Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:06 AM - Re: Wing spar length - ZodiacXL (David Barth)
2. 09:12 AM - Re: Battery contactors (CBFLESHREN@aol.com)
3. 09:15 AM - Re: Battery contactors addendum (CBFLESHREN@aol.com)
4. 09:17 AM - Zenith Batt Contactor oops! (CBFLESHREN@aol.com)
5. 09:18 AM - Matco Brake apply forces (charles.long@gm.com)
6. 09:49 AM - Re: dzus fasteners (Leo J. Corbalis)
7. 09:58 AM - Re: Matco Brake apply forces (Rick)
8. 05:41 PM - Introduction (Mark Stauffer)
9. 05:56 PM - Re: Wing spar length - ZodiacXL (Gary Gower)
10. 07:36 PM - Re: Best way to connect wire to tail light assembly ZAC sells (nhulin)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing spar length - ZodiacXL |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: David Barth <davids601xl@yahoo.com>
Sorry Scott. That angle is similar to the much used "L". We form it ourselves
(not extruded). It runs the entire length of the main spar on the top and bottom.
They are riveted to the main spar through the spar caps. This allows you
to rivet the skin to the spars. Since their main function is to transfer load
from the skin to the spar it is ok to bend up two shorter pieces and simply
butt them together. Since there will be a small stress concentration where
the butt joint ocurrs, you don't want that joint at a location where there is
already a stress concentration.
When I have drawn it up for submission to Chris Heinze, I can send you a copy.
You will need your own approval of changes like this for your records or your
inspectors will frown.
As Mark mentioned, we still have to worry about that 12 foot nose skin bend. I
suppose we might be able to splice that one as well but I wouldn't want to. So..
we will have to get our heads together on that one when the time comes.
Happy Building
David
Scott Laughlin <cookwithgas@hotmail.com> wrote:--> Zenith-List message posted
by: "Scott Laughlin"
Thanks Dave. I would appreciate an update when the design is approved. By
a long angle, do you mean a length of L-shaped aluminum? Can it be
purchased in longer lengths?
Scott.
David Barth
601 XL Plansbuilder
Currently making parts.
Soob EA-82 SPFI
---------------------------------
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery contactors |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: CBFLESHREN@aol.com
Hey Larry, since no one else came forward yet, I'll give my 2 cents
worth.
You need a good milliohm meter to tell if the the contacts are making a
"great' connection because a "high impedance" ohm meter will most likely show
a direct short (megohms) when the relay is in the "closed" position even if
you rotated the contact say "twenty" degrees. The limit of course is
"rotated" so much so that it prevents the other internal contact from
touching at all. You need to take resistance readings with a milliohm meter
from both of your two similar (if they are) relay's contacts in the closed
position and compare them. In case you don't have a milliohm meter, you can
rig up a homemade one via : <A HREF="http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grnding.pdf">http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grnding.pdf
According to "Lectric Bob" a typical start/batt contactor/relay should be
about 4 milliohms. Failing this test you could note a reading with a milliohm
meter and if the reading is in ohms (higher resistance) try rotating the
suspect contact one way or the other very slightly and recheck until you see
the reading go up to the highest milliohm level you can obtain on the
display. If rotating the conact permanently loosens it, then I guess you're
SOL. Or, skip the effort & remember you might have shifted this contact when
you try to "start or crank" your engine - if it cranks normally you didn't
rotate it too far ! Good Luck !
By the way, I just quietly joined this list last week . Chris
Fleshren in Virginia, USA - Planning on a CH701
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery contactors addendum |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: CBFLESHREN@aol.com
Sorry Larry, correction- that should have been 2 milliohms resistance for
a typical batt/start contactor. Chris Fleshren
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Zenith Batt Contactor oops! |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: CBFLESHREN@aol.com
Sorry all for the MEGA hyperlink miss print. ChrisFleshren
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Matco Brake apply forces |
01/10/2003 12:18:37 PM
--> Zenith-List message posted by: charles.long@gm.com
I took a deeper dive on this brake force issue last night. After
looking at the hardware, the geometry turns out to be more complicated than
I thought. So to make it easier, I went through the numbers on the
computer using AutoCad and Exel to look at mechanical advantage. The
result was not surprising based on the experiences of those that are
already flying - 2.0:1 mechanical advantage. This is below the recommended
2.5:1 minimum suggested by Matco. The geometry can be improved
considerably and it looks like an easy rework for those already flying.
