts is raised as the head forms and
the rivet work hardens.
When you say they are work hardening, Why? the shop head should be a right rectangular
cylinder with a uniform bulge on the periphery - no taper or splits.
If they are tapered or split, they are over hardened (usually caused only by
underdriving due to too many light hits or the wrong alloy/temper of rivet).
The AC43.13 manuals have the "gospel" on diameter and geometry of the shop heads
for driven rivets - as well as everything else needed to guarantee a known
quality of instaled fastener.
ashontz wrote:
Anybody have any problems setting these to .281 shophead diameter? I'm getting
to like .260 before it seems to get work hardened at which point I don't want
to overdo it.
Thanks
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97414#97414
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people
who know.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
[quote="planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co"]Do the rivets you are using have a single small
dimple in the factory head?
If so:
What is the hole diameter?
How long is the tail undriven?
How are you driving them? If using an air hammer, they should be driven in about
6-8 impacts. If driving them using a manual table riveter setup like the RV
guys like then a larger mass hammer is the only way to reduce the number of
impacts (that is why the various "X" values are available in rivet guns - they
drive different size rivets with similar exposure).
Keep in mind that the design mechanical properties of the hard rivets are developed
by the combination of the alloy and temper of the rivet, the diameter of
the hole, the depth of the hole to be filled, and the amount of work hardening
that occurs when you upset the .280" tail length into the .280" diameter shop
head.
The mass of the bucking bar and the rivet gun setting are the driving variables.
When you have everythign set at optimum you can set the rivets with 6-8 strokes
of the rivet gun in a single burst. During that burst, you can learn to
hear the hardness as the timbre of the impacts is raised as the head forms and
the rivet work hardens.
When you say they are work hardening, Why? the shop head should be a right rectangular
cylinder with a uniform bulge on the periphery - no taper or splits.
If they are tapered or split, they are over hardened (usually caused only by
underdriving due to too many light hits or the wrong alloy/temper of rivet).
The AC43.13 manuals have the "gospel" on diameter and geometry of the shop heads
for driven rivets - as well as everything else needed to guarantee a known
quality of instaled fastener.
[b][i]ashontz Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx) and get answers from real people who know.
> [b]
I'm using what Zenith specified, off the top of my head MS20470-AN-6-14, so they
should be the right length and all that. The riveter I'm using had no trouble
setting the AN5s quickly. I believe the hammer is up to snuff.
Yes, I have that book too. Just wondering if anyone else had trouble setting these
Zenith specified rivets.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97440#97440
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
[quote="planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co"]Do the rivets you are using have a single small
dimple in the factory head?
If so:
What is the hole diameter?
How long is the tail undriven?
How are you driving them? If using an air hammer, they should be driven in about
6-8 impacts. If driving them using a manual table riveter setup like the RV
guys like then a larger mass hammer is the only way to reduce the number of
impacts (that is why the various "X" values are available in rivet guns - they
drive different size rivets with similar exposure).
Keep in mind that the design mechanical properties of the hard rivets are developed
by the combination of the alloy and temper of the rivet, the diameter of
the hole, the depth of the hole to be filled, and the amount of work hardening
that occurs when you upset the .280" tail length into the .280" diameter shop
head.
The mass of the bucking bar and the rivet gun setting are the driving variables.
When you have everythign set at optimum you can set the rivets with 6-8 strokes
of the rivet gun in a single burst. During that burst, you can learn to
hear the hardness as the timbre of the impacts is raised as the head forms and
the rivet work hardens.
When you say they are work hardening, Why? the shop head should be a right rectangular
cylinder with a uniform bulge on the periphery - no taper or splits.
If they are tapered or split, they are over hardened (usually caused only by
underdriving due to too many light hits or the wrong alloy/temper of rivet).
The AC43.13 manuals have the "gospel" on diameter and geometry of the shop heads
for driven rivets - as well as everything else needed to guarantee a known
quality of instaled fastener.
[b][i]ashontz Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx) and get answers from real people who know.
> [b]
I'm using what Zenith specified, off the top of my head MS20470-AN-6-14, so they
should be the right length and all that. The riveter I'm using had no trouble
setting the AN5s quickly. I believe the hammer is up to snuff.
Yes, I have that book too. Just wondering if anyone else had trouble setting these
Zenith specified rivets.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97443#97443
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | NYTerminat(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Pitch to start |
I started with 13 degrees for a 912ULS, ended up with 13 1/2 final pitch.
You might want to start with 12 degrees or 11 1/2.
Bob Spudis
In a message dated 2/26/2007 1:01:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
george.mueller(at)aurora.org writes:
I am getting to the point were I need to mount the prop on my 701 with a
80hp 912 UL with the Skyshops FWF kit. What have others used for starting prop
pitch with the Woodcomp 3 blade and the 80hp Rotax? Any tips for setting
pitch, mounting the prop, etc?
George in Milwaukee
701 Rotax 912UL
**************************************
AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
billmileski wrote:
> Fuel type: The 912S requires premium auto fuel. The HKS has a similar compression
ratio (11.3:1) and will be no different. The Jabiru requires 100LL, and
if you want to run 100LL this is a good choice -- the Rotax suffers reduced
gearbox life if always using 100LL. There may be an issue with 10% ethanol in
auto fuel and the Rotax, but I am expecting them to say it's okay.
>
> Bill Mileski
> Ledyard, CT
I'm sure it does. You'd never hear dieseling at those RPMs. My 140hp outboard engine
apparently used to require premium. I didn't know this and put 87 in it.
I never ran the thing about about 3500 anyway (about 22 mph with my old wellcraft
v-20 steplift fishing scowl). The last time I ran it open a piece of the
piston cracked off and hit the spark plug and put the gap out of commission. Oddly
enough, even with a bit of scoring from the chunk floating around in there
the cylinder still had compression. When I torn it apart and replaced the piston
and rebored/honed the cylinder I also installed a recommended head shim that
effectively lowers the compression and allows it to run on 87 octane. Runs
sweet now, like a new engine, but nipped about 2 mph off the top end. Probably
more like a 125hp now. Apparently it was pre-igniting whenever I ran the puppy
wide open. You'd never hear it though. Not good for the cylinders. At least
I could just anchor up. Actually, now that I think about it, t still ran on three
cylinders. Those engines are amazing. I had a 1977 140 Johnson about 10 years
ago that some wahoo at the marina talked me into buying a 14" prop instead
of a 13.5". Not only was it slower getting out of the hole, but after a few
years it actually broke the crankshaft. Believe it or not it was a hairline crack
in the crank balance weight and the only indication was a very slight amount
of play in the flywheel, maybe two degrees more back and forth than you'd normally
get. Ran for 2 years like that at 2/3 speed top throttle as I usually
do, til I opened it up one day for a ride after a fishing trip and that hairline
crack really broke up, and yet it still putted into the ramp, but the bearing
races in the case were all scored so there was hardly any case side compression
(2-cycle) for the and the adjacent cylinder.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97465#97465
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/Specs.htm
Hopefully,there was no offense taken from my comments earlier. Plese review the
attached files. They were copied from the AC65-15A Airframe Handbook. These
are the officially accepted hole diameter limits for the AN470AD and MS20470AD
driven rivets. Since the rivets you refer to are 7/8" long we assume that the
joint stack is 11/16" thick, clamped. If the hole for tat fastener were drilled
with a 3/16" bit (0.188") the rivet will be too long and not only will the
rivet be difficult to drive with the requisite 1.5 x 0.65d height shop head but
teh strength will be somewhat substandard due to a lack of proper work hardening.
The weight for the bucking bars are also important as they directly contribute
to the number of impacts needed to upset the shop head.
Again, none of my comments were intended to offend.
ashontz wrote:
[quote="planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co"]Do the rivets you are using have a single small
dimple in the factory head?
If so:
What is the hole diameter?
How long is the tail undriven?
How are you driving them? If using an air hammer, they should be driven in about
6-8 impacts. If driving them using a manual table riveter setup like the RV
guys like then a larger mass hammer is the only way to reduce the number of impacts
(that is why the various "X" values are available in rivet guns - they drive
different size rivets with similar exposure).
Keep in mind that the design mechanical properties of the hard rivets are developed
by the combination of the alloy and temper of the rivet, the diameter of
the hole, the depth of the hole to be filled, and the amount of work hardening
that occurs when you upset the .280" tail length into the .280" diameter shop
head.
The mass of the bucking bar and the rivet gun setting are the driving variables.
When you have everythign set at optimum you can set the rivets with 6-8 strokes
of the rivet gun in a single burst. During that burst, you can learn to hear
the hardness as the timbre of the impacts is raised as the head forms and the
rivet work hardens.
When you say they are work hardening, Why? the shop head should be a right rectangular
cylinder with a uniform bulge on the periphery - no taper or splits. If
they are tapered or split, they are over hardened (usually caused only by underdriving
due to too many light hits or the wrong alloy/temper of rivet).
The AC43.13 manuals have the "gospel" on diameter and geometry of the shop heads
for driven rivets - as well as everything else needed to guarantee a known quality
of instaled fastener.
[b][i]ashontz Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx) and get answers from real people who know.
> [b]
I'm using what Zenith specified, off the top of my head MS20470-AN-6-14, so they
should be the right length and all that. The riveter I'm using had no trouble
setting the AN5s quickly. I believe the hammer is up to snuff.
Yes, I have that book too. Just wondering if anyone else had trouble setting these
Zenith specified rivets.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97443#97443
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? |
| From: | "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com> |
I want to re-do my aileron belcranks. Not happy with how they turned out.
To do that I need to buy some angle stock.
The original piece was 6061, so I'd like to stick with that. Home Depot has the
size I need, but I don't know if it's 6061 or not.
How can I tell...?
I stood with the piece of aluminum stock in hand, and pondered for a bit before
placing it back on the shelf. I can always get it from Wick$, but I'd sure like
to find a local source (here in Minneapolis) for stuff like that...
- Patrick
601XL/Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97502#97502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
1. Yes, the correct rivets have a center mark.
2. For me, working diameter was more related to the length of the rivet
rather than the hardness. Don't know about an XL, but HDSs use different
length rivets. Predominantly one size, but I had to buy 1/4 lb of two other
lengths and use a couple depending on the overall thickness of the sheet
component stackups.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuselage
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 12:10 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets
>
> Anybody have any problems setting these to .281 shophead diameter? I'm
> getting to like .260 before it seems to get work hardened at which point I
> don't want to overdo it.
>
> Thanks
>
> --------
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97414#97414
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? |
Patrick-
There's an ink stencilled identification on every piece. You're not
going to find aviation grade at HD. More like lawn chair grade!
Don't know where you live, but I work in the 3rd largest city in Pa. and
the local outlets are more expensive than the big aviation warehouses. This
doesn't seem to be the case out West.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuselage
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 6:32 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...?
>
> I want to re-do my aileron belcranks. Not happy with how they turned out.
>
> To do that I need to buy some angle stock.
>
> The original piece was 6061, so I'd like to stick with that. Home Depot
> has the size I need, but I don't know if it's 6061 or not.
>
> How can I tell...?
>
> I stood with the piece of aluminum stock in hand, and pondered for a bit
> before placing it back on the shelf. I can always get it from Wick$, but
> I'd sure like to find a local source (here in Minneapolis) for stuff like
> that...
>
> - Patrick
> 601XL/Corvair
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97502#97502
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
[quote="planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co"]http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/Specs.htm (http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/Specs.htm)
Hopefully,there was no offense taken from my comments earlier. Plese review the
attached files. They were copied from the AC65-15A Airframe Handbook. These
are the officially accepted hole diameter limits for the AN470AD and MS20470AD
driven rivets. Since the rivets you refer to are 7/8" long we assume that the
joint stack is 11/16" thick, clamped. If the hole for tat fastener were drilled
with a 3/16" bit (0.188"?e rivet will be too long and not only will the rivet
be difficult to drive with the requisite 1.5?.65d height shop head but teh
strength will be somewhat substandard due to a lack of proper work hardening.
The weight for the bucking bars are also important as they directly contribute
to the number of impacts needed to upset the shop head.
Again, none of my comments were intended to offend.
ashontz wrote:
>
> [quote="planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co"]Do the rivets you are using have a single
small dimple in the factory head?
>
> If so:
>
> What is the hole diameter?
>
> How long is the tail undriven?
>
> How are you driving them? If using an air hammer, they should be driven in about
6-8 impacts. If driving them using a manual table riveter setup like the RV
guys like then a larger mass hammer is the only way to reduce the number of
impacts (that is why the various "X" values are available in rivet guns - they
drive different size rivets with similar exposure).
>
> Keep in mind that the design mechanical properties of the hard rivets are developed
by the combination of the alloy and temper of the rivet, the diameter
of the hole, the depth of the hole to be filled, and the amount of work hardening
that occurs when you upset the .280" tail length into the .280" diameter shop
head.
>
> The mass of the bucking bar and the rivet gun setting are the driving variables.
When you have everythign set at optimum you can set the rivets with 6-8 strokes
of the rivet gun in a single burst. During that burst, you can learn to
hear the hardness as the timbre of the impacts is raised as the head forms and
the rivet work hardens.
>
> When you say they are work hardening, Why? the shop head should be a right rectangular
cylinder with a uniform bulge on the periphery - no taper or splits.
If they are tapered or split, they are over hardened (usually caused only by
underdriving due to too many light hits or the wrong alloy/temper of rivet).
>
> The AC43.13 manuals have the "gospel" on diameter and geometry of the shop heads
for driven rivets - as well as everything else needed Now that's room service!
Choose from over 150,000 hotels
> in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
No offense taken, just explaning the situation I have. I just went by the rivets
they specified. Just trying to figure out what the problem is (if there is really)
given that I made it per their specs and used the rivet indicated and this
is the result.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97510#97510
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
naumuk(at)alltel.net wrote:
> 1. Yes, the correct rivets have a center mark.
> 2. For me, working diameter was more related to the length of the rivet
> rather than the hardness. Don't know about an XL, but HDSs use different
> length rivets. Predominantly one size, but I had to buy 1/4 lb of two other
> lengths and use a couple depending on the overall thickness of the sheet
> component stackups.
