Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:26 AM - Re: Zenith-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/24/04 (James Neely)
2. 06:36 AM - Re: Re: Zenith-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/24/04 (Thomas F Marson)
3. 07:45 AM - Re: 701 Lands off-field (RURUNY@aol.com)
4. 07:54 AM - Re: Rudder pedal travel (Bob Miller)
5. 10:02 AM - 701 912s Exhaust crack (Dabusmith@aol.com)
6. 11:09 AM - Re: Re: Zenith-List continental 0200 fuel system (Clive Richards)
7. 11:51 AM - Re: 701 Lands off-field (Robert Schoenberger)
8. 12:10 PM - Re: 701 Lands off-field (ZSMITH3rd@aol.com)
9. 12:19 PM - Pilot error: was fuel selectors (Brandon Tucker)
10. 12:41 PM - {Spam?} SWRFI (ronnie wehba)
11. 01:06 PM - Re: Pilot error: was fuel selectors (Ray Montagne)
12. 01:44 PM - Re: Rudder centering and pressures (Thilo Kind)
13. 04:18 PM - Re: Re: Zenith-List continental 0200 fuel system (Thomas F Marson)
14. 04:26 PM - Re: Re: Zenith-List continental 0200 fuel system (Thomas F Marson)
15. 05:30 PM - Intercom + Radio sidetone volume (Frank Jones)
16. 06:58 PM - Re: Pilot error: was fuel selectors (Larry Martin)
17. 07:02 PM - 701 Fuselage help (RURUNY@aol.com)
18. 07:54 PM - Re: Intercom + Radio sidetone volume (Thomas F Marson)
19. 09:53 PM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash, engine choices (Jim Frisby)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Zenith-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/24/04 |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "James Neely" <jneely@cogeco.ca>
I am installing an 0-200 in a 601 and was wondering if any of you who have
done the same used a fuel pump. I get 30gph (imp) w/ gravity feed and
putting a pump in the line slows it down to about 4gph. I could set up the
pump in parallel, but then I'd need to put a check valve in the line,
perhaps slowing the flow again. Also replumbing is a PITA and it would be
great to have the nice simple gravity system. I asked Zenair, but their
answer was a little vague on the 0-200 situation since they have never done
it.
Thoughts?
James
601HD TD
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zenith-List Digest Server" <zenith-list-digest@matronics.com>
Subject: Zenith-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/24/04
> *
>
> ==================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> ==================================================
>
> Today's complete Zenith-List Digest can be also be found in either
> of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest
> formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked
> Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII
> version of the Zenith-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic
> text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list/Digest.Zenith-List.2004-04-24.html
>
> Text Version:
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list/Digest.Zenith-List.2004-04-24.txt
>
>
> ================================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ================================================
>
>
> Zenith-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Sat 04/24/04: 13
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 05:23 AM - Mitchell's 801 crash (Philip A. C.)
> 2. 05:53 AM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (Benford2@aol.com)
> 3. 06:20 AM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (cummings@stingray.net)
> 4. 09:45 AM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (Benford2@aol.com)
> 5. 10:51 AM - why have a fuel selector? (Brett Hanley)
> 6. 11:48 AM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (John Maselli - optonline)
> 7. 01:07 PM - Re: why have a fuel selector? (Ray Montagne)
> 8. 01:12 PM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (wizard-24@juno.com)
> 9. 02:41 PM - 701 Lands off-field (Lowell Metz)
> 10. 03:00 PM - Re: 701 Lands off-field (ZSMITH3rd@aol.com)
> 11. 03:10 PM - Re: 701 Lands off-field (Roger Roy)
> 12. 04:04 PM - Rudder pedal travel (Cdngoose)
> 13. 11:18 PM - Re: Re:Header tanks, balance lines, etc (Kevin W
Bonds)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 05:23:42 AM PST US
> From: "Philip A. C." <paclimited@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Philip A. C." <paclimited@hotmail.com>
>
> Since I read about the Mitchell 801s crash in California, Ive been
> wondering: what on earth could happen to a plane that would scatter it
over
> a two miles long trail?
>
> This was not an airliner, it was a four-seater flown by a lawyer and his
> daughters boyfriend. I doubt very much that they were carrying a warhead
> with them, or that a terrorist slipped a bomb in their luggage, or even
that
> they were mistakenly blown out of the sky by a lost Hellfire missile.
>
> No mention in the report of anything that could indicate a mid-air
> collision, either.
>
> Structural failure? Well, if you lose a wing, thats pretty much it: you
> lose a wing, and you crash in a heap, with the wing falling wherever it
> likes to. If part of the fuselage goes bye-bye, its the same result. If
the
> airplane had broken down due to stress during manoeuvers exceeding its
> limits, I still dont see how it could break down over such a wide area.