The current configuration has a tube teeing off the rudder petal which is
used to mount the lower end of the master cylinder. The tube is slotted
and using the existing slot, rudder pedal tube center line to master
cylinder mounting center line distance turns out to be about 60mm. If the
slot is made 30 mm deeper, the mounting distance can be reduced to 30 mm.
This increases the mechanical advantage to 3.2:1. If you incorporate the
sleeved master cylinder instead (1/2" pistons), you get a similar
improvement of 3.1:1. Combining the two changes gets you a wopping 5.0:1
The only down side to the deeper slot change that I can see is that the
upper mounting bracket (fairly thin material) will take a higher load.
Also more pedal travel, although theoretically if you get all the air out,
travel should be minimal anyway. Make sure the master cylinder will still
clear the pedal with whatever rework you decide on! My plan will be to
incorporate both changes since builders are still having trouble with their
runups using the 1/2" pistons.
Regards
Chuck Long, 601HDS - 80% complete
---------------------- Forwarded by Charles F. Long/US/ATD/GMC on
01/09/2003 10:21 AM ---------------------------
Charles F. Long
01/08/2003 02:31 PM
cc:
Subject: Matco Brake apply forces
I talked to George at Matco brakes. He gave me some useful
information I thought I should pass along to everyone:
The 601 kit uses a MC5 master cylinder with a 5/8" diameter
piston. The rework previously discussed on the list to improve brake
forces results in a 1/2" piston. The new piston increases mechanical
advantage by 50%. George commented that the biggest problem we have is
with the mechanical advantage in the pedals. Matco recommends a 2.5 : 1
minimum mechanical advantage, 4.0 :1 being ideal. To determine the
mechanical advantage on your plane, simply measure the distance from the
toe brake pivot point to toe brake apply tube centerline and divide by the
distance from the toe brake pivot point to the master cylinder pivot point.
George commented that the large diameter of the built in reservoir on the
MC5 system does not allow for a short moment arm length. He suggested
replacing the MC5 with the smaller diameter MC4 (no reservoir) and adding a
remote reservoir. This provides the added advantage of a better location
for checking fluid level. The cost of the trade in would be roughly $80.
The Matco Internet sight provides an application drawing that is helpful:
www.MatcoMfg.com I'm going to look over my parts to see what can be done
with the existing hardware. If I'm near the 2.5 : 1, the reworked MC5
will take me up close to 4.0 :1 If I'm less than 2.0:1, I'm going to spend
a few bucks and go to the remote resevoir MC4.
Regards,
Chuck Long,
Controls Design Engr.
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: dzus fasteners |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Leo J. Corbalis" <l.corbalis@worldnet.att.net>
I used many DZUZ fasteners. I made a steel template (3 #30 holes for the
rivets and center pilot hole, finish with a unibit) I made a batch of
reinforcement strips of .025 aluminum. I counter sunk the rivet holes in the
plastic cowl with a drill bit and used a set of countersink dies in a hand
punch in metal. Drill a #30 hole for the center through both pieces of the
plane. then use the template for drilling the rivet holes through both the
plane and reinforcement. Cleco together and do the center hole. Counter sink
for rivets and on cowl, epoxy the reinforcements in place and rivet the
springs on before the epoxy sets. I used a plastic washer to retain the
fastener.
Leo Corbalis
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Matco Brake apply forces |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rick <rick.pitcher@verizon.net>
charles.long@gm.com wrote:
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: charles.long@gm.com
>
> I took a deeper dive on this brake force issue last night. After
> looking at the hardware, the geometry turns out to be more complicated than
> I thought. So to make it easier, I went through the numbers on the
> computer using AutoCad and Exel to look at mechanical advantage. The
> result was not surprising based on the experiences of those that are
> already flying - 2.0:1 mechanical advantage. This is below the recommended
> 2.5:1 minimum suggested by Matco. The geometry can be improved
> considerably and it looks like an easy rework for those already flying.