> Bill Naumuk
> HDS Fuselage
> Townville, Pa
> ---
Yeah, I several different sizes. This is the size specified for that hole with
the thicknesses involved. Just wondering if I really have a problem on my hands
or not. Talked with Dave Clay and he said he used to sweat each rivet size but
his tech counselor said what he was getting was not a problem. Just looking
for other opinions to corroborate. Last thing I feel like doing is either drilling
out all of these rivets for the sake of another .020 - .030" shophead diameter
if it's not REALLY necessary. Just getting opinions. I may go out there
and try riveting the she-ite out of one in a test piece just to see what happens.
See if it goes any further or if that's it. I have not observed any cracking
or deformities. In fact the rivets look perfect, they're just not going any
further. The shape is nice, just not expanding anymore, nor are they compressing
anymore. They're like .030 high and .030 undersized in diameter when finished.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97516#97516
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? |
| From: | "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com> |
Yeah, I was thinking "Lawn Chair Grade" when I was looking at it. Isn't worth
taking a chance on something like an aileron bellcrank.
I'll order some from Wicks or AS.
Maybe I'll wait until I make more mistakes so I can place a bigger order and save
on shipping... [Laughing]
Patrick
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97517#97517
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
Picture's worth a thousand words. Here's a few thousand words. Most come to about
.262. A few are up to .274 as seen and a picture of one of the bad ones .249,
plus a side shot of the rivets for inspection of the heads. I placed a rivet
on top in the pix to see the shank of the original rivet (.187). The holes have
been reamed to .1895.
I can go back and try hitting the not so good rivets again, I just don't want to
work harden it too much and make it weak. Is it possible to heat treat them
to get rid of some of the hardness, and them hit them again?
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97524#97524
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/picture_010_485.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/picture_007_912.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/picture_003_246.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/picture_001_114.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Juan Vega <amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Registration related |
you check 2 amateur built.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Brad DeMeo <demeo(at)sonic.net>
>Sent: Feb 25, 2007 11:08 PM
>To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Registration related
>
>I am filling out the forms for registration of my 601xl. I want to
>register as E-LSA. Everything is fairly simple until I get to form
>8130-6 which is the "Application for U.S. Airworthiness Certificate".
>Under "certification requested" I check "B" - Special Airworthiness
>Certificate", and "4" - Experimental". Now, under "4" do I also check
>"2" Amateur Built" and/or "8" - "Operating Light Sport"? and "8c" -
>"Operating light-sport previously issued special light-sport category
>airworthiness certificate under 21.190"?
>
>Any help is greatly appreciated.
>
>Brad DeMeo
>Working on Canopy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Juan Vega <amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Registration related |
actually the best thing to do is to call the FAA, they were a great assistance
in helping me fill out the paper work. you call, there is a little waite, they
come on line and you can ask them to walk you through the whole document.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Brad DeMeo <demeo(at)sonic.net>
>Sent: Feb 25, 2007 11:08 PM
>To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Registration related
>
>I am filling out the forms for registration of my 601xl. I want to
>register as E-LSA. Everything is fairly simple until I get to form
>8130-6 which is the "Application for U.S. Airworthiness Certificate".
>Under "certification requested" I check "B" - Special Airworthiness
>Certificate", and "4" - Experimental". Now, under "4" do I also check
>"2" Amateur Built" and/or "8" - "Operating Light Sport"? and "8c" -
>"Operating light-sport previously issued special light-sport category
>airworthiness certificate under 21.190"?
>
>Any help is greatly appreciated.
>
>Brad DeMeo
>Working on Canopy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Juan Vega <amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Newbie Questions |
if you are experimental you can put a rubber band powered prop if you'd like and
fly IFR, you don't need a certified engine. 3300s are certified in australia
not in the U.S. still a better engine than most certs out there in my eyes.
Remember you are (experimental catagory).
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff <jeffrey_davidson(at)earthlink.net>
>Sent: Feb 25, 2007 2:52 PM
>To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Newbie Questions
>
>
>RE: My second question is on Night/IFR and I was curious about engine
>choices. I understand that Lycoming, Continental, and the certified version
>of the Rotax is OK for building a 601XL IFR platform, but I was uncertain
>about the Jabiru 3300. Does the Jabiru qualify for night and IFR? Any
>concerns orother suggestions?
>
>Pete answered this way previously:
>
>"This email below is factually incorrect regarding flying Jabiru engines at
>night. The only application of JAR22H engine certification in the USA is
>for Primary Category Aircraft under 750 kg. Primary category aircraft under
>750 kg can use a JAR22H engine if limited to day VFR.
>
>JAR22H does not come into play in the LSA area. Engines are compliant to
>ASTM F2339.
>
>Jabiru engines used in experimental amateur built aircraft can be flown in
>any condition that the aircraft operating limitations allow, night usually
>being one of them. Under a LSA certificate there is no prohibition on the
>part of Jabiru against night operation. There is no specific prohibition in
>the FAR's prohibiting night flight in S-LSA aircraft. The implied
>restriction is in the certificate in that it is based on ASTM F2245-04. It
>is stated in the scope of that standard that it applies to LSA aircraft
>operated day VFR.
>
>To be clear - it is not the Jabiru engine that limits an aircraft to day
>VFR.
>
>Pete"
>
>You can find this post and the thread leading up to it in the archives.
>Jeff Davidson
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com> |
Good thing about the CD is that you can "zoom in" on pictures.
Also, there's other pictures on that CD that are not in the build guide. You gotta
look for them. They are a big help.
- Patrick
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97529#97529
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
For shits+giggles, try a slightly longer rivet. If you don't increase
your working diameter, the next thing is to check your bucking bar.
Awful hard to diagnose by remote control. Just trying to reason things
out logically. Got to be something screwy, because I set mine by hand. Not
perfectly the first time, mind you, but I didn't have to drill them all out,
just a few here and there.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuselage
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 8:03 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets
>
>
> naumuk(at)alltel.net wrote:
>> 1. Yes, the correct rivets have a center mark.
>> 2. For me, working diameter was more related to the length of the rivet
>> rather than the hardness. Don't know about an XL, but HDSs use different
>> length rivets. Predominantly one size, but I had to buy 1/4 lb of two
>> other
>> lengths and use a couple depending on the overall thickness of the sheet
>> component stackups.
>> Bill Naumuk
>> HDS Fuselage
>> Townville, Pa
>> ---
>
>
> Yeah, I several different sizes. This is the size specified for that hole
> with the thicknesses involved. Just wondering if I really have a problem
> on my hands or not. Talked with Dave Clay and he said he used to sweat
> each rivet size but his tech counselor said what he was getting was not a
> problem. Just looking for other opinions to corroborate. Last thing I feel
> like doing is either drilling out all of these rivets for the sake of
> another .020 - .030" shophead diameter if it's not REALLY necessary. Just
> getting opinions. I may go out there and try riveting the she-ite out of
> one in a test piece just to see what happens. See if it goes any further
> or if that's it. I have not observed any cracking or deformities. In fact
> the rivets look perfect, they're just not going any further. The shape is
> nice, just not expanding anymore, nor are they compressing anymore.
> They're like .030 high and .030 undersized in diameter when finished.
>
> --------
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97516#97516
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? |
Patrick-
Rely on the mark, not the radius. I've received the same grade from two
different reliable sources, one with, and one without the radius.
You'll find that the shipping, rather than material costs, will kill
you. Ease the pain by ordering something you know you're going to need down
the road.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuselage
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 8:10 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...?
>
> Yeah, I was thinking "Lawn Chair Grade" when I was looking at it. Isn't
> worth taking a chance on something like an aileron bellcrank.
>
> I'll order some from Wicks or AS.
>
> Maybe I'll wait until I make more mistakes so I can place a bigger order
> and save on shipping... [Laughing]
>
> Patrick
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97517#97517
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? |
buy it from McMaster.com. same as Minneapolis...
I want to re-do my aileron belcranks. Not happy with how they turned out.
To do that I need to buy some angle stock.
The original piece was 6061, so I'd like to stick with that. Home Depot has the
size I need, but I don't know if it's 6061 or not.
How can I tell...?
I stood with the piece of aluminum stock in hand, and pondered for a bit before
placing it back on the shelf. I can always get it from Wick$, but I'd sure like
to find a local source (here in Minneapolis) for stuff like that...
- Patrick
601XL/Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97502#97502
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
They actually look good. I still suspect both of my earlier observations. The minimum
hole ream size should be 0.191 for a 3/16 AD driven rivet so the slightly
small bore will contribute to slightly tall shop heads.
What you have is grossly superior to the result of trying to drill out and replace
the fasteners. They are probably within 5% of nominal mechanicals as is.
You can always go back and set them a little more - but they look as though you
need a bigger gun or heavier bucking bar.
Keep in mind that this plane was designed to be built by amateurs - and CH is
noted for making accomodations for the builders varying levels of skill.
Overall, I would not lose a lot of sleep over them. I haev seem many, many, many
worse in virtually all manufacturer's products - Boeing included...
ashontz wrote:
Picture's worth a thousand words. Here's a few thousand words. Most come to about
.262. A few are up to .274 as seen and a picture of one of the bad ones .249,
plus a side shot of the rivets for inspection of the heads. I placed a rivet
on top in the pix to see the shank of the original rivet (.187). The holes have
been reamed to .1895.
I can go back and try hitting the not so good rivets again, I just don't want to
work harden it too much and make it weak. Is it possible to heat treat them
to get rid of some of the hardness, and them hit them again?
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97524#97524
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/picture_010_485.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/picture_007_912.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/picture_003_246.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/picture_001_114.jpg
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
Get your own web address.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net> |
I have been linking to the builders site and checking there first. If they have
newer information, drawing or photo guide, thats what I print out when I get
to that section of the build. It all gets put in a 3 ring binder as I progress
through the build.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
Corvair Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97548#97548
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DONNIE LATHAM" <bdl(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Axle to gear Zodiac XL |
Trying to avoid a lot of filing on main gear legs when mounting the axle
with wheel and brakes. Seems that moving the axle forward and aligning
with front of gear works best allowing more room for brakes. Any other
suggestions?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
| From: | "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net> |
I was having the same problem so I just hit them a couple more times. I used a
hammer and a arbor press setup. You can see what I did between October and November
in 2006 at mykitlog.com/rlendon.
What I did was make them come out within tolerance. Some needed a couple more smacks
to get the height right. The holes were all reamed to the mean diameter
of the tolerance.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
Corvair Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97552#97552
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | john butterfield <jdbutterfield(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | where to buy proseal |
hi list
i can't seem to find where to buy some pro seal for my
fuel senders
i live in in the los angeles area, maybe it has
another name, but am having no luck in finding is
john butterfield
601XL, corvair
torrance, ca
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Canada flight |
Hi Tim,
My understanding is that flying any experimental aircraft in Canada
requires specific permission from the Canadian government. I also
understand Canada has significantly different equipment requirements
from the USA including serious survival gear.
Paul
XL fuselage
At 07:22 PM 2/26/2007, you wrote:
>Just out of curiosity what is the official position on flying a
>Exp. Amateur Built vs Exp. Light sport into Canada from the US? Do
>our northern cousins recognize the E-SLA Category?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
Thanks for the feedback guys. I think I'll leave them and maybe try to set a few
of them a little more with the air hammer. The hammer may be a little anemic.
But the results overall was pretty consistent. The spring set up helped alot
with that. Check my website for details on that. The whole assembly sat on about
6 springs which let the rivet shophead just kiss the bucking bar. No cumbersome
handling of the assembly was needed to move the setup closer to the bar
as the rivet was set, just push from underneath with two fingers at first to keep
the manufacturers head flush when first riveting, then once it starts to set,
just push down with the rivet gun and the springs did their thing.
When I messed around trying to make a homemade rivet squeezer I did shear a few
rivets with that setup, so I know it doesn't take much to mess up a rivet, that's
why I'm interested to know what's best at this point for these rivets. I
agree, what I have is vastely superior to trying to drill them out. If I was going
to do that I'd just rebuild the spar. Wouldn't be worth it.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97584#97584
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | vm1000 engine monitor |
| From: | "flyingmike9" <mlloyd9(at)csi.com> |
hi
has anybody fitted this monitor to a Rotax 912uls(100hp)
if so how did you do it
is it worth it or should i use something else instead recomendations please
dynon is first but are there any others
starting to design the instrument panel and this is the last bit
will be using the normal six pack of flight instruments
thank you
mike lloyd
england
601xl fuse 84% complete
tail complete
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97595#97595
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <dredmoody(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: where to buy proseal |
Try Aircraft Spruce at this webpage,
http://aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/ps890.php
Dred
---- john butterfield wrote:
>
> hi list
> i can't seem to find where to buy some pro seal for my
> fuel senders
> i live in in the los angeles area, maybe it has
> another name, but am having no luck in finding is
> john butterfield
> 601XL, corvair
> torrance, ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Ruddiman" <pacificpainting(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: where to buy proseal |
John,
I have a quart of proseal that I'm not going to use. I bought it at Van's
about 2 weeks ago. I don't remember how much it is, but I can look if you
want it.
Dave
Salem, Oregon
----- Original Message -----
From: "john butterfield" <jdbutterfield(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 9:30 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: where to buy proseal
>
>
> hi list
> i can't seem to find where to buy some pro seal for my
> fuel senders
> i live in in the los angeles area, maybe it has
> another name, but am having no luck in finding is
> john butterfield
> 601XL, corvair
> torrance, ca
>
>
> Be a PS3 game guru.
> Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo!
> Games.
> http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Valentine" <mgvalentine(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flying into Canada |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=
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: where to buy proseal |
| From: | japhillipsga(at)aol.com |
Dave, you can buy ProSeal from Aircraft Spruce in pint and quart cans. ProSeal
has a fairly short life after the can is opened (6-8 months ? ). Supposedly the
can is closed in nitrogen gas and that air starts the hardening process even
without hardener so an old can may not be very useful. I keep mine in the refrig
to slow the process. I did a whole RV-8 fuel tank with less than a quart.
Best regards, Bill of Georgia
-----Original Message-----
From: pacificpainting(at)comcast.net
Sent: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: where to buy proseal
John,
I have a quart of proseal that I'm not going to use. I bought it at Van's about
2 weeks ago. I don't remember how much it is, but I can look if you want it.
Dave
Salem, Oregon
----- Original Message ----- From: "john butterfield" <jdbutterfield(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 9:30 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: where to buy proseal
>
> hi list
> i can't seem to find where to buy some pro seal for my
> fuel senders
> i live in in the los angeles area, maybe it has
> another name, but am having no luck in finding is
> john butterfield
> 601XL, corvair
> torrance, ca
>
>
>
> Be a PS3 game guru.
> Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! > Games.
> http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brett Hanley <bretttdc(at)yahoo.com> |
Aircraft Spruce, Wicks or the Vans aircraft website.=0A=0ABrett
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Lilja <planes_by_ken(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: sealing fuel senders |
There are various grades of sealant. One kind is designed for removable
access panels. Once removed however, the old sealant needs to be
removed and new applied. It is pink. The gray sealant becomes one with
the universe. On Cessnas and Pipers with rubber sender gaskets, they
needed to be installed dry. If Fuelube is used the rubber gasket will
extrude. It is the compression that provides the seal. Cork gaskets do
not extrude as much. See
http://www.ppg.com/prc-desoto/main.asp?img=seal&menuID=3
Ken Lilja
steveadams wrote:
>
> I would be hesitant to seal the senders in with proseal. I have had to replace
a sender and it was relatively simple, however if it is stuck on there with
proseal you'll have quite a job getting it off and cleaned up. I used the rubber
gaskets with seal lube and they have been leak free for 350 hours.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97370#97370
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | What does it mean? |
| From: | "Jason" <ingram20(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Can anyone put it in plain English? The FAA is proposing new fees and restrictions
for aviation that would directly affect people that are thinking of building/flying
their own LSA. True/False? Probable?
I've read some about it on the EAA website, and then ran across this tidbit on
the RANS aircraft page and am having a little trouble making sense of it and how
it will actually apply on an everyday basis.
(from here (http://www.rans.com/ELSA%20Alert.htm))
>
> SPECIAL NOTICE ON REGISTERING AIRCRAFT
>
> ELSA ALERT: The FAA's Aircraft Registration office and the Light-Sport Aircraft
Branch would like to remind all individuals converting aircraft into an Experimental
Light-Sport Aircraft (ELSA) per FAR 21.191(i)(1)that there is a January
31, 2008 deadline to complete the ELSA aircraft registration, the ELSA airworthiness
inspection, and the ELSA certification process.
>
> The FAA will guarantee that your registration and certification packet will be
reviewed and your ELSA aircraft inspected in sufficient time to meet the January
31, 2008 deadline if:
> 4. By August 15, 2007, you submit your aircraft registration (N-number) request
to the Aircraft Registration office; and
> 5. By October 1,2007, you call your local ELSA DAR to schedule your ELSA airworthiness
inspection; and
> 6. By November 30, 2007, you submit your aircraft airworthiness certification
request packet to either a FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
a FAA Manufacturing Inspection District office (MIDO), or your local ELSA DAR.
Ask your local ELSA DAR which office should receive this packet.
>
> If you fail to complete the above steps, the FAA cannot guarantee they'll be
able to complete your ELSA registration and certification inspection process prior
to the January 31, 2008 deadline.
>
> If you need assistance in determining the exact requirements for converting your
Ultralight into an ELSA, there are two industry sources available to answer
any of your ELSA aircraft registration and/or certification packet requirement
questions:
> EAA (877-359-1232) and Rainbow Aviation (530-824-0644).
>
> We also encourage you to contact your affiliated ultralight association:
> EAA (877-359-1232); USUA (717-339-0200); ASC (269-781-4021), or USHPA(800-616-
6888) with any questions you may have regarding the ultralight to ELSA conversion
process. The FAA Light-Sport Aircraft Branch (405-954-3668) is also available
to answer your ELSA certification conversion questions and to help you locate
the closest ELSA DAR qualified to inspect your aircraft.
>
> DON'T DELAY ACT TODAY!!!
>
So obvioiusly I'm not going to be having anything inspected by those dates, what
happens after those dates?
This seems like it will affect lots and lots of folks, I was hoping some of you
will have already done some of the work in figuring it all out and be willing
to share?
Any info/feedback greatly appreciated.
Jason
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97622#97622
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: What does it mean? |
| From: | "Gig Giacona" <wr.giacona(at)cox.net> |
Higher taxes are bad. That said the current plan being pushed by the FAA will have
little effect on the average LSA pilot. The only user fees being proposed
are in Bravo airspace. The tax on AvGas will increase from 19.xx cents/Gal to
70 cents/gal so if you can run Mogas you won't be affected by that.
Here's a link for the FAA's take on the plan.
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/reauthorization/media/Questions_Answers.pdf
I still think taxes are bad and that this plan is being pushed by the airlines
to move some of the cost off of them and on to GA but it isn't as bad as it could
have been. Also, there's a real good chance that it isn't going to make it
through congress anyway.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97631#97631
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "R.P." <zodie(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What does it mean? |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason" <ingram20(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:27 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: What does it mean?
>
> Can anyone put it in plain English? The FAA is proposing new fees and
> restrictions for aviation that would directly affect people that are
> thinking of building/flying their own LSA. True/False? Probable?
In plain english:
The FAA has created a new category called ELSA that allows (among other
things) the existing unregistered "fat ultralights" to be transitioned over
to registered airplanes.
If you have a flying machine that does not comply with FAR103 as an
Ultralight aircraft, but fits into the Light Sport category, you are allowed
to register that machine as an ELSA without having to prove that it was
amatuer built for educational and recreational use. This was a big stumbling
point for folks that have been flying "fat UL's" that were built by someone
else and sold for profit as ultralights.
There is a grace period for this to happen, the grace period ends on Jan 31,
2008.
Rick Pitcher
Zodiac, Exp-AB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pilarcoco(at)netzero.net" <pilarcoco(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | 701 take-off videos |
I found the following excellent short videos of the 701 on YouTube:
The first is a great demonstration of the 701 s.t.o.l. capability:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59s72vYQqsI
This one shows a banner towing 701!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFa4M9GmsLM
Flying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_cCInksTdg
The full (longer) video with French titles can be found on Google video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4562576892875652524
The videos are from a Zenair dealer or flying school in France:
http://www.ulm-torreilles.com/zenair.html
They seem to have problems with knock-offs there too - the 701 says
"it's not a copy" on one side and "the original model" on the other
side to make the point!
J.P.
pilarcoco(at)netzero.net
(just getting started on my 701)
_____________________________________________________________________
FREE Reminder Service - NEW from AmericanGreetings.com
Click HERE and never forget a Birthday or Anniversary again!
http://track.netzero.net/s/lc?s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.com/products/online_calendar.pd?c=uol5752
_____________________________________________________________________
FREE Reminder Service - NEW from AmericanGreetings.com
Click HERE and never forget a Birthday or Anniversary again!
http://track.netzero.net/s/lc?s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.com/products/online_calendar.pd?c=uol5752
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: What does it mean? |
| From: | "Jason" <ingram20(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Thank you for that link, I just got through reading it top to bottom. Essentially,
the only cost increase will be the extra 70 cents per gallon for those doing
non-commercial flight. On a zodiac XL, that means somewhere in the neighborhood
of an extra $15 to $20 everytime you fill up.
I wonder how the FAA wouild deal with LSA's or airports that started selling/running
on 93 octane gasoline (for those engines that can do both). I don't anticipate
doing that, just a thought.
Thank you for the feedback, excellent info.
Jason
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97637#97637
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Croke" <Jon(at)joncroke.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What does it mean? |
Jason,
My understanding of this (and those of you who know the rules - please
correct me on this) is that this year provides a UNIQUE opportunity, (a
loophole of sorts!) possibly never occuring again, being granted by the FAA.
Before year's end, you can take ANY unregistered aircraft that meets LSA
parameters, doesnt matter who built it, doesnt matter how many owners,
doesnt matter if it meets 51% rule... as long as it is airworthy for
inspection -- and GET IT registered legally (as ELSA). It took a friend to
make me realize how unique this opportunity is -- all of those illegal 'fat
ultralights' (for lack of a better word) can be brought into a legal status
once and for all. That is the purpose of this 'conversion' being offered,
ending Dec 2008.
>From a practical standpoint: go onto barnstormers and find that old
Challenger, Kolb, Zenith, Rans, ANYTHING that is in someone's garage
completely built, half built, never built - dont care about tracking
ownership stuff and all the rules for experimental that we are all familiar
with. Buy that gem at a great price, get it airworthy and fill out the ELSA
paperwork. You have a legal aircraft at a great price that otherwise was
going to rot in someone's garage... cause you KNOW they arent going to allow
2 place 'fat ultralights' to fly anymore. I feel sorry for the original
owners of those that dont have pilot's licenses.. THEY are the ones getting
hurt. But YOU can own it now and fly legally.
That, I think, is the intent of this rule and why it has an ending date.
Take advantage.. a GREAT way to get into the air - Zenith or not! (I almost
get the impression that building your own aircraft kit and registering it as
ELSA was a sidebar to the real intent that I explained here)
Those that know this stuff better, please correct me! (I may be off base in
my facts or analysis!)
In fact, if you are able "unregister" (legally of course) a registered plane
that you are interested in.. now you have the basis for starting over and
registering it as your own, ELSA! (I've been hearing stories!)
Jon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason" <ingram20(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Zenith-List: What does it mean?
>>
>>
>> SPECIAL NOTICE ON REGISTERING AIRCRAFT
>>
>> ELSA ALERT: The FAA's Aircraft Registration office and the Light-Sport
>> Aircraft Branch would like to remind all individuals converting aircraft
>> into an Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft (ELSA) per FAR 21.191(i)(1)that
>> there is a January 31, 2008 deadline to complete the ELSA aircraft
>> registration, the
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What does it mean? |
Hi Jason,
All the stuff you quoted means that if you don't get your
airworthiness certificate by January 31,2008 you will only be able to
register your home built plane as Experimental - Amateur Built. This
is not a really big deal. After that date E-LSA will only work for
planes that are exact copies of "Certified" S-LSA models.
The new funding stuff the FAA is trying to put in place should not
directly impact your flying privileges - only your wallet. Among
other things, they want to increase the federal tax on Avgas from
$.20 to $0.70 per gallon (give or take). They also want to implement
user fees for use of FAA services like landing at busy airports and
flight planning services.
I think it would be a good idea for all of us to write to our
congressmen and senators to ask them to oppose this new funding
plan. There is still a chance this new plan will not be implemented in law.
Paul
XL fuselage
At 08:27 AM 2/27/2007, you wrote:
>
>Can anyone put it in plain English? The FAA is proposing new fees
>and restrictions for aviation that would directly affect people that
>are thinking of building/flying their own LSA. True/False? Probable?
>
>I've read some about it on the EAA website, and then ran across this
>tidbit on the RANS aircraft page and am having a little trouble
>making sense of it and how it will actually apply on an everyday basis.
>
>(from here (http://www.rans.com/ELSA%20Alert.htm))
>
>
> >
> > SPECIAL NOTICE ON REGISTERING AIRCRAFT
> >
> > ELSA ALERT: The FAA's Aircraft Registration office and the
> Light-Sport Aircraft Branch would like to remind all individuals
> converting aircraft into an Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft
> (ELSA) per FAR 21.191(i)(1)that there is a January 31, 2008
> deadline to complete the ELSA aircraft registration, the ELSA
> airworthiness inspection, and the ELSA certification process.
> >
> > The FAA will guarantee that your registration and certification
> packet will be reviewed and your ELSA aircraft inspected in
> sufficient time to meet the January 31, 2008 deadline if:
> > 4. By August 15, 2007, you submit your aircraft registration
> (N-number) request to the Aircraft Registration office; and
> > 5. By October 1,2007, you call your local ELSA DAR to schedule
> your ELSA airworthiness inspection; and
> > 6. By November 30, 2007, you submit your aircraft
> airworthiness certification request packet to either a FAA Flight
> Standards District Office (FSDO), a FAA Manufacturing Inspection
> District office (MIDO), or your local ELSA DAR. Ask your local ELSA
> DAR which office should receive this packet.
> >
> > If you fail to complete the above steps, the FAA cannot guarantee
> they'll be able to complete your ELSA registration and
> certification inspection process prior to the January 31, 2008 deadline.
> >
> > If you need assistance in determining the exact requirements for
> converting your Ultralight into an ELSA, there are two industry
> sources available to answer any of your ELSA aircraft registration
> and/or certification packet requirement questions:
> > EAA (877-359-1232) and Rainbow Aviation (530-824-0644).
> >
> > We also encourage you to contact your affiliated ultralight association:
> > EAA (877-359-1232); USUA (717-339-0200); ASC (269-781-4021), or
> USHPA(800-616- 6888) with any questions you may have regarding the
> ultralight to ELSA conversion process. The FAA Light-Sport Aircraft
> Branch (405-954-3668) is also available to answer your ELSA
> certification conversion questions and to help you locate the
> closest ELSA DAR qualified to inspect your aircraft.
> >
> > DON'T DELAY ACT TODAY!!!
> >
>
>
>So obvioiusly I'm not going to be having anything inspected by those
>dates, what happens after those dates?
>
>This seems like it will affect lots and lots of folks, I was hoping
>some of you will have already done some of the work in figuring it
>all out and be willing to share?
>
>Any info/feedback greatly appreciated.
>
>Jason
>
>
----
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
These guys carry 6061-T6. There's a store 500 feet down the street from me that
just opened up.
http://www.fastenal.com/web/locations.ex?action=search&zip=&state=NJ
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97669#97669
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: What does it mean? |
| From: | "Jason" <ingram20(at)sbcglobal.net> |
*smiles* I can't help it..I have to respond to this even if it is way over the
top:
>
> The new funding stuff the FAA is trying to put in place should not
> directly impact your flying privileges - only your wallet.
>
Money is the primary control attribute in any number of issues. Taxation without
represnentation was one of the things that set off the eventual creation of
the USA after all. Right now..how is Congress thinking of controlling our forces
in Iraq? By controlling money of course.
I know I know, it's way over the top; but the idea that it doesn't impact our privlegies
just our wallet isn't quite right.
Anyways, just had to get that off my chest.
Jason
\I know I took that outside the lines of your intent, it just grabbed my attention.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97675#97675
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | NYTerminat(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 701 take-off videos |
You can bet that there was 12-18 MPH wind down that runway! Great video!!!!!!
Bob Spudis
In a message dated 2/27/2007 12:03:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
pilarcoco(at)netzero.net writes:
I found the following excellent short videos of the 701 on YouTube:
The first is a great demonstration of the 701 s.t.o.l. capability:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59s72vYQqsI
**************************************
AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Ruddiman" <pacificpainting(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: where to buy proseal |
I haven't opened mine, so it's just like new.
----- Original Message -----
From: japhillipsga(at)aol.com
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: where to buy proseal
Dave, you can buy ProSeal from Aircraft Spruce in pint and quart cans.
ProSeal has a fairly short life after the can is opened (6-8 months ? ).
Supposedly the can is closed in nitrogen gas and that air starts the
hardening process even without hardener so an old can may not be very
useful. I keep mine in the refrig to slow the process. I did a whole
RV-8 fuel tank with less than a quart. Best regards, Bill of Georgia
-----Original Message-----
From: pacificpainting(at)comcast.net
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: where to buy proseal
John,
I have a quart of proseal that I'm not going to use. I bought it at
Van's about 2 weeks ago. I don't remember how much it is, but I can look
if you want it.
Dave
Salem, Oregon
----- Original Message ----- From: "john butterfield"
To: "Zenith-List Digest Server"
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 9:30 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: where to buy proseal
>
> hi list
> i can't seem to find where to buy some pro seal for my
> fuel senders
> i live in in the los angeles area, maybe it has
> another name, but am having no luck in finding is
> john butterfield
> 601XL, corvair
> torrance, ca
>
>
>
> Be a PS3 game guru.
> Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at
Yahoo! > Games.
> http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
>
>
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben52425(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | corvair oil level |
HELP CORVAIR ENGINE
I NEED TO KNOW HOW MUCH OIL TO PUT IN THE ENGINE?
I HAVE W. W. DEEP OIL PAN AND A REMOTE OIL FILTER
FIVE OR SIX QUART, S?
GETTING READY TO FIRE IT UP
THANK YOU BEN N524B
**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's
free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | corvair oil level |
"When calibrating your dipstick, put 5 quarts of oil in the engine, and
prime the oil pump to fill the filter. Note this as the low mark on the
stick with the airplane in its ground attitude. Most airplanes can use 2 or
3 quarts more than this, but we generally fly with 6 in the plane."
<http://www.flycorvair.com/oilpan.html>
http://www.flycorvair.com/oilpan.html
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Juan Vega <amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: where to buy proseal |
properly sealed Proseal can last a long time, longer than 8 months, Ive been using
one that is over two years old, no problem, just seal it well, no pun intended.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave Ruddiman <pacificpainting(at)comcast.net>
>Sent: Feb 27, 2007 5:09 PM
>To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: where to buy proseal
>
>I haven't opened mine, so it's just like new.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: japhillipsga(at)aol.com
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 7:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: where to buy proseal
>
>
> Dave, you can buy ProSeal from Aircraft Spruce in pint and quart cans. ProSeal
has a fairly short life after the can is opened (6-8 months ? ). Supposedly
the can is closed in nitrogen gas and that air starts the hardening process even
without hardener so an old can may not be very useful. I keep mine in the
refrig to slow the process. I did a whole RV-8 fuel tank with less than a quart.
Best regards, Bill of Georgia
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pacificpainting(at)comcast.net
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:19 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: where to buy proseal
>
>
>
> John,
>
> I have a quart of proseal that I'm not going to use. I bought it at Van's about
2 weeks ago. I don't remember how much it is, but I can look if you want it.
>
> Dave
> Salem, Oregon
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "john butterfield" <jdbutterfield(at)yahoo.com>
> To: "Zenith-List Digest Server"
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 9:30 PM
> Subject: Zenith-List: where to buy proseal
>
> >
> > hi list
> > i can't seem to find where to buy some pro seal for my
> > fuel senders
> > i live in in the los angeles area, maybe it has
> > another name, but am having no luck in finding is
> > john butterfield
> > 601XL, corvair
> > torrance, ca
> >
> >
> >
> > Be a PS3 game guru.
> > Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! > Games.
> > http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Juan Vega <amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What does it mean? |
there are additional costs, if you land in any field, there will ultimately be
a landing fee. Not just towered fields. the new prpoosed deal is a phased
in approach. do you want to pay $3.80/gal plus $0.70 more per gallon, that is
$25.00 more per fill up? plus $30.00 on average every time you want to go for
that $100.00 now $140.00 hamburger run? Europe's system is an utter failure.
Our system is well funded the way it is, the only reason this is coming to
the table is due to FAA's fundung coming up again, and the ATA's lobbiist doing
a damned good job. GA is less than 600,000 people now, and Trasnport is not
doing well at all. they cannot make money.
Guess who is recommending the new proposed system, ATA. Only $0.70? add that
to the cost to train in an area that the population is getting smaller.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jason <ingram20(at)sbcglobal.net>
>Sent: Feb 27, 2007 12:10 PM
>To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: What does it mean?
>
>
>Thank you for that link, I just got through reading it top to bottom. Essentially,
the only cost increase will be the extra 70 cents per gallon for those doing
non-commercial flight. On a zodiac XL, that means somewhere in the neighborhood
of an extra $15 to $20 everytime you fill up.
>
>I wonder how the FAA wouild deal with LSA's or airports that started selling/running
on 93 octane gasoline (for those engines that can do both). I don't anticipate
doing that, just a thought.
>
>Thank you for the feedback, excellent info.
>
>Jason
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97637#97637
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Juan Vega <amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What does it mean? |
there are additional costs, if you land in any field, there will ultimately be
a landing fee. Not just towered fields. the new prpoosed deal is a phased
in approach. do you want to pay $3.80/gal plus $0.70 more per gallon, that is
$25.00 more per fill up? plus $30.00 on average every time you want to go for
that $100.00 now $140.00 hamburger run? Europe's system is an utter failure.
Our system is well funded the way it is, the only reason this is coming to
the table is due to FAA's fundung coming up again, and the ATA's lobbiist doing
a damned good job. GA is less than 600,000 people now, and Trasnport is not
doing well at all. they cannot make money.
Guess who is recommending the new proposed system, ATA. Only $0.70? add that
to the cost to train in an area that the population is getting smaller.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jason <ingram20(at)sbcglobal.net>
>Sent: Feb 27, 2007 12:10 PM
>To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: What does it mean?
>
>
>Thank you for that link, I just got through reading it top to bottom. Essentially,
the only cost increase will be the extra 70 cents per gallon for those doing
non-commercial flight. On a zodiac XL, that means somewhere in the neighborhood
of an extra $15 to $20 everytime you fill up.
>
>I wonder how the FAA wouild deal with LSA's or airports that started selling/running
on 93 octane gasoline (for those engines that can do both). I don't anticipate
doing that, just a thought.
>
>Thank you for the feedback, excellent info.
>
>Jason
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97637#97637
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Hulland" <marinegunner(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What does it mean? |
Gig,
User Fees and the FAA's current plan will make not make it through
congress if nobody, and I mean nobody, goes along with any of it. Yes,
the program will have a very bad affect on LSA and all of general
aviation. Worse, it will cause us to lose the freedom to fly anywhere,
at almost anytime. Why not have user fees for cars, just think $1.00
for every stop sign you stop at; $1.00 for every red light you use;
$5.00 for entering the interstate; then increase fuel taxes many times
- and don't forget, reduce everything for truckers because they are
commercial and the highways and roadways are for them, not the general
driving public. You need to rethink you support of the FAA - it is far
worse than you think. Are you an airline pilot?
--
Semper Fi,
Steven R. Hulland
CH 600 Taildragger
Amado, AZ
This and all other incoming/outgoing email, attachments and replies
scanned prior to opening/sending and uses an external firewall to help
insure virus free email and attachments.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net> |
| Subject: | Flying into Canada |
Thanks, Mark
In my case, I would be looking at flying with a PPL, but flying light sport
without a class 3 medical, i.e., with a driver's license. As long as you're
asking, try to find out about that situation. Thank you for looking into
this for us. It would be great if our respective governments would get
together and develop rules with reasonable reciprocity for each other's pilots.
Terry
>Terry your right, I will contact Transport tomorrow. I believe that the
>plane is able to enter into Canada but the pilot needs to have a private
>or better license. Our Recreational permit in Canada is not allowed to fly
>in the U.S. and your LSA permit will not allow you to cross into Canada.
>Our Ultralight pilots may cross into the U.S. authorization but the U.S.
>Ultralights may not cross into Canada due to the fact that U.S. ultralight
>pilots don't have any license. I answered Tim's enquiry knowing that he
>holds a private license and did not consider the LSA permit.
>
>
>Now having said all that and I will check into it for everyone, I know
>that harmonization between the two countries is under serious
>consideration and we may see something come into effect by years end which
>would allow LSA and Recreational permits to cross the border either way. (
>but not U.S. Recreational permit, that is a different animal altogether.)
>Both planes Gross and pilots permits are being discussed at Transport
>Canada's CARAC meetings.
>
>
>Mark Townsend
>
>Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
Terry Phillips
ttp44(at)rkymtn.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Hilderbrand <m_hilderbrand(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? |
Looks like a potential store for 6061 aluminum. It does not say anything ab
out being -T6. Is this part just assumed?=0Athanks!=0A =0AMichael =0A=0A
=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: "NYTerminat(at)aol.com" <NYTerminat@aol
.com>=0ATo: zenith-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:
16:30 PM=0ASubject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...?=0A=0A=0A
Thanks for the "heads up". They have a store the next town over from me, ne
ver knew they existed, looks like a good find. =0A =0ABob Spudis=0ADo not a
rchive=0A =0A =0A =0AIn a message dated 2/27/2007 2:47:38 P.M. Eastern Stan
shontz" =0A=0AThese guys carry 6061-T6. There's a store 5
00 feet down the street from me that just opened up.=0A=0Ahttp://www.fasten
al.com/web/locations.ex?action=search&zip=&state=NJ=0A=0A--------=0AC
H601XL - Corvair=0Awww.mykitlog.com/ashontz=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AAOL now
offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
<57x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom" target
========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Flying into Canada |
Hi Mark,
I appreciate your "Sales" effort for flying to Canada. Alas, even
though I live about an hour by Zodiac from Vancouver, BC and all the
beautiful islands and other attractions in that area I will not go to
all the trouble necessary to make that trip. Besides all the issues
with flying my plane in Canada with a driver's license instead of a
3rd class medical I also face all the paranoia at the border when
attempting to reenter the USA. I don't even have a passport, but
that is a requirement to fly into the USA now from Canada. For me,
it just isn't worth all the bureaucratic pain.
Maybe in my next life it will be easier to cross the border (just
like it was when I was younger).
Paul
XL fuselage
At 08:49 PM 2/27/2007, you wrote:
>Terry your right, I will contact Transport tomorrow. I believe that
>the plane is able to enter into Canada but the pilot needs to have a
>private or better license. Our Recreational permit in Canada is not
>allowed to fly in the U.S. and your LSA permit will not allow you to
>cross into Canada. Our Ultralight pilots may cross into the U.S.
>authorization but the U.S. Ultralights may not cross into Canada due
>to the fact that U.S. ultralight pilots don't have any license. I
>answered Tim's enquiry knowing that he holds a private license and
>did not consider the LSA permit.
>
>Now having said all that and I will check into it for everyone, I
>know that harmonization between the two countries is under serious
>consideration and we may see something come into effect by years end
>which would allow LSA and Recreational permits to cross the border
>either way. ( but not U.S. Recreational permit, that is a different
>animal altogether.) Both planes Gross and pilots permits are being
>discussed at Transport Canada's CARAC meetings.
>
>Mark Townsend
>Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
>president@can-zacaviation.com>president@can-zacaviation.com
>www.can-zacaviation.com
>
---------------------------------------------
Paul Mulwitz
32013 NE Dial Road
Camas, WA 98607
---------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MacDonald Doug <dougsnash(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Flying into Canada |
Terry, that situation is easy. Sorry but no class
three medical with you PPL, no being PIC in Canada.
As I mentioned in my last post, Transport says they
will "never" allow the driver's license medical.
Never is a long time. Maybe we should just call it
"forseeable Future" instead.
Doug MacDonald
NW Ontario, Canada
Thanks, Mark
In my case, I would be looking at flying with a PPL,
but flying light sport without a class 3 medical,
i.e., with a driver's license. As long as you're
asking, try to find out about that situation. Thank
you for looking into this for us. It would be great if
our respective governments would get together and
develop rules with reasonable reciprocity for each
other's pilots.
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tommy Walker" <twalker(at)cableone.net> |
List,
My buddy and I are going to put doors on our hangar down at our little
country airport (25A). I think I saw somewhere a picture of some doors that
were divided into 3 or 4 foot sections and slid along a track. Our problem
is two-fold: 1. we spent all our money building this plane and, 2. we
don't think we can build a barn door type opening that would be strong
enough.
Maybe someone can offer a solution?
Thanks,
Tommy Walker in Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
mhilderbrand wrote:
> Looks like a potential store for 6061 aluminum. It does not say anything about
being -T6. Is this part just assumed?
> thanks!
>
> Michael
>
> ---
I believe the guy there said it was T6. Not sure if it matters to be honest. If
anyone gets any info on that please share. I think it designates heat treatable.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97827#97827
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Bolding" <jnbolding1(at)teleshare.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hangar Doors |
Tommy, If you have a concrete floor , or are willing to pour a footing
for the doors to roll on , rolling doors are hard to beat in the cost
department.
When I built my hangar (60'wide-40'deep) I made 3 doors from 2 1/2" sq.
tubing to span a 40' opening (had a Seabee at the time) bought the
V-rollers from either Grangier or McMaster-Carr. Tracks on the bottom
were 1" angle welded side by side, spaced so the doors would clear by an
inch. (Don't forget the siding when figuring this dimension :) )Top
tracks were 1" angle as well that nestled into side by side spacers
welded to the top of the door. Covered with matching siding. If I recall
I had less than $1000 in 40' of doors. Have fun! JB
List,
My buddy and I are going to put doors on our hangar down at our little
country airport (25A). I think I saw somewhere a picture of some doors
that were divided into 3 or 4 foot sections and slid along a track. Our
problem is two-fold: 1. we spent all our money building this plane
and, 2. we don't think we can build a barn door type opening that
would be strong enough.
Maybe someone can offer a solution?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "wade jones" <wjones(at)brazoriainet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hangar Doors |
Hi Tommy ,I designed the doors for my hanger .If you will send your
email to me I will send some pictures .wjones(at)brazoriainet.com . Wade
Wade Jones South Texas
601XL plans building
Cont. 0200
----- Original Message -----
From: Tommy Walker
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 6:51 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Hangar Doors
List,
My buddy and I are going to put doors on our hangar down at our little
country airport (25A). I think I saw somewhere a picture of some doors
that were divided into 3 or 4 foot sections and slid along a track. Our
problem is two-fold: 1. we spent all our money building this plane
and, 2. we don't think we can build a barn door type opening that
would be strong enough.
Maybe someone can offer a solution?
Thanks,
Tommy Walker in Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ryan Vechinski" <brothapig(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? |
If what you are asking is "does the temper (T4 or T6) make a
difference", then the answer is YES.
T6 is aluminum that has been solution heat treated AND artificially
aged. IIRC, the 6061-T4 aluminum has just a little more than half the
yield strength of the 6061-T6.
Zenith has posted both in the construction hand book and the new
constructions standards book that you cannot use T4. They do list other
alternatives however.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ashontz
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 7:14 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...?
mhilderbrand wrote:
> Looks like a potential store for 6061 aluminum. It does not say
anything about being -T6. Is this part just assumed?
> thanks!
>
> Michael
>
> ---
I believe the guy there said it was T6. Not sure if it matters to be
honest. If anyone gets any info on that please share. I think it
designates heat treatable.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97827#97827
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Race" <mykitairplane(at)mrrace.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hangar Doors |
Hi Tommy:
I faced the exact same problem when I built my hangar a couple of years ago.
Check out www.cool-airinc.com
That is the web site of David Coolman, a pilot and door company owner. He
has a booth at Oshkosh every year and brings along his sliding door sample.
You can see it there in action.
I purchased his sliding door from the SAV-2.5 series. It slides inside of
the hangar and is a very neat and simple arrangement. I have a 30 X 40
Hangar/Shop and it has a door opening of 29 X 9.5 feet. With the doors
open, I get a 28' 6" clearance between the doors. Just enough room for the
27' wings span of the 701. It also provide a four foot "man" door at each
side. The first and last panel are hinged at the corner post. The balance
of the door, which consists two sections of three panels hinged together,
then rolls around a curved corner track and along the side of the hangar.
It is a very nice working system. Once the end doors are hinged open, you
can slide the three panels on each side open with one hand. And you never
have to did snow out of the way before you open your doors!
The system consists of steel frames that hang from a track on rollers. The
door skins are the 4' steel sections that are the same as the steel siding
on the pole barn. They just slip into place inside of the frame. The
finish product looks very nice.
As I recall, the price two years ago was below 2K for the complete door
system. That was minus the cost of the steel barn siding that I got from my
pole barn company. Not a bad price as compared to the many other types of
aircraft hangar doors.
You can see pictures of my door on my web site.
http://www.mrrace.com/mykitairplane/MyHanger/index.htm
Yes, I have been going to change the spelling of "Hanger" to "Hangar" for
the past year! One of these days!
George
Zenith CH-701 N73EX (reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Juan Vega <amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net> |
you can have 2 engines out on teh field and you still need to have ADs. Reason
there are so many ADs is becuase the manufacturer has identified a potential
situation that requires preventative maintenance. EX; there is an AD on rotax
on the Magnetic metal collector, and details how to remove the peice and replace.
If there were one engine out in the field, you would need an AD. Rotax
is a great engine, if you like water cooled engines. I prefer a auto fuel running
air cooled engine. Jabirus have only 20 amp alt out put, you can ad an
Alt. Corviar is a good engine, if you want to build an engine. Lycomings and
Contis are tryed and true as well. but 60 year technology. Rotec, nice. Franklin
is a GREAT engine, smoot as butter when running, just tough to find parts
due to selling of company. Look at what you want to burn, look at what you
want to spend, look at what you want to maintain. and read the ADs. tells
how many potential problems there are.
JUan
-----Original Message-----
>From: N601RT <N601RT(at)comcast.net>
>Sent: Feb 24, 2007 1:27 AM
>To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Engines
>
>
>Robert,
>
>Don't make your choice based on opinions from people that may not have real facts.
Be careful to understand what are facts and what is rumor, possibly fear
of the unknown.
>
>We all make significant investments (time and/or money) in our engines and therefore
tend to think we have made the best choice. I think this can color our
opinions.
>
>I agree the reason there are "lots of ADs" on Rotax 9xx engines is because there
are LOTs of Rotax engines in service. I was told that there are more than 20,000
9xx engines in service a year ago. I just read that Rotax is currently producing
5,000 9xx family engines per year. (Both figures from Eric Tucker who
teaches a GREAT Rotax maintenance class and who is THE technical guru for Kodiak
[North America Rotax distributor]. Lockwood is an example of a dealer who
gets their engines from Kodiak.)
>
>All engines have their pluses and minuses. My perspective on Rotax +/-
>
>Minuses:
>Expensive (compared to Corvair and Subaru conversion, I believe similar price
to Jabaru)
>Parts are relative expensive
>18a alternator (which I think this is relatively low output)
>
>Positive:
>Reliable
>Light overall installed weight for the horsepower
>Quiet
>Water cooled heads. (Different than water cooled engine, simpler)
>Mine basically does not use oil. I assume this is typical
>Nicasil plated cylinders, close tolerance pistons
>Shock cooling is not a concern
>Broad dealer network. (But your local A&P may not be familiar with it.)
>Large corporation stands behind and supports the engine
>LOTs of engines in service. Many examples of these have gone to TBO more than
once.
>Optional 2nd alternator available. (Corvair and Subaru conversions have option
for a variety of alternators. Jabaru has relatively low output alternator as
does 9xx series.)
>Service and installation manuals available on line for download.
>Service Bulletins (ADs) available on line. These ARE NOT required for engines
that are not certified. Recommend that you carefully understand what and why they
are published.
>
>
>My local EAA chapter has done some noise testing. Richard VanGrunsven, his brothers
and lots of other RV owner's are in the chapter. My plane was the quietest
tested during climb out at the end of the runway and tied for quietest with
the factory RV-10 for 1000 foot over flight at 90kts. The tests also include
production planes.
>
>
>Paul's post to this thread has some misleading statements.
>
>There is no need to guess the history of the Rotax 912, 914 engine series. The
Rotax 912, 914 series of engines are clean sheet, modern design aircraft engines.
Yes Bombardier (parent company Rotax) makes snowmobile engines, but the 9xx
series IS NOT related to the snowmobile engines. Before Bombardier created
the separate Recreational Products division, the company who owned Rotax also
owned Learjet. Maybe the 9xx was derived from a Learjet. [Wink]
>
>Propeller tips that are supersonic lose efficiency. They can be destroyed, but
there are many propellers that go supersonic regularly. Not saying this is recommended,
just not a certain disaster.
>
>Regards,
>
>Roy
>
>N601RT: CH601HDS, nose gear, Rotax 912ULS, All electric, IFR equipped, 681hrs,
802 landings
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97013#97013
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "robert stone" <rstone4(at)hot.rr.com> |
| Subject: | aileron trim system |
Members
Can any of you who have built the ZodiacXL with aileron trim tell
me how long in hours it took you to install the trim system complete
ready for use.
Tracy Stone
ZodiacXL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att wrote:
> Hi Brandon,
>
> No, I don't have a specific reference on the supersonic prop tips. I
> wonder if your Texan tips are actually going supersonic or if they
> are just transonic. Do you get a sonic boom?
>
> There is a nice prop tip speed calculator on the Culver prop web
> site. You can plug in the RPM and prop diameter to get an estimate
> of the mach number for the tips. Of course, mach number varies a
> great deal with air conditions, but it still might be interesting to see.
>
> I am amused by the responses I am getting to a post I didn't think
> would be at all controversial. I was merely trying to help Robert
> understand the answer to his question of why some engines run at such
> high RPM. Your question about tips going over mach 1 was also
> mentioned by Roy while he strongly defended the ancestry of the Rotax
> engine design. I guess I am just an irritating guy . . .
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> At 09:00 AM 2/24/2007, you wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >> As RPM increases, the speed of the propeller tip
> > also increases >>according to simple geometry.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > >> As the propeller tip approaches the speed of sound
> >
> > >>it becomes inefficient,
> >
> > True.
> >
> > >>and if allowed to hit the speed of sound it can be
> > destroyed.
> >
> > I would love to see your reference on this one. The
> > Texan I fly on weekends has the tips go supersonic
> > just about every flight. I haven't done the math, and
> > don't care to, but you can hear the difference when it
> > takes off. When I take off, I pull back the prop as
> > soon as I get the gear up, and it purrs by. Most of
> > our pilots leave the prop up until at altitude. The
> > sound is a high pitched whine. The difference in RPM
> > is only 100 - 200. You can often hear the same thing
> > on Bonanzas and others if the prop is left up.
> >
> > R/
> >
> > Brandon
> > 601 HDS / TD / Corvair
> > 70 hours
> >
> >
> >
> > Never miss an email again!
> > Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
> > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
> >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Paul Mulwitz
> 32013 NE Dial Road
> Camas, WA 98607
> ---------------------------------------------
Just working the numbers, a 72" prop spinning 2750 rpm will give a tip speed of
590mph. about 160mph short of the speed of sound. Quick thinking may lead someone
to think that if the plane is moving at 160mph that the tip speed will reach
supersonic. I'm not sure this is the case though. Consider the prop has about
a 15 degree pitch on it at the tip which would result in a relative pitch
when moving through the air at design speed of say 2 degrees (and if constructed
correctly that 2 degree relative pitch should be constant through to the hub).
That being the case the prop tip would see only a quarter (sin 15 degrees
= .258) of the 160 mph forward component, or about 41 mph. To get the full 160mph
component the plane would need to be moving about 621mph. I don't think the
relative prop tip speed on a Bananza or T-6 Texan ever breaks the sound barrier,
and may not even be hitting transonic. That 621 mph figure would explain
why 1940s propeller fighter design and prop efficiency topped out at about 495mph
(about 130mph short of supersonic tip speed). Hold that 130 mph difference
for the bizarre transonic region where things start to become hairy, including
whatevers happening at the prop tip. Apparently 90% of the work is done by the
outside 10% of the prop. That being the case, as soon as it starts to go transonic
you're going to see a major loss of efficiency.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97876#97876
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ronlee" <rlee468(at)comcast.net> |
There is one thing no one has addressd yet is the surface speeds of large and small
displacement engines. Small engines have shorter strokes and smaller crankshaft
journals. An engine with a two inch stroke will have to turn twice as fast
to get the same piston surface speed as a large engine with a four inch stroke.
The same holds for crankshaft journals etc. Also the centrifugal force increases
as rotating parts increase in size as they swing a larger arc. In essence,
smaller engines do not encounter that much if any increase in stress over
large engines. A high RPM engine with a reduction for final output RPM such
as a propeller can have a much smaller crankshaft, as much less torque is being
transfered to the business end of the crankshaft. The end torque is increased
through the gearbox. With a direct drive engine all the final torque must be
carried by the crank, so it must be much heavier.
Ron L.
--------
Ron Lee
Tucson, Arizona
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97880#97880
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
ronlee wrote:
> There is one thing no one has addressd yet is the surface speeds of large and
small displacement engines. Small engines have shorter strokes and smaller crankshaft
journals. An engine with a two inch stroke will have to turn twice as
fast to get the same piston surface speed as a large engine with a four inch
stroke. The same holds for crankshaft journals etc. Also the centrifugal force
increases as rotating parts increase in size as they swing a larger arc. In essence,
smaller engines do not encounter that much if any increase in stress
over large engines. A high RPM engine with a reduction for final output RPM such
as a propeller can have a much smaller crankshaft, as much less torque is being
transfered to the business end of the crankshaft. The end torque is increased
through the gearbox. With a direct drive engine all the final torque must
be carried by the crank, so it must be much heavier.
> Ron L.
It's not the surface speed as much as the stress from reversal of strokes. Higher
revving engines will generally have a shorter stroke and a larger bore to displace
the same amount of expanding gas. There's still plenty of stress in the
reversal of strokes and would probably be equal. The smaller cranks and bearings
is probably more due to the fact that the higher revving engine is creating
more HP per pound, but not as much torque, therefore no need for a heavy crank.
The torque gets developed in the PSRU.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97887#97887
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? |
hey guys - please be careful here. It does designate the heat treat - and the heat
treat is VERY important. T3, T4, T6, and others are alll specific heat treats
and have very specific differences in material properties (the loads that
can be handled by identical shapes of differing heat treats). Pay very close attention
to this detail - your very life may depend on it.
mhilderbrand wrote:
> Looks like a potential store for 6061 aluminum. It does not say anything about
being -T6. Is this part just assumed?
> thanks!
>
> Michael
>
> ---
I believe the guy there said it was T6. Not sure if it matters to be honest. If
anyone gets any info on that please share. I think it designates heat treatable.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97827#97827
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question
on Yahoo! Answers.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Interesting airplane history - off topic |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
I remember reading about this in an old EAA experimenter magazine before they went
gloss and all advertizememts.
Single Blade propeller
http://notplanejane.com/everel.htm#everel7
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97895#97895
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Flying into Canada |
Don't you have a class 3 for your PPL?
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Phillips
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:45 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Flying into Canada
Thanks, Mark
In my case, I would be looking at flying with a PPL, but flying light
sport
without a class 3 medical, i.e., with a driver's license. As long as
you're
asking, try to find out about that situation. Thank you for looking into
this for us. It would be great if our respective governments would get
together and develop rules with reasonable reciprocity for each other's
pilots.
Terry
Terry your right, I will contact Transport tomorrow. I believe that the
plane is able to enter into Canada but the pilot needs to have a private
or
better license. Our Recreational permit in Canada is not allowed to fly
in
the U.S. and your LSA permit will not allow you to cross into Canada.
Our
Ultralight pilots may cross into the U.S. authorization but the U.S.
Ultralights may not cross into Canada due to the fact that U.S.
ultralight
pilots don't have any license. I answered Tim's enquiry knowing that he
holds a private license and did not consider the LSA permit.
Now having said all that and I will check into it for everyone, I know
that
harmonization between the two countries is under serious consideration
and
we may see something come into effect by years end which would allow LSA
and
Recreational permits to cross the border either way. ( but not U.S.
Recreational permit, that is a different animal altogether.) Both planes
Gross and pilots permits are being discussed at Transport Canada's CARAC
meetings.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
Terry Phillips
ttp44(at)rkymtn.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Flying into Canada |
Apparently a passport is required for every person on any plane that
enters
American airspace...Even if the plane isn't going to land! I don't know
how
they check small aircraft to see if the pilot actually has a passport on
his
person. No doubt I wouldn't want to be the one doing a forced approach
without a passport.
To show how silly this can be, a Canadian plane leaving Toronto for
Vancouver requires all passengers and crew to have passports because the
plane "may" enter U.S. airspace. I guess that would be in the landing
pattern for Vancouver airport.
I wonder if planes leaving, say, Minnesota headed to Maine require all
their
passengers and crew to have passports to re-enter U.S. airspace after
flying
most of the trip, non-stop, through Canadian airspace.
On the other hand it's probably time that we all started taking security
a
bit more seriously. here's a very scary world out there.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Mulwitz
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:06 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Flying into Canada
Hi Mark,
I appreciate your "Sales" effort for flying to Canada. Alas, even
though I
live about an hour by Zodiac from Vancouver, BC and all the beautiful
islands and other attractions in that area I will not go to all the
trouble
necessary to make that trip. Besides all the issues with flying my
plane in
Canada with a driver's license instead of a 3rd class medical I also
face
all the paranoia at the border when attempting to reenter the USA. I
don't
even have a passport, but that is a requirement to fly into the USA now
from
Canada. For me, it just isn't worth all the bureaucratic pain.
Maybe in my next life it will be easier to cross the border (just like
it
was when I was younger).
Paul
XL fuselage
At 08:49 PM 2/27/2007, you wrote:
Terry your right, I will contact Transport tomorrow. I believe that the
plane is able to enter into Canada but the pilot needs to have a private
or
better license. Our Recreational permit in Canada is not allowed to fly
in
the U.S. and your LSA permit will not allow you to cross into Canada.
Our
Ultralight pilots may cross into the U.S. authorization but the U.S.
Ultralights may not cross into Canada due to the fact that U.S.
ultralight
pilots don't have any license. I answered Tim's enquiry knowing that he
holds a private license and did not consider the LSA permit.
Now having said all that and I will check into it for everyone, I know
that
harmonization between the two countries is under serious consideration
and
we may see something come into effect by years end which would allow LSA
and
Recreational permits to cross the border either way. ( but not U.S.
Recreational permit, that is a different animal altogether.) Both planes
Gross and pilots permits are being discussed at Transport Canada's CARAC
meetings.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
president@can-zacaviation.com
www.can-zacaviation.com <http://www.can-zacaviation.com/>
---------------------------------------------
Paul Mulwitz
32013 NE Dial Road
Camas, WA 98607
---------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Interesting airplane history - off topic |
>> Single Blade propeller
I looked around and couldn't see why they stopped making the Everel single
blade prop after about 1945. The only negative things I could find were that
they were expensive and needed frequent readjustment of the counterweight.
But I did have fun reading about the US WWII cruise missiles:
www.stagone.org/ns.html
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Interesting airplane history - off topic |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
craig(at)craigandjean.com wrote:
>
> > > Single Blade propeller
> >
> >
>
> I looked around and couldn't see why they stopped making the Everel single
> blade prop after about 1945. The only negative things I could find were that
> they were expensive and needed frequent readjustment of the counterweight.
>
> But I did have fun reading about the US WWII cruise missiles:
> www.stagone.org/ns.html
>
> -- Craig
Probably needed frequent adjustments because it was made of wood and humidity and
expansion caused the out of balance conditions. Betcha an aluminum prop would
rarely if ever need adjusting.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97923#97923
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ihab.awad(at)gmail.com |
| Subject: | Re: Interesting airplane history - off topic |
On 2/28/07, Craig Payne wrote:
> >> Single Blade propeller
> I looked around and couldn't see why they stopped making the Everel single
> blade prop after about 1945. The only negative things I could find were that
> they were expensive and needed frequent readjustment of the counterweight.
It seems that the "single blade" and "flapping" issues are
independent. A single blade prop is used on at least one motorglider
I'm aware of in order to make it more stowable. But the real
innovation here seems to be allowing the blade to "flap", similar to a
helicopter rotor, thus reducing or eliminating various propeller
asymmetries due to an off-axis airstream. This could easily be
accomplished with a 2- or n-blade propeller by giving each blade a
flapping hinge.
Ihab
--
Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com> |
| Subject: | LRI versus Stall warning |
Hi guys,
Ive been reading about the Lift Reserve Indicator and stall warning
indicators and wondering how much
advantage there is to having a gage with the sensitivity of LRI range
compared to a sound stall warning indicator
that provides only a preliminary warning in advance of a stall.
My panel is full and theres little room for anything more than a string
of small lights. The stall-warning indicator
seems to do the same thing for about the same effort. Any
recommendations or opinions on these devices?
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Interesting airplane history - off topic |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
ihab.awad(at)gmail.com wrote:
> On 2/28/07, Craig Payne wrote:
>
> > >> Single Blade propeller
> > I looked around and couldn't see why they stopped making the Everel single
> > blade prop after about 1945. The only negative things I could find were that
> > they were expensive and needed frequent readjustment of the counterweight.
> >
> >
>
> It seems that the "single blade" and "flapping" issues are
> independent. A single blade prop is used on at least one motorglider
> I'm aware of in order to make it more stowable. But the real
> innovation here seems to be allowing the blade to "flap", similar to a
> helicopter rotor, thus reducing or eliminating various propeller
> asymmetries due to an off-axis airstream. This could easily be
> accomplished with a 2- or n-blade propeller by giving each blade a
> flapping hinge.
>
> Ihab
>
> --
> Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
It wasn't mean to flap, but it does move back and forth a few degrees depending
on engine RPM and airspeed. The movement is designed to change the pitch of the
prop, not eliminate asymetries. The hinge it pivots on is on a slight angle
to perpendicular, so that when it moves forward or back the pitch of the prop
changes. It moves forward or back depending on air pressure on the blade and
balanced against the counterweight on the other side which is also dependent on
rotational speed. A two blded prop could be built with opposable weights like
this, but there's actually an advantage to one blade, namely more time for dissapation
of the wake, so the blade isn't trying to cut into turbulent air. So
effectively one blade in clean air is actually more effiecient than two blades
cutting into each others turbulent air.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97932#97932
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ihab.awad(at)gmail.com |
| Subject: | Re: Interesting airplane history - off topic |
On 2/28/07, ashontz wrote:
> It wasn't mean to flap, but it does move back and forth a few degrees
> depending on engine RPM and airspeed.
Ah I see ... thanks for clarifying! -- I
--
Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <dredmoody(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LRI versus Stall warning |
Take a look at the AOA Sport system here:
http://www.advanced-control-systems.com/Products/AOA/aoa.html
This system doesn't take much panel space and gives an incremental display of your
relative AOA which is better info than just a threshold warning alone. With
the AFS systems, you can also pipe and audible threshold warning into your speaker
or intercom system to make sure you don't ignore a critical LED display
indication.
The upper and lower wing surface ports can easily be retrofit into removable access
hatches if you have already rivetted the wing closed. Just make certain to
use flush dimpled flat head screws to avoid significantly disturbing the airflow
over the ports. The ports will need to be about 5 - 6 inches aft of the upper
spar rivet line and about 2 - 3 inches aft of the lower one.
Dred
---- LarryMcFarland wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Ive been reading about the Lift Reserve Indicator and stall warning
> indicators and wondering how much
> advantage there is to having a gage with the sensitivity of LRI range
> compared to a sound stall warning indicator
> that provides only a preliminary warning in advance of a stall.
>
> My panel is full and theres little room for anything more than a string
> of small lights. The stall-warning indicator
> seems to do the same thing for about the same effort. Any
> recommendations or opinions on these devices?
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Wacker" <ccwacker(at)HOTMAIL.COM> |
| Subject: | aileron trim system |
About 5 hours.
Chuck Wacker
N601CW Quick Build
>From: "robert stone" <rstone4(at)hot.rr.com>
>Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Zenith-List: aileron trim system
>Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:56:55 -0600
>
>Members
> Can any of you who have built the ZodiacXL with aileron trim tell me
>how long in hours it took you to install the trim system complete ready for
>use.
>
>Tracy Stone
>ZodiacXL
_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month.
Intro*Terms
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: What does it mean? |
| From: | "Gig Giacona" <wr.giacona(at)cox.net> |
Steven,
Please reread my post. I was hardly supportive of the FAA plan. What I said was
it wasn't as bad as it could have been. It well could have had fees any service
used. While the increase in the tax is a fairly hefty bump in many cases it
can be completely avoided by burning Mogas.
Most of the airports where there will be a fee already have landing fees that push
them out of the average LSA flight plan.
I will repeat though that TAXES ARE BAD and I really don't think this one will
pass as is.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97973#97973
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "robert stone" <rstone4(at)hot.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: aileron trim system |
Hi Chuck,
Thanks much for the response. Thats just about what I had it figured
at.
Tracy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wacker" <ccwacker(at)HOTMAIL.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:14 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: aileron trim system
>
> About 5 hours.
>
> Chuck Wacker
> N601CW Quick Build
>
>
>>From: "robert stone" <rstone4(at)hot.rr.com>
>>Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>>To:
>>Subject: Zenith-List: aileron trim system
>>Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:56:55 -0600
>>
>>Members
>> Can any of you who have built the ZodiacXL with aileron trim tell me
>> how long in hours it took you to install the trim system complete ready
>> for use.
>>
>>Tracy Stone
>>ZodiacXL
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a
> month. Intro*Terms
> https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: aileron trim system |
| From: | "Gig Giacona" <wr.giacona(at)cox.net> |
If I remember correctly about an afternoon. This was on an aileron that was not
mounted to the plane and the wing had not yet been built.
[quote="rstone4(at)hot.rr.com"]Members
Can any of you who have built the ZodiacXL with aileron trim tell me how
long in hours it took you to install the trim system complete ready for use.
Tracy Stone
ZodiacXL
> [b]
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97975#97975
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | LRI versus Stall warning |
Not cheap though. The Sport model is about $900 while the Pro model (which I
have) is almost $1500. The system is a better deal if (like Ed) you get it
built-in with the EFS glass panels.
I haven't installed mine and will be using the AOA built into the MGL Enigma
instead. But you can build the same flush-mount ports by buying flush static
port fittings from Spruce. The valve to drain the port on the top of the
wing is just a fuel tank testing valve. If your wing tips are still open
then the numbers from AFS indicate that installing the ports through the
tips will place the probes sufficiently far enough from the wing tips for an
accurate reading and at the correct spots on the chord.
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "raymondj" <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Flying into Canada |
MessageFound these pages on Transport Canada site.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part4/Standards/t4240
2.htm
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp185/4-06/Medical.htm
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:07 PM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Flying into Canada
Don't you have a class 3 for your PPL?
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Phillips
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:45 AM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Flying into Canada
Thanks, Mark
In my case, I would be looking at flying with a PPL, but flying light
sport without a class 3 medical, i.e., with a driver's license. As long as
you're asking, try to find out about that situation. Thank you for looking
into this for us. It would be great if our respective governments would get
together and develop rules with reasonable reciprocity for each other's
pilots.
Terry
Terry your right, I will contact Transport tomorrow. I believe that
the plane is able to enter into Canada but the pilot needs to have a private
or better license. Our Recreational permit in Canada is not allowed to fly
in the U.S. and your LSA permit will not allow you to cross into Canada. Our
Ultralight pilots may cross into the U.S. authorization but the U.S.
Ultralights may not cross into Canada due to the fact that U.S. ultralight
pilots don't have any license. I answered Tim's enquiry knowing that he
holds a private license and did not consider the LSA permit.
Now having said all that and I will check into it for everyone, I know
that harmonization between the two countries is under serious consideration
and we may see something come into effect by years end which would allow LSA
and Recreational permits to cross the border either way. ( but not U.S.
Recreational permit, that is a different animal altogether.) Both planes
Gross and pilots permits are being discussed at Transport Canada's CARAC
meetings.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
Terry Phillips
ttp44(at)rkymtn.net
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhref
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Juan Vega <amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What does it mean? |
i agree that it may nbot pass as is, becuase the GAO has a report that says the
FAA is a terrible revenue collector. this would make FAA a revenue collector.
and off /on peak? this is not a high way, and it looks to privatise the air
usage like a private Hwy.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gig Giacona <wr.giacona(at)cox.net>
>Sent: Feb 28, 2007 3:51 PM
>To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: What does it mean?
>
>
>Steven,
>
>Please reread my post. I was hardly supportive of the FAA plan. What I said was
it wasn't as bad as it could have been. It well could have had fees any service
used. While the increase in the tax is a fairly hefty bump in many cases it
can be completely avoided by burning Mogas.
>
>Most of the airports where there will be a fee already have landing fees that
push them out of the average LSA flight plan.
>
>I will repeat though that TAXES ARE BAD and I really don't think this one will
pass as is.
>
>--------
>W.R. "Gig" Giacona
>601XL Under Construction
>See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97973#97973
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Juan Vega <amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net> |
i subscribe. i bought the entire list of all, going back 1984. the older ones
I find quite informative, the newer ones less so. great stuff on the older ones
about MODs to the 601, how tos, tips and tricks, the newer ones I have recieved
are mostly testimonials (ho-hum)and ADs on Rotax engines, also for sale
estate sales. I think its worth buying the entire set and reading some of the
opld tips, they are still very applicable.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Ian McClelland <macstar(at)raider.co.nz>
>Sent: Feb 24, 2007 2:30 AM
>To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Zenair News
>
>
>Do any list members subscribe to the Zenair Newsletters?
>If so any comments as to the quality/usefulness of the publication?
>On the face of it to me it appears to be necessary to ensure you have the
>latest recommendations and safety information from Zenith. I have some
>reservations about having to pay money for safety related and technical
>information that should be readily available to anyone who has purchased a
>set of plans or a kit.
>An E-mail service would be a low cost option.
>Are there any opinions out there?
>
>Ian McClelland
>New Zealand
>Plans builder of 601XL. Tail and flight controls done. Wings started.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | aileron trim system |
Isn't the position of the large control surfaces actually unchanged by the
trim (dictated by the control cables or tubes). I thought the trim tabs just
deflect small amounts of air on their own.
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LRI versus Stall warning |
Hi Larry,
It is my understanding that the LRI and related
Angle of Attack instruments actually do a lot
more for you than a stall warning device does.
All the stall warning device does is give you a
warning that you may be near a stall.
AOA devices and the LRI actually help you to fly
your plane near the stall without risk of
actually stalling. They work to let you approach
the edge of your envelope no matter how your
plane is loaded or what the weather conditions
are. Using one of these devices you can safely
land and take off at minimum air speeds and
achieve ultimate performance with regard to
landing and takeoff distance as well as obstacle clearance.
I have never flown with one of these devices, but
all the jet pilots swear by them. I actually
built an LRI and will install it on my panel before my first flight.
Good luck,
Paul
XL fuselage
At 10:52 AM 2/28/2007, you wrote:
>
>Hi guys,
>
>Ive been reading about the Lift Reserve
>Indicator and stall warning indicators and wondering how much
>advantage there is to having a gage with the
>sensitivity of LRI range compared to a sound stall warning indicator
>that provides only a preliminary warning in advance of a stall.
>
>My panel is full and theres little room for
>anything more than a string of small lights. The stall-warning indicator
>seems to do the same thing for about the same
>effort. Any recommendations or opinions on these devices?
>
>Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Klaus Truemper <klaus(at)utdallas.edu> |
| Subject: | RE: aileron trim system |
Hi Charles,
You may want to take a look of an alternate, much simpler, trim tab
installation
that does not involve any electric motor and requires no trim tab on the
aileron.
Just go to
http://www.utdallas.edu/~klaus/Airplane/aileron_trim.html
for details.
Best wishes,
Klaus Truemper
--
Klaus Truemper
Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
University of Texas at Dallas
Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and
Computer Science EC31
P.O. Box 830688
Richardson, TX 75083-0688
(972) 883-2712
klaus(at)utdallas.edu
www.utdallas.edu/~klaus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Juan Vega <amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | aileron trim system |
nope, i thought the same thing till I want a flyin in a 601. PLane was at 2000
ft agl. with two dudes in it, it was turing slightly to the left so I hit
the right trim button. Looking left expecting to see the trim tab pointing down
I was surprised to see it up! SO looking at it I I pressed the left button,
pushing the trim down and wow, the plane turned left!. same ion the tail.
The difference between 601 and the GA piper we are used to is the trim when deflected
pushes the entire surface of the control that it is attached to in the
opposite direction. SO when you want to trim to go right the trim come up,
pushing the aileron down, raising the wing. Trim pushes down, then you get up
deflection turning the plane. On a Cub, the crank for trim lowers the leading
edge of the deflecting air up, thus up trim. The trims on the 601 and 701
Move the control surface.
After that, went home and swapped the neccessary wires to correct mine.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Craig Payne <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
>Sent: Feb 28, 2007 4:38 PM
>To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: aileron trim system
>
>
>Isn't the position of the large control surfaces actually unchanged by the
>trim (dictated by the control cables or tubes). I thought the trim tabs just
>deflect small amounts of air on their own.
>
>-- Craig
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LRI versus Stall warning |
You don't bet your life on either device. In normally good weather and a
short strip either one of these would
seem to be capable of giving you an edge getting in short. I've already
experienced a 100-foot drop in wind
shear some 5 years ago and had but 30-feet left on final. A sudden
tailwind would be the same thing and you can't
insure against either event, but I was looking for a preferred mechanism
and may have to design a
electrical multi-light LRI readout to get the job done.
Thanks,
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
> My question is,,, which gauge or indicator do you trust and bet your
> life on ??????
>
> I have never flown with one of these devices, but
> all the jet pilots swear by them. I actually
> built an LRI and will install it on my panel before my first flight.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
>
> >My panel is full and theres little room for
> >anything more than a string of small lights. The stall-warning indicator
> >seems to do the same thing for about the same effort. Any
> recommendations or opinions on these devices?
> >
> >Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
| From: | "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org> |
[quote="naumuk(at)alltel.net"]Hey, guys-
Go back to the start of the string, I didn't say this!! I'm the one who originally
figured the rivet was too short. When the poster said it was the correct
length rivet, the only thing I could think of was the bucking bar wasn't
stout enough.
I tried setting mine by hand using a wimpy piece of metal for backing and
had the same problem until I went with a chunk of steel big enough to be an
anvil.
I have enough stupid observations in the archives. I don't need help to become
a legend- I can do it myself!!
? ? do not archive
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuselage
Townville, Pa
> ---
The bucking bar I have is pretty substantial, as is the table, even if it is wood,
but the table may be contributing to not getting a full set on the rivet.
I'll try it with the bar on the concrete floor.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98046#98046
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LRI versus Stall warning |
Hi Larry,
If you would like to have the LED readout without having to design
it, you might want to look at Elbie's AOA product. His web page is:
http://www.riteangle.com/index.htm
The AOA product gives you similar capabilities to the LRI. I think
they are the same, but Elbie assures me they are actually
different. Still, either one allows you to maintain whatever margin
you want over stall speed.
For me, the big advantage of the LRI is you can build one for under
$100. That is a lot less than the purchase price of any of the
completed products.
Paul
XL fuselage
At 05:31 PM 2/28/2007, you wrote:
>I was looking for a preferred mechanism and may have to design a
>electrical multi-light LRI readout to get the job done.
-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Flying into Canada |
Hi Noel,
The USA doesn't have medical exams for driver's licenses. Instead
there is a system that feeds information about medical conditions
that preclude safe driving from the medical community to the state
driver's license authorities. I don't think this happens very often
- just in cases where a driver gets some condition that makes it
clear that driving should not be done like frequent blackouts or
debilitating strokes. (I don't know exactly how this is determined
or accomplished, but I do know that some such system exists.)
The Sport Pilot license is the first instance of this
behind-the-scenes government intrusion into citizen's medical
condition becoming "Public knowledge" - not that this information is
published in the newspapers, but the notion that "Big Brother" is
watching. Those exercising Sport Pilot privileges actually benefit
from this knowledge since they don't need to have the hokey medical
exam to exercise their pilot privileges. There is background rumor
level talk of extending this to Private Pilots by eliminating the 3rd
class medical requirement if the Sport Pilot program proves
reasonably safe for the public. There have been many people who
questioned the usefulness of all of the FAA medical exams in
enhancing aviation safety for a long time. I don't think we will see
these exams eliminated for commercial or air transport pilots any
time soon, but it seems reasonable to me to allow the same level of
protection against medically unfit pilots for passengers of private
airplane operators as is given to passengers of private automobile operators.
In all cases, pilots are required to "Self - certify" they are
medically fit for every flight. This is not changed by the new
handling of medical certificates.
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 07:08 PM 2/28/2007, you wrote:
>Ok I was wondering because your PPL and class 3 is accepted by
>TC. I don't think the sport pilot license is an issue with TC but
>the drivers license medical is. Some of us have been pushing for a
>similar medical for quite some time but there is no standardization
>of drivers medical requirements. Newfoundland as far as I know
>doesn't even have a drivers license medical for regular drivers
>licences. We do have a medical for large trucks, busses and air brakes.
>
>
>Noel
---------------------------------------------
Paul Mulwitz
32013 NE Dial Road
Camas, WA 98607
---------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Naylor" <dugnaylor(at)HOTMAIL.COM> |
| Subject: | Homemade LRI Gauge Source --Surplus Center |
For those of you who are planning to build your own LRI (Lift Reserve
Indicator) like the one on Scott Laughlin's website (
http://www.cooknwithgas.com/LRI.html ), a very inexpensive source for the
DWYER Minihelic Model 2-5002 2" Water Column Gauge is the Surplus Center--
http://www.surpluscenter.com/sort.aspUID 07030103400260&catname=&byKeyword=yes&search=dwyer
. (Item # 21-1623) Their $11.95 price is by far the cheapest I have seen
the gauges anywhere.
Instructions on how to build your own LRI system can be found on the
CH601.org website @: http://www.ch601.org/resources/aoa/aoa.htm -and-
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/liftreserve.htm The Surplus Center
currently has over 800 of the Minihelic gauges in stock, so they shouldn't
be running out any time soon, but I wouldn't wait too long at this price.
Also, since the Surplus Center buys overstocks and surplus, they often don't
restock items once they are gone off their shelves.
Happy Building,
Doug
Doug Naylor
dugnaylor(at)yahoo.com
Wittman Buttercup -Corvair Powered
--Got Plans and Dreams, no $
_________________________________________________________________
With tax season right around the corner, make sure to follow these few
simple tips.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTips.aspx?icid=HMFebtagline
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | aileron trim system |
..exactly. The Cub is just like virtually every jetliner out there...and the function
is exactly the same as teh 601: the lift vector of teh flying surface is
modified to generate thrust in the direction needed. In one case the main flying
surface incidence is changed so that the new "trail" position of the attached
control surface is changed (Cub/jetliner) and on the other the tab flies
the control surface to a deflection that changes the mean chord line in the entire
flying surface (has the effect of making a upward or downward lifting airfoil
instead of a neutral, symmetrical airfoil). Same effect.
nope, i thought the same thing till I want a flyin in a 601. PLane was at 2000
ft agl. with two dudes in it, it was turing slightly to the left so I hit the
right trim button. Looking left expecting to see the trim tab pointing down I
was surprised to see it up! SO looking at it I I pressed the left button, pushing
the trim down and wow, the plane turned left!. same ion the tail. The difference
between 601 and the GA piper we are used to is the trim when deflected
pushes the entire surface of the control that it is attached to in the opposite
direction. SO when you want to trim to go right the trim come up, pushing the
aileron down, raising the wing. Trim pushes down, then you get up deflection
turning the plane. On a Cub, the crank for trim lowers the leading edge of the
deflecting air up, thus up trim. The trims on the 601 and 701 Move the control
surface.
After that, went home and swapped the neccessary wires to correct mine.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Craig Payne
>Sent: Feb 28, 2007 4:38 PM
>To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: aileron trim system
>
>
>Isn't the position of the large control surfaces actually unchanged by the
>trim (dictated by the control cables or tubes). I thought the trim tabs just
>deflect small amounts of air on their own.
>
>-- Craig
>
>
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brett Hanley <bretttdc(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Hangar door reference website |
Try this website.=0A =0Ahangardoorsecrets.com=0A =0AYou have to pay to ente
r but worth the price. Great information on a lot of different options. G
ood ideas on doing doors on the cheap.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 601XL Canopy fitting process. |
| From: | "Gig Giacona" <wr.giacona(at)cox.net> |
Has anyone come up with a better way to fit the canopy than the use of the plywood
template as shown in 6-C-3A of the assembly manual?
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98120#98120
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Flying into Canada |
That system might work except in the possible case of politicians or
doctors.
My father flew for many years and never actually had a medical
performed.
As a doctor he would only go to a friend who was the flight surgeon and
say,"Here sign this." In almost twenty years his medical consisted of
the
flight surgeon saying, "Ok!"
Politicians would be very similar... Without a medical requirement no
one
would want to be the one to shang-hi their drivers license. The excuse
would be they were told not to drive. There is a medical requirement
now
but only for people over the age of 70.
My father got a notice from Motor Vehicles saying he had to get a
medical to
renew his license. He got the medical ,,, signed. Motor Vehicles
weren't
convinced and requested a practical drivers test. My father who had
suffered a severe stroke refused the drivers test and he was notified
his
license was cancelled. They also asked he return his license so they
could
be sure he wasn't driving. He only complied with that when he moved
into a
palliative care ward.
About ten years ago I had my eyes examined. I had been wearing glasses
for
a while and it was time for a check up. After the examination he told
me I
was actually considered to be legally blind for driving without glasses.
It
was only when I turned 55 and my license had to be renewed that a
corrective
lenses notification turned up on my license even though the optometrist
was
supposed to notify the Department of Motor Vehicle Registration.
Knowing
the optometrist I suspect the notice went form his office the same day.
Knowing Motor Vehicle Registration, it's a wonder it was ever added to
my
licence restriction.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Mulwitz
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 6:51 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Flying into Canada
Hi Noel,
The USA doesn't have medical exams for driver's licenses. Instead there
is
a system that feeds information about medical conditions that preclude
safe
driving from the medical community to the state driver's license
authorities. I don't think this happens very often - just in cases
where a
driver gets some condition that makes it clear that driving should not
be
done like frequent blackouts or debilitating strokes. (I don't know
exactly
how this is determined or accomplished, but I do know that some such
system
exists.)
The Sport Pilot license is the first instance of this behind-the-scenes
government intrusion into citizen's medical condition becoming "Public
knowledge" - not that this information is published in the newspapers,
but
the notion that "Big Brother" is watching. Those exercising Sport Pilot
privileges actually benefit from this knowledge since they don't need to
have the hokey medical exam to exercise their pilot privileges. There
is
background rumor level talk of extending this to Private Pilots by
eliminating the 3rd class medical requirement if the Sport Pilot program
proves reasonably safe for the public. There have been many people who
questioned the usefulness of all of the FAA medical exams in enhancing
aviation safety for a long time. I don't think we will see these exams
eliminated for commercial or air transport pilots any time soon, but it
seems reasonable to me to allow the same level of protection against
medically unfit pilots for passengers of private airplane operators as
is
given to passengers of private automobile operators.
In all cases, pilots are required to "Self - certify" they are medically
fit
for every flight. This is not changed by the new handling of medical
certificates.
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 07:08 PM 2/28/2007, you wrote:
Ok I was wondering because your PPL and class 3 is accepted by TC. I
don't
think the sport pilot license is an issue with TC but the drivers
license
medical is. Some of us have been pushing for a similar medical for
quite
some time but there is no standardization of drivers medical
requirements.
Newfoundland as far as I know doesn't even have a drivers license
medical
for regular drivers licences. We do have a medical for large trucks,
busses
and air brakes.
Noel
---------------------------------------------
Paul Mulwitz
32013 NE Dial Road
Camas, WA 98607
---------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "R.P." <zodie(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
----- Original Message -----
From: "ashontz" <ashontz(at)nbme.org>
> The bucking bar I have is pretty substantial, as is the table, even if it
> is wood, but the table may be contributing to not getting a full set on
> the rivet. I'll try it with the bar on the concrete floor.
>
Try it with the rivet gun in one hand and the bucking bar in the other, or
get someone else to hold the bucking bar. That's the way I was taught many
years ago, it's still the prefered method. Springs and tables are just gonna
add complexity to a simple operation.
Rick Pitcher
millions of rivets shot, only a couple hundred drilled out ;)
Lockheed, Northrop, Grumman... retired and STILL shooting rivets
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jaybannist(at)cs.com |
| Subject: | 601XL Canopy fitting process. |
Gig,
I roughly followed the recommended procedure, but I used some of the heavy corrugated
cardboard from the ZAC packing crates. It was stiff enough to do the job,
and much easier to handle than plywood. It was easy to cut with a box cutter
instead of a jig saw. Changes can be made easily just by moving down on the
template (probably less than an inch) and re-cutting. That can be done several
times before you run out of enough depth.
I was dreading the fitting, too, but this made it relatively painless.
Jay in Dallas
"Gig Giacona" wrote:
>
>Has anyone come up with a better way to fit the canopy than the use of the plywood
template as shown in 6-C-3A of the assembly manual?
>
>--------
>W.R. "Gig" Giacona
>601XL Under Construction
>See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98120#98120
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
| From: | "rickpitcher" <zodie(at)adelphia.net> |
---[/quote]
The bucking bar I have is pretty substantial, as is the table, even if it is wood,
but the table may be contributing to not getting a full set on the rivet.
I'll try it with the bar on the concrete floor.[/quote]
I've been told that my posts appear blank in the web-based matronics list, so I'll
repeat myself here on the web-based list... :
Try it with the rivet gun in one hand and the bucking bar in the other, or
get someone else to hold the bucking bar. That's the way I was taught many
years ago, it's still the prefered method. Springs and tables are just gonna
add complexity to a simple operation.
Rick Pitcher
millions of rivets shot, only a couple hundred drilled out ;)
Lockheed, Northrop, Grumman... retired and STILL shooting rivets
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98153#98153
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ryan Vechinski <brothapig(at)HOTMAIL.COM> |
Ok guys and gals. This email serves two purposes. I need to know what others
do to keep motivated during a project. I've just gotten started in this whole
scratch building process due to the money part of it, after completing the tail
from a kit. Slow going compared to the kit! And I'm wondering if my parts
are going to be alright, and if I'm making them to the right tolerances, if my
bending radius is correct, if .5mm variance is ok, etc etc etc. (I don't need
answers to those questions, I'm just venting :) )
So, onto the second part of this email. Part of my diminishing motivation is the
fact that I'm stuck with one part. I'm working on my spar, and I can't seem
to think of a way to secure the angle to the web while I'm drilling my rivet
holes. It's such a long piece, and I don't want to build in a warp. What have
others done during this phase?
Whew. I feel a little better now. Sorry for the vent.
(by the way, it's a 701)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | LRI versus Stall warning |
About half the AOA/LRI devices I am familiar with produce either an audible
alarm or a voice alert ("angle angle push push"). Just like a stall alarm
you don't have to watch it to improve safety. But when you can watch it you
can improve your understanding of the performance envelope of your plane in
different configurations and situations.
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Hi Ryan,
I am suffering from a slump myself right now. In my case the excuses
range from long lead time for the engine I ordered to a lost dog and
cat who just got diagnosed with diabetes. After nearly two years of
building every day I guess I was due for a little slump.
One of the things folks around here tend to do is build in
groups. We have one group of 4 Sonex being scratch built here and
another group of 4 Zodiac XLs. I don't know how they are doing but I
am sure the group helps keep all of them moving.
Another thing to try is join a local EAA chapter and subscribe to
builder publications like Kitplanes. The regular success stories and
flight reports make me want to finish my plane and go flying soon.
I don't know where you are located, but wherever it is there are
probably other home builders near by.
I didn't build my own spars since I am building from kit, but I
suppose starting by drilling small holes and opening them up while
mated with Clecos would work there -- just like it does when doing
thinner parts. I have never heard of folks doing it that way, but
the old tried and true methods seem to work well.
Good luck,
Paul
XL fuselage
At 10:03 AM 3/1/2007, you wrote:
>
>
>Ok guys and gals. This email serves two purposes. I need to know
>what others do to keep motivated during a project. I've just gotten
>started in this whole scratch building process due to the money part
>of it, after completing the tail from a kit. Slow going compared to
>the kit! And I'm wondering if my parts are going to be alright, and
>if I'm making them to the right tolerances, if my bending radius is
>correct, if .5mm variance is ok, etc etc etc. (I don't need answers
>to those questions, I'm just venting :) )
>
>So, onto the second part of this email. Part of my diminishing
>motivation is the fact that I'm stuck with one part. I'm working on
>my spar, and I can't seem to think of a way to secure the angle to
>the web while I'm drilling my rivet holes. It's such a long piece,
>and I don't want to build in a warp. What have others done during this phase?
>
>Whew. I feel a little better now. Sorry for the vent.
>
>(by the way, it's a 701)
-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Steer" <steerr(at)bellsouth.net> |
Me, too. Seems like I've been wiring forever. And this isn't the first
time. At one point, I discovered that the aft end of my fuselage was out of
kilter and had to rebuild the whole thing. It took a couple of days to get
to it. My 601 is my second homebuilt project. I started on the first one
building "an airplane." Worked and worked, and no airplane in sight. Then
I changed philosophy and viewed each part as an end product in itself. That
helped a lot, and probably improved the quality of each part.
Hang in there. Mistakes and a feeling of having tackled too big a job has
happened to all of us. The EAA chapter idea is a good one, as is just
venting on this list.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Motivation
>
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
> I am suffering from a slump myself right now. In my case the excuses
> range from long lead time for the engine I ordered to a lost dog and cat
> who just got diagnosed with diabetes. After nearly two years of building
> every day I guess I was due for a little slump.
>
> One of the things folks around here tend to do is build in groups. We
> have one group of 4 Sonex being scratch built here and another group of 4
> Zodiac XLs. I don't know how they are doing but I am sure the group helps
> keep all of them moving.
>
> Another thing to try is join a local EAA chapter and subscribe to builder
> publications like Kitplanes. The regular success stories and flight
> reports make me want to finish my plane and go flying soon.
>
> I don't know where you are located, but wherever it is there are probably
> other home builders near by.
>
> I didn't build my own spars since I am building from kit, but I suppose
> starting by drilling small holes and opening them up while mated with
> Clecos would work there -- just like it does when doing thinner parts. I
> have never heard of folks doing it that way, but the old tried and true
> methods seem to work well.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
>
>
> At 10:03 AM 3/1/2007, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>Ok guys and gals. This email serves two purposes. I need to know what
>>others do to keep motivated during a project. I've just gotten started in
>>this whole scratch building process due to the money part of it, after
>>completing the tail from a kit. Slow going compared to the kit! And I'm
>>wondering if my parts are going to be alright, and if I'm making them to
>>the right tolerances, if my bending radius is correct, if .5mm variance is
>>ok, etc etc etc. (I don't need answers to those questions, I'm just
>>venting :) )
>>
>>So, onto the second part of this email. Part of my diminishing motivation
>>is the fact that I'm stuck with one part. I'm working on my spar, and I
>>can't seem to think of a way to secure the angle to the web while I'm
>>drilling my rivet holes. It's such a long piece, and I don't want to
>>build in a warp. What have others done during this phase?
>>
>>Whew. I feel a little better now. Sorry for the vent.
>>
>>(by the way, it's a 701)
>
> -
>
>
> --
> 4:09 PM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? |
| From: | "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com> |
I went ahead and ordered the stock (and some other stuff) from Aircraft Spruce.
Went with the 6061-T6, as in the original piece.
I am going a bit larger on the "base" of the aileron bellcrank (2 inches instead
of 1 inch) so as to utilize an existing line of factory drilled holes for additional
rivets, instead of just drilling 3 in line to hold the bellcrank attachement
onto the rib.
I saw a photo on another guy's website where he did the same thing on his XL, and
I believe the 1/10th of an ounce weight penalty is well worth having an extra
line of rivets in this particular area.
PatrickW
601XL/Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98176#98176
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Juan Vega <amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | aileron trim system |
Dave,
Yeah thats it............i think.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
>Sent: Mar 1, 2007 5:47 AM
>To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: aileron trim system
>
>..exactly. The Cub is just like virtually every jetliner out there...and the function
is exactly the same as teh 601: the lift vector of teh flying surface
is modified to generate thrust in the direction needed. In one case the main flying
surface incidence is changed so that the new "trail" position of the attached
control surface is changed (Cub/jetliner) and on the other the tab flies
the control surface to a deflection that changes the mean chord line in the entire
flying surface (has the effect of making a upward or downward lifting airfoil
instead of a neutral, symmetrical airfoil). Same effect.
>
>
>nope, i thought the same thing till I want a flyin in a 601. PLane was at 2000
ft agl. with two dudes in it, it was turing slightly to the left so I hit the
right trim button. Looking left expecting to see the trim tab pointing down I
was surprised to see it up! SO looking at it I I pressed the left button, pushing
the trim down and wow, the plane turned left!. same ion the tail. The difference
between 601 and the GA piper we are used to is the trim when deflected
pushes the entire surface of the control that it is attached to in the opposite
direction. SO when you want to trim to go right the trim come up, pushing the
aileron down, raising the wing. Trim pushes down, then you get up deflection
turning the plane. On a Cub, the crank for trim lowers the leading edge of the
deflecting air up, thus up trim. The trims on the 601 and 701 Move the control
surface.
>
>After that, went home and swapped the neccessary wires to correct mine.
>
>Juan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Craig Payne
>>Sent: Feb 28, 2007 4:38 PM
>>To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: aileron trim system
>>
>>
>>Isn't the position of the large control surfaces actually unchanged by the
>>trim (dictated by the control cables or tubes). I thought the trim tabs just
>>deflect small amounts of air on their own.
>>
>>-- Craig
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Dave Downey
> Harleysville (SE) PA
> Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Never miss an email again!
>Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net> |
I made my spars and documented the process at mykitlog.com/rlendon. Look back
to about 10-13-2006 and see if it make any sense to you. I have the Spar Caps
pilot drilled first then lined up the ends, of the angles, started the measuring
process in the middle and worked out board from there.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Heading out to the EAA meeting now, I'll check back when I get back in.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
Corvair Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98193#98193
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mack Kreizenbeck" <aprazer(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hangar Doors |
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I have had a lot of experience with the doors like George Race installed in
his hangar. The only thing that I can say is they become more of a
maintenance nightmare the older they get. The wind also plays havoc with
them -- especially the wing (end) doors. There is an old adage "you get what
you pay for"! I really like the bi-folds, especially the ones with the
remote control, but they are really spendy! Your best bet is the doors that
roll on good size "V" type rollers and tracks.
Don't archive!
Mack
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "wade jones" <wjones(at)brazoriainet.com> |
Hello group ,Am I missing something with my control stick /torque tube
.I can find nothing other than the cables from the elevator to keep the
torque tube from coming forward .Have I missed finding a forward stop
somewhere , Seems as though there should be a stop similar to the one
controlling the rearward movement .
Wade Jones South Texas
601XL plans building
Cont. 0200
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mikeandlaurie3(at)netzero.net" <mikeandlaurie3(at)netzero.net> |
Hi from Arizona.
Working on IP and am stumped by dual throttles. If I run a throttle cabl
e on each side of my IP, where does the friction come from? I have a cen
ter stick. If I have a friction control then how does my co-pilot take o
ver in an emergency? Does anyone have some pictures/drawings of their se
tup?
601XL with a WW Corvair conversion. N445ML
Thanks in advance for any help.
Mike Clark, Prescott Valley, AZ
Hi from Arizona.
Working on IP and am stumped by dual throttles. If I run a throttle c
able on each side of my IP, where does the friction come from? I have a
center stick. If I have a friction control then how does my co-pilot tak
e over in an emergency? Does anyone have some pictures/drawings of their
setup?
601XL with a WW Corvair conversion. N445ML
Thanks in advance for any help.
Mike Clark, Prescott Valley, AZ