>
> A plane ripping off at the seams, with all the rivets going
> pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop? I have my doubts.
>
> Think and think, the only thing I could contrive was the blender-mixer
> effect: the engine mount gives up in a way that allows the mount and the
> engine to fold over, and the prop chops down whatever it can reach in so
> many tiny pieces.
>
> Then, I learned that this particular plane was the one depicted on Zeniths
> site in the article about Lom-engined 801s. I went to my computer, opened
> the 801 folder, and started poring over the files and pictures. There is
> one picture that pops out, the one with that long blue Lom engine sticking
> out of the firewall.
>
> You see that engine mount? I never liked it. The engine is held by four
> mounting points, right? No, wrong. Look again. In engineering, thats what
> is called a typical lack of redundancy: in this particular mount, the
> forward attach points are attached, not to the airframe, but to the rear
> attach points. These are held by welds working in tension. Cant see any
> gusset plate. If one of these welds develops a crack, this attach point
will
> soon fail. And if this happens, your engine will not hang on three other
> points, allowing you to hopefully limp back to ground: most of the weight
> shifts to the two points on the other side, which in fact, as we have
seen,
> hold only on ONE point!
>
> I am really curious to know what really happened to that plane. And Id
like
> to give a look at the recovered engine mount... Anybody knows more?
>
> Philip
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 05:53:02 AM PST US
> From: Benford2@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 4/24/2004 6:24:31 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> paclimited@hotmail.com writes:
>
>
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Philip A. C."
<paclimited@hotmail.com>
> >
> > Since I read about the Mitchell 801s crash in California, Ive been
> > wondering: what on earth could happen to a plane that would scatter it
over
> > a two miles long trail?
> >
> > This was not an airliner, it was a four-seater flown by a lawyer and his
> > daughters boyfriend. I doubt very much that they were carrying a warhead
> > with them, or that a terrorist slipped a bomb in their luggage, or even
that
>
> >
> > they were mistakenly blown out of the sky by a lost Hellfire missile.
> >
> > No mention in the report of anything that could indicate a mid-air
> > collision, either.
> >
> > Structural failure? Well, if you lose a wing, thats pretty much it: you
> > lose a wing, and you crash in a heap, with the wing falling wherever it
> > likes to. If part of the fuselage goes bye-bye, its the same result. If
the
> > airplane had broken down due to stress during manoeuvers exceeding its
> > limits, I still dont see how it could break down over such a wide area.
> >
> > A plane ripping off at the seams, with all the rivets going
> > pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop? I have my doubts.
> >
> > Think and think, the only thing I could contrive was the blender-mixer
> > effect: the engine mount gives up in a way that allows the mount and the
> > engine to fold over, and the prop chops down whatever it can reach in so
> > many tiny pieces.
> >
> > Then, I learned that this particular plane was the one depicted on
Zeniths
> > site in the article about Lom-engined 801s. I went to my computer,
opened
> > the 801 folder, and started poring over the files and pictures. There is
> > one picture that pops out, the one with that long blue Lom engine
sticking
> > out of the firewall.
> >
> > You see that engine mount? I never liked it. The engine is held by four
> > mounting points, right? No, wrong. Look again. In engineering, thats
what
> > is called a typical lack of redundancy: in this particular mount, the
> > forward attach points are attached, not to the airframe, but to the rear
> > attach points. These are held by welds working in tension. Cant see any
> > gusset plate. If one of these welds develops a crack, this attach point
will
>
> >
> > soon fail. And if this happens, your engine will not hang on three other
> > points, allowing you to hopefully limp back to ground: most of the
weight
> > shifts to the two points on the other side, which in fact, as we have
seen,
> > hold only on ONE point!
> >
> > I am really curious to know what really happened to that plane. And Id
like
> > to give a look at the recovered engine mount... Anybody knows more?
> >
> > Philip
> >
> >
>
> Don't get me started !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do not archive
>
> Ben Haas N801BH
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 3
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:20:01 AM PST US
> From: cummings@stingray.net
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: cummings@stingray.net
>
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Philip A. C. wrote:
>
> > Structural failure? Well, if you lose a wing, thats pretty much it: you
> > lose a wing, and you crash in a heap, with the wing falling wherever it
> > likes to. If part of the fuselage goes bye-bye, its the same result. If
the
>
> Not really what can happen if you go by the case that started the modern
> style of investigation according to the NTSB, i.e. the V tail bonanza that
> come apart midair. In that case it did much the same thing as this plane
> and it resulted from so many things that there is now not just a single
> reason they look for but rather a chain of events. It was titled the Saga
> of Beech N801SB not sure of the N number. But, it essentially had the
> tail fail, then the plane fell apart, and I mean everything, the wing spar
> broke, engine ripped off, nothing survived. The pilot and the cadever he
> carried was turned into jelly according to the safety seminar I attended
> many years ago.
>
> So yes, an inflight failure can result in a large wreckage field, though
> there is a tremendous difference in speeds here that would make a person
> wonder about the distance. It does show that it's not a nice neat thing
> however when the airframe self destructs. I saw pictures of that Beech,
> and it's absolutely amazing how little was left of it, even the cabin was
> destroyed in the air.
>
> --
> Matthew P. Cummings
> 1974 Cessna 150L N10667
> Moberly, MO (MBY)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 4
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 09:45:06 AM PST US
> From: Benford2@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 4/24/2004 7:20:46 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> cummings@stingray.net writes:
>
>
> > the case that started the modern
> > style of investigation according to the NTSB, i.e. the V tail bonanza
that
> > come apart midair. In that case it did much the same thing as this
plane
> > and it resulted from so many things that there is now not just a single
> > reason they look for but rather a chain of events. It was titled the
Saga
> > of Beech N801SB not sure of the N number. But, it essentially had the
> > tail fail, then the plane fell apart, and I mean everything, the wing
spar
> > broke, engine ripped off, nothing survived. The pilot and the cadever
he
> > carried was turned into jelly according to the safety seminar I attended
> > many years ago.
> >
> > So yes, an inflight failure can result in a large wreckage field, though
> > there is a tremendous difference in speeds here that would
>
> Here is a link to a newsgroup that brought this crash to my attention. I
was
> srarted by the heli pilot of the TV station that filmed the wreckage. Read
> through it all, there was a link to the TV's vidio of it. I don't know if
they
>
> archive that footage. I was even going to buy the wreckage from the
salvage
> yard but the storage fees were over a thousand back then. Usually the NYSB
> buttens up the report in a year but this one is not close to a final
report. If
>
> anyone knows late breaking nwes I wouls like to hear of it...
> threadm=afcf2e7d.0303170638.4b6fbc0%40posting.google.com&rnum=9&
> prev=/groups%3Fq%3D801%2Bcrash%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3D
>
> Ben Haas N801BH
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 5
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 10:51:03 AM PST US
> From: Brett Hanley <bretttdc@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Zenith-List: why have a fuel selector?
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Brett Hanley <bretttdc@yahoo.com>
>
> Why do we need to have the capacity to switch tanks
> any way? What purpose does it serve? If the plane
> that crashed had a system as per the plans there would
> have been no loss of power. I am of the opinion that
> the simpler the system has fewer failure modes. The
> simpler system is lighter. The simpler system is less
> expensive as well.
>
> Think about it. How many or the recent crashes where
> caused by improvements to the system?
>
> Brett Hanley
> 701 plans built
> San Jose, Costa Rica
>
>
> __________________________________
> http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 6
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 11:48:37 AM PST US
> From: John Maselli - optonline <jfmasell@optonline.net>
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: John Maselli - optonline
<jfmasell@optonline.net>
>
> Hi Ben,
> It's John Maselli i have to tend to agree with you and your theory. I
> also remember pouring over the LOM pic's and remembering that about the
only
> thing i didn't like about the LOM engine was the fact that that engine
mount
> looked way to precarious out there in front of the fuselage. I had my
> doubt's!
> I still haven't made a desicion as to the engine. I liked the LOM but
would
> not use it. Lycoming or continental, subaru?, I'm not sure, but getting
back
> to the crash your theory sounds plausable.
> Yours Truly
> John Maselli
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Benford2@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
>
>
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
> >
> > In a message dated 4/24/2004 6:24:31 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> > paclimited@hotmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Philip A. C."
> <paclimited@hotmail.com>
> > >
> > > Since I read about the Mitchell 801s crash in California, Ive been
> > > wondering: what on earth could happen to a plane that would scatter it
> over
> > > a two miles long trail?
> > >
> > > This was not an airliner, it was a four-seater flown by a lawyer and
his
> > > daughters boyfriend. I doubt very much that they were carrying a
warhead
> > > with them, or that a terrorist slipped a bomb in their luggage, or
even
> that
> > >
> > > they were mistakenly blown out of the sky by a lost Hellfire missile.
> > >
> > > No mention in the report of anything that could indicate a mid-air
> > > collision, either.
> > >
> > > Structural failure? Well, if you lose a wing, thats pretty much it:
you
> > > lose a wing, and you crash in a heap, with the wing falling wherever
it
> > > likes to. If part of the fuselage goes bye-bye, its the same result.
If
> the
> > > airplane had broken down due to stress during manoeuvers exceeding its
> > > limits, I still dont see how it could break down over such a wide
area.
> > >
> > > A plane ripping off at the seams, with all the rivets going
> > > pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop? I have my doubts.
> > >
> > > Think and think, the only thing I could contrive was the blender-mixer
> > > effect: the engine mount gives up in a way that allows the mount and
the
> > > engine to fold over, and the prop chops down whatever it can reach in
so
> > > many tiny pieces.
> > >
> > > Then, I learned that this particular plane was the one depicted on
> Zeniths
> > > site in the article about Lom-engined 801s. I went to my computer,
> opened
> > > the 801 folder, and started poring over the files and pictures. There
is
> > > one picture that pops out, the one with that long blue Lom engine
> sticking
> > > out of the firewall.
> > >
> > > You see that engine mount? I never liked it. The engine is held by
four
> > > mounting points, right? No, wrong. Look again. In engineering, thats
> what
> > > is called a typical lack of redundancy: in this particular mount, the
> > > forward attach points are attached, not to the airframe, but to the
rear
> > > attach points. These are held by welds working in tension. Cant see
any
> > > gusset plate. If one of these welds develops a crack, this attach
point
> will
> > >
> > > soon fail. And if this happens, your engine will not hang on three
other
> > > points, allowing you to hopefully limp back to ground: most of the
> weight
> > > shifts to the two points on the other side, which in fact, as we have
> seen,
> > > hold only on ONE point!
> > >
> > > I am really curious to know what really happened to that plane. And Id
> like
> > > to give a look at the recovered engine mount... Anybody knows more?
> > >
> > > Philip
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Don't get me started !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do not archive
> >
> > Ben Haas N801BH
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 7
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 01:07:54 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: why have a fuel selector?
> From: Ray Montagne <ac6qj@earthlink.net>
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Ray Montagne <ac6qj@earthlink.net>
>
> On 4/24/04 10:50 AM, "Brett Hanley" <bretttdc@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Think about it. How many or the recent crashes where
> > caused by improvements to the system?
> >
>
>
> Probably very few. The real cause is poor management of the system. To a
> large degree, adherence to training and use of check lists (including
> periodic review of the enroute check list - say every 15 minutes or so)
> would avoid most problems with the exception of failure of the system.
>
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
> Best Regards, Ray Montagne
> Cupertino, CA
>
>
===========================================================================
>
> Zenith Aircraft Zodiac CH-601-XL
> Build Status: Rudder completed
> Elevator Completed
> Stabilizer Completed
> Flaps Completed
> Ailerons Completed
> Right Wing Completed
> Right Wing Tip Completed
> Left Wing Completed
> Right Wing Tip Completed
> Fuselage Under Construction
>
> NOTE: Heavy SPAM filters in place. Replies that do not include
> the word 'Zenith' or 'Zodiac' will be rejected and will not
> be viewable by me.
>
>
===========================================================================
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 8
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 01:12:30 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
> From: wizard-24@juno.com
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: wizard-24@juno.com
>
>
> > Since I read about the Mitchell 801s crash in California, Ive been
> > wondering: what on earth could happen to a plane that would scatter
> > it over a two miles long trail?
>
> I'm no NTSB investigator, but I am on a search & rescue team and have
> responded to more light plane crashes than I care to remember. Only thing
> I'll add to this subject is that you would be surprised how wreckage
> scatters. Not unusual at all to have parts thrown over a mile or two.
>
> Mike Fortunato
> 601XL
>
> do not archive
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 9
_____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 02:41:24 PM PST US
> From: "Lowell Metz" <lowellmetz@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Zenith-List: 701 Lands off-field
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Lowell Metz"
<lowellmetz@earthlink.net>
>
> Readers,
> A little heads up for something to check on your pre-flight. This
morning
> with only 12.1 hours on my 701 / 912 UL-S and at 2,500 feet I hears the
engine
> change sound and then smelled hot fiberglass. I was 8 miles from an
airport
> but decided the prudent thing to do was to get out of the air and on to
the ground
> quickly. There was a stretch of road in an undeveloped part of a housing
> development without houses and no electric or phone poles that I could see
so
> I dropped in for a nice ( I was paying a whole lot of attention ) landing.
Right
> in the town of North Port Florida. I had heard an Aircam call the airport
> unicom that I was headed toward and knew he was behind me some distance so
called
> him on the radio. While I waited for him to find me I took the cowl off
> to see what had caused the racket and discovered that the #1 exhaust stack
cracked
> and broke off right at the weld line of the stub stack to the pipe. My
> EGT probe kept the pipe inside the cowl . The Aircam dropped in and flew
me out
> with the pipe. I TIG welded it back together and had a friend drive me
back
> to the plane. Three police cars were there waiting. I put the pipe on,
re-cowled
> it, and took off while the police secured both ends of the road. They were
> great and didn't check for any paperwork and I didn't have to fill out any
> reports.
>
> 1. The 701 can get in and out of pretty short places.
> 2. Check for exhaust cracks even when the engine is fairly new.
>
> Lowell Metz
> Venice, FL.
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 10
____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 03:00:17 PM PST US
> From: ZSMITH3rd@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 Lands off-field
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: ZSMITH3rd@aol.com
>
> Regardless of the circumstances, I was under the impression that a 701 was
> REQUIRED to land off-airport. Congrats on the cool head, quick thinking
and
> easy fix. Texas may not be within gliding distance, but I have a 900 ft
> "dog-leg" strip you're welcome to use. The joke around here is that if
you complete
>
> three takeoffs and landings you qualify for a "Pucker Ribbon". Looks like
you
>
> got yours with only one landing!
> Zed/701/R912/90.xx% do not archive
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 11
____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 03:10:07 PM PST US
> From: "Roger Roy" <Savannah174@msn.com>
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 Lands off-field
> Seal-Send-Time: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 18:10:12 -0400
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Roger Roy" <Savannah174@msn.com>
>
> Lowell, Thanks for the tip. I guess when one says Florida the "Sunshine
State"
> you can mean that literally. I my state of Massachusetts the police are
there
> waiting for you with a citation and all the beauracratic paperwork, anyway
nice
> job!
> RJ
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 12
____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 04:04:36 PM PST US
> From: "Cdngoose" <601xl@sympatico.ca>
> Subject: Zenith-List: Rudder pedal travel
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Cdngoose" <601xl@sympatico.ca>
>
> Can anyone on the list tell me the amount of travel the rudder pedals
> take from neutral to full right and from neutral to full left on any
> series of 601. I'm changing the design and need to calculate the arc of
> the pedals for the brakes.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mark
> 601XL EJ 2.2L
> Alma, Ontario
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 13
____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 11:18:56 PM PST US
> From: "Kevin W Bonds" <kbonds@worldshare.net>
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re:Header tanks, balance lines, etc
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Kevin W Bonds" <kbonds@worldshare.net>
>
>
> > of us who learned flying Pipers, switching tanks is nothing new. I
> > apologize in advance if I offend.
> > Jeff Davidson
> >
>
> Jeff
>
> No offense taken.
>
> Kevin
>
>
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: Zenith-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/24/04 |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Thomas F Marson" <tmarson@pressenter.com>
James, If you really get 30 gals per hour that is more than sufficient.
Adding a pump will do little to improve reliability of fuel flow ---- how
simple is gravity?
But------ I would like ask you to consider the following:
1. The fuel flow of interest is with the plane in the steepest possible
climb angle that the plane can maintain and then add even 10 percent.
2. The test must be run with the fuel head the lowest that you could
imagine. Think of an emergency go around at a short field with high
obstacles and you have just completed a mismanaged XC and have one gallon of
fuel left in the tank.
If you set these parameters I doubt y ou will have 30 gallons per minute of
fuel flow. In that climb angle and with only a gallon or so of fuel per
the rules you should still have 150 percent of maximum.
If you perform this test and find you need a fuel boost I have a plan to
resolve your situation for well less than 100 dollars with redundancy,
simplicity. It uses parallel 12V Facett pumps at the output of the fuel
tank. This is a system I have been successfully using for over 8 years.
In all of the above I am assuming you have a cowl tank for the gravity
feed----is that so?
Tom Marson
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Neely" <jneely@cogeco.ca>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/24/04
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "James Neely" <jneely@cogeco.ca>
>
> I am installing an 0-200 in a 601 and was wondering if any of you who have
> done the same used a fuel pump. I get 30gph (imp) w/ gravity feed and
> putting a pump in the line slows it down to about 4gph. I could set up
the
> pump in parallel, but then I'd need to put a check valve in the line,
> perhaps slowing the flow again. Also replumbing is a PITA and it would
be
> great to have the nice simple gravity system. I asked Zenair, but their
> answer was a little vague on the 0-200 situation since they have never
done
> it.
> Thoughts?
> James
> 601HD TD
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Zenith-List Digest Server" <zenith-list-digest@matronics.com>
> To: "Zenith-List Digest List" <zenith-list-digest@matronics.com>
> Subject: Zenith-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/24/04
>
>
> > *
> >
> > ==================================================
> > Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> > ==================================================
> >
> > Today's complete Zenith-List Digest can be also be found in either
> > of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest
> > formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features
Hyperlinked
> > Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII
> > version of the Zenith-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic
> > text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser.
> >
> > HTML Version:
> >
> >
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list/Digest.Zenith-List.2004-04-24.ht
ml
> >
> > Text Version:
> >
> >
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list/Digest.Zenith-List.2004-04-24.tx
t
> >
> >
> > ================================================
> > EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> > ================================================
> >
> >
> > Zenith-List Digest Archive
> > ---
> > Total Messages Posted Sat 04/24/04: 13
> >
> >
> > Today's Message Index:
> > ----------------------
> >
> > 1. 05:23 AM - Mitchell's 801 crash (Philip A. C.)
> > 2. 05:53 AM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (Benford2@aol.com)
> > 3. 06:20 AM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (cummings@stingray.net)
> > 4. 09:45 AM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (Benford2@aol.com)
> > 5. 10:51 AM - why have a fuel selector? (Brett Hanley)
> > 6. 11:48 AM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (John Maselli - optonline)
> > 7. 01:07 PM - Re: why have a fuel selector? (Ray Montagne)
> > 8. 01:12 PM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (wizard-24@juno.com)
> > 9. 02:41 PM - 701 Lands off-field (Lowell Metz)
> > 10. 03:00 PM - Re: 701 Lands off-field (ZSMITH3rd@aol.com)
> > 11. 03:10 PM - Re: 701 Lands off-field (Roger Roy)
> > 12. 04:04 PM - Rudder pedal travel (Cdngoose)
> > 13. 11:18 PM - Re: Re:Header tanks, balance lines, etc (Kevin W
> Bonds)
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 05:23:42 AM PST US
> > From: "Philip A. C." <paclimited@hotmail.com>
> > Subject: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Philip A. C."
<paclimited@hotmail.com>
> >
> > Since I read about the Mitchell 801s crash in California, Ive been
> > wondering: what on earth could happen to a plane that would scatter it
> over
> > a two miles long trail?
> >
> > This was not an airliner, it was a four-seater flown by a lawyer and his
> > daughters boyfriend. I doubt very much that they were carrying a warhead
> > with them, or that a terrorist slipped a bomb in their luggage, or even
> that
> > they were mistakenly blown out of the sky by a lost Hellfire missile.
> >
> > No mention in the report of anything that could indicate a mid-air
> > collision, either.
> >
> > Structural failure? Well, if you lose a wing, thats pretty much it: you
> > lose a wing, and you crash in a heap, with the wing falling wherever it
> > likes to. If part of the fuselage goes bye-bye, its the same result. If
> the
> > airplane had broken down due to stress during manoeuvers exceeding its
> > limits, I still dont see how it could break down over such a wide area.
> >
> > A plane ripping off at the seams, with all the rivets going
> > pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop? I have my doubts.
> >
> > Think and think, the only thing I could contrive was the blender-mixer
> > effect: the engine mount gives up in a way that allows the mount and the
> > engine to fold over, and the prop chops down whatever it can reach in so
> > many tiny pieces.
> >
> > Then, I learned that this particular plane was the one depicted on
Zeniths
> > site in the article about Lom-engined 801s. I went to my computer,
opened
> > the 801 folder, and started poring over the files and pictures. There is
> > one picture that pops out, the one with that long blue Lom engine
sticking
> > out of the firewall.
> >
> > You see that engine mount? I never liked it. The engine is held by four
> > mounting points, right? No, wrong. Look again. In engineering, thats
what
> > is called a typical lack of redundancy: in this particular mount, the
> > forward attach points are attached, not to the airframe, but to the rear
> > attach points. These are held by welds working in tension. Cant see any
> > gusset plate. If one of these welds develops a crack, this attach point
> will
> > soon fail. And if this happens, your engine will not hang on three other
> > points, allowing you to hopefully limp back to ground: most of the
weight
> > shifts to the two points on the other side, which in fact, as we have
> seen,
> > hold only on ONE point!
> >
> > I am really curious to know what really happened to that plane. And Id
> like
> > to give a look at the recovered engine mount... Anybody knows more?
> >
> > Philip
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 2
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 05:53:02 AM PST US
> > From: Benford2@aol.com
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
> >
> > In a message dated 4/24/2004 6:24:31 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> > paclimited@hotmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Philip A. C."
> <paclimited@hotmail.com>
> > >
> > > Since I read about the Mitchell 801s crash in California, Ive been
> > > wondering: what on earth could happen to a plane that would scatter it
> over
> > > a two miles long trail?
> > >
> > > This was not an airliner, it was a four-seater flown by a lawyer and
his
> > > daughters boyfriend. I doubt very much that they were carrying a
warhead
> > > with them, or that a terrorist slipped a bomb in their luggage, or
even
> that
> >
> > >
> > > they were mistakenly blown out of the sky by a lost Hellfire missile.
> > >
> > > No mention in the report of anything that could indicate a mid-air
> > > collision, either.
> > >
> > > Structural failure? Well, if you lose a wing, thats pretty much it:
you
> > > lose a wing, and you crash in a heap, with the wing falling wherever
it
> > > likes to. If part of the fuselage goes bye-bye, its the same result.
If
> the
> > > airplane had broken down due to stress during manoeuvers exceeding its
> > > limits, I still dont see how it could break down over such a wide
area.
> > >
> > > A plane ripping off at the seams, with all the rivets going
> > > pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop? I have my doubts.
> > >
> > > Think and think, the only thing I could contrive was the blender-mixer
> > > effect: the engine mount gives up in a way that allows the mount and
the
> > > engine to fold over, and the prop chops down whatever it can reach in
so
> > > many tiny pieces.
> > >
> > > Then, I learned that this particular plane was the one depicted on
> Zeniths
> > > site in the article about Lom-engined 801s. I went to my computer,
> opened
> > > the 801 folder, and started poring over the files and pictures. There
is
> > > one picture that pops out, the one with that long blue Lom engine
> sticking
> > > out of the firewall.
> > >
> > > You see that engine mount? I never liked it. The engine is held by
four
> > > mounting points, right? No, wrong. Look again. In engineering, thats
> what
> > > is called a typical lack of redundancy: in this particular mount, the
> > > forward attach points are attached, not to the airframe, but to the
rear
> > > attach points. These are held by welds working in tension. Cant see
any
> > > gusset plate. If one of these welds develops a crack, this attach
point
> will
> >
> > >
> > > soon fail. And if this happens, your engine will not hang on three
other
> > > points, allowing you to hopefully limp back to ground: most of the
> weight
> > > shifts to the two points on the other side, which in fact, as we have
> seen,
> > > hold only on ONE point!
> > >
> > > I am really curious to know what really happened to that plane. And Id
> like
> > > to give a look at the recovered engine mount... Anybody knows more?
> > >
> > > Philip
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Don't get me started !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do not archive
> >
> > Ben Haas N801BH
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 3
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 06:20:01 AM PST US
> > From: cummings@stingray.net
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: cummings@stingray.net
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Philip A. C. wrote:
> >
> > > Structural failure? Well, if you lose a wing, thats pretty much it:
you
> > > lose a wing, and you crash in a heap, with the wing falling wherever
it
> > > likes to. If part of the fuselage goes bye-bye, its the same result.
If
> the
> >
> > Not really what can happen if you go by the case that started the modern
> > style of investigation according to the NTSB, i.e. the V tail bonanza
that
> > come apart midair. In that case it did much the same thing as this
plane
> > and it resulted from so many things that there is now not just a single
> > reason they look for but rather a chain of events. It was titled the
Saga
> > of Beech N801SB not sure of the N number. But, it essentially had the
> > tail fail, then the plane fell apart, and I mean everything, the wing
spar
> > broke, engine ripped off, nothing survived. The pilot and the cadever
he
> > carried was turned into jelly according to the safety seminar I attended
> > many years ago.
> >
> > So yes, an inflight failure can result in a large wreckage field, though
> > there is a tremendous difference in speeds here that would make a person
> > wonder about the distance. It does show that it's not a nice neat thing
> > however when the airframe self destructs. I saw pictures of that Beech,
> > and it's absolutely amazing how little was left of it, even the cabin
was
> > destroyed in the air.
> >
> > --
> > Matthew P. Cummings
> > 1974 Cessna 150L N10667
> > Moberly, MO (MBY)
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 4
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 09:45:06 AM PST US
> > From: Benford2@aol.com
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
> >
> > In a message dated 4/24/2004 7:20:46 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> > cummings@stingray.net writes:
> >
> >
> > > the case that started the modern
> > > style of investigation according to the NTSB, i.e. the V tail bonanza
> that
> > > come apart midair. In that case it did much the same thing as this
> plane
> > > and it resulted from so many things that there is now not just a
single
> > > reason they look for but rather a chain of events. It was titled the
> Saga
> > > of Beech N801SB not sure of the N number. But, it essentially had the
> > > tail fail, then the plane fell apart, and I mean everything, the wing
> spar
> > > broke, engine ripped off, nothing survived. The pilot and the cadever
> he
> > > carried was turned into jelly according to the safety seminar I
attended
> > > many years ago.
> > >
> > > So yes, an inflight failure can result in a large wreckage field,
though
> > > there is a tremendous difference in speeds here that would
> >
> > Here is a link to a newsgroup that brought this crash to my attention.
I
> was
> > srarted by the heli pilot of the TV station that filmed the wreckage.
Read
> > through it all, there was a link to the TV's vidio of it. I don't know
if
> they
> >
> > archive that footage. I was even going to buy the wreckage from the
> salvage
> > yard but the storage fees were over a thousand back then. Usually the
NYSB
> > buttens up the report in a year but this one is not close to a final
> report. If
> >
> > anyone knows late breaking nwes I wouls like to hear of it...
> > threadm=afcf2e7d.0303170638.4b6fbc0%40posting.google.com&rnum=9&
> > prev=/groups%3Fq%3D801%2Bcrash%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3D
> >
> > Ben Haas N801BH
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 5
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 10:51:03 AM PST US
> > From: Brett Hanley <bretttdc@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Zenith-List: why have a fuel selector?
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Brett Hanley <bretttdc@yahoo.com>
> >
> > Why do we need to have the capacity to switch tanks
> > any way? What purpose does it serve? If the plane
> > that crashed had a system as per the plans there would
> > have been no loss of power. I am of the opinion that
> > the simpler the system has fewer failure modes. The
> > simpler system is lighter. The simpler system is less
> > expensive as well.
> >
> > Think about it. How many or the recent crashes where
> > caused by improvements to the system?
> >
> > Brett Hanley
> > 701 plans built
> > San Jose, Costa Rica
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 6
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 11:48:37 AM PST US
> > From: John Maselli - optonline <jfmasell@optonline.net>
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: John Maselli - optonline
> <jfmasell@optonline.net>
> >
> > Hi Ben,
> > It's John Maselli i have to tend to agree with you and your theory.
I
> > also remember pouring over the LOM pic's and remembering that about the
> only
> > thing i didn't like about the LOM engine was the fact that that engine
> mount
> > looked way to precarious out there in front of the fuselage. I had my
> > doubt's!
> > I still haven't made a desicion as to the engine. I liked the LOM but
> would
> > not use it. Lycoming or continental, subaru?, I'm not sure, but getting
> back
> > to the crash your theory sounds plausable.
> > Yours Truly
> > John Maselli
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <Benford2@aol.com>
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
> >
> >
> > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
> > >
> > > In a message dated 4/24/2004 6:24:31 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> > > paclimited@hotmail.com writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Philip A. C."
> > <paclimited@hotmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > Since I read about the Mitchell 801s crash in California, Ive been
> > > > wondering: what on earth could happen to a plane that would scatter
it
> > over
> > > > a two miles long trail?
> > > >
> > > > This was not an airliner, it was a four-seater flown by a lawyer and
> his
> > > > daughters boyfriend. I doubt very much that they were carrying a
> warhead
> > > > with them, or that a terrorist slipped a bomb in their luggage, or
> even
> > that
> > > >
> > > > they were mistakenly blown out of the sky by a lost Hellfire
missile.
> > > >
> > > > No mention in the report of anything that could indicate a mid-air
> > > > collision, either.
> > > >
> > > > Structural failure? Well, if you lose a wing, thats pretty much it:
> you
> > > > lose a wing, and you crash in a heap, with the wing falling wherever
> it
> > > > likes to. If part of the fuselage goes bye-bye, its the same result.
> If
> > the
> > > > airplane had broken down due to stress during manoeuvers exceeding
its
> > > > limits, I still dont see how it could break down over such a wide
> area.
> > > >
> > > > A plane ripping off at the seams, with all the rivets going
> > > > pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop? I have my doubts.
> > > >
> > > > Think and think, the only thing I could contrive was the
blender-mixer
> > > > effect: the engine mount gives up in a way that allows the mount and
> the
> > > > engine to fold over, and the prop chops down whatever it can reach
in
> so
> > > > many tiny pieces.
> > > >
> > > > Then, I learned that this particular plane was the one depicted on
> > Zeniths
> > > > site in the article about Lom-engined 801s. I went to my computer,
> > opened
> > > > the 801 folder, and started poring over the files and pictures.
There
> is
> > > > one picture that pops out, the one with that long blue Lom engine
> > sticking
> > > > out of the firewall.
> > > >
> > > > You see that engine mount? I never liked it. The engine is held by
> four
> > > > mounting points, right? No, wrong. Look again. In engineering, thats
> > what
> > > > is called a typical lack of redundancy: in this particular mount,
the
> > > > forward attach points are attached, not to the airframe, but to the
> rear
> > > > attach points. These are held by welds working in tension. Cant see
> any
> > > > gusset plate. If one of these welds develops a crack, this attach
> point
> > will
> > > >
> > > > soon fail. And if this happens, your engine will not hang on three
> other
> > > > points, allowing you to hopefully limp back to ground: most of the
> > weight
> > > > shifts to the two points on the other side, which in fact, as we
have
> > seen,
> > > > hold only on ONE point!
> > > >
> > > > I am really curious to know what really happened to that plane. And
Id
> > like