> The current configuration has a tube teeing off the rudder petal which is
> used to mount the lower end of the master cylinder. The tube is slotted
> and using the existing slot, rudder pedal tube center line to master
> cylinder mounting center line distance turns out to be about 60mm. If the
> slot is made 30 mm deeper, the mounting distance can be reduced to 30 mm.
> This increases the mechanical advantage to 3.2:1. If you incorporate the
> sleeved master cylinder instead (1/2" pistons), you get a similar
> improvement of 3.1:1. Combining the two changes gets you a wopping 5.0:1
> The only down side to the deeper slot change that I can see is that the
> upper mounting bracket (fairly thin material) will take a higher load.
> Also more pedal travel, although theoretically if you get all the air out,
> travel should be minimal anyway. Make sure the master cylinder will still
> clear the pedal with whatever rework you decide on! My plan will be to
> incorporate both changes since builders are still having trouble with their
> runups using the 1/2" pistons.
>
> Regards
> Chuck Long, 601HDS - 80%
Chuck, is geometry you worked out for the MC-5 master cylinder or the
MC-4? When I talked to Matco they told me to use the MC-4 instead of the
MC-5 so I could get the master cylinder in as close as possible to the
rudder pedal.
Rick
CH601HD mumbletyfive % done
working on controls, brakes, and landing gear this week :)
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Mark Stauffer <mark.stauffer@comcast.net>
To all,
I just wanted to introduce myself. I've been lurking on this list for the
past couple of months while waiting on my 601XL kit. I'm a first time
builder but have helped buck several thousand rivets on an RV-6 and put a
Maxair Drifter XP503 back into flying shape.
I know I'll have plenty of questions for the group and I look forward to
reading about your experiences.
Mark
Proud owner of 601XL SN: 6-4999
Rudder built at Nov '02 rudder workshop
Big box ships on the 22nd of Jan.
Mark A. Stauffer
mark.stauffer@comcast.net
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing spar length - ZodiacXL |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
How about looking for a shop with a 12' bender for those few parts?
I dont think they will charge you to much... Here is very common to do
that, we have made several friends this way.
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- David Barth <davids601xl@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: David Barth
> <davids601xl@yahoo.com>
>
>
> Sorry Scott. That angle is similar to the much used "L". We form it
> ourselves (not extruded). It runs the entire length of the main spar
> on the top and bottom. They are riveted to the main spar through the
> spar caps. This allows you to rivet the skin to the spars. Since
> their main function is to transfer load from the skin to the spar it
> is ok to bend up two shorter pieces and simply butt them together.
> Since there will be a small stress concentration where the butt joint
> ocurrs, you don't want that joint at a location where there is
> already a stress concentration.
> When I have drawn it up for submission to Chris Heinze, I can send
> you a copy. You will need your own approval of changes like this for
> your records or your inspectors will frown.
> As Mark mentioned, we still have to worry about that 12 foot nose
> skin bend. I suppose we might be able to splice that one as well but
> I wouldn't want to. So.. we will have to get our heads together on
> that one when the time comes.
> Happy Building
> David
> Scott Laughlin <cookwithgas@hotmail.com> wrote:--> Zenith-List
> message posted by: "Scott Laughlin"
>
> Thanks Dave. I would appreciate an update when the design is
> approved. By
> a long angle, do you mean a length of L-shaped aluminum? Can it be
> purchased in longer lengths?
>
> Scott.
>
>
> David Barth
> 601 XL Plansbuilder
> Currently making parts.
> Soob EA-82 SPFI
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Best way to connect wire to tail light assembly ZAC sells |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "nhulin" <nhulin@hotmail.com>
I found that I could loosen the large nut behind the light assembly and turn
the bulb holder 90 degrees. This means that your tabs are now one above the
other and the cable and connectors have a straight line into the rudder
without the slight bend that you find if the tabs are horizontal.
...neil
construction
601XL
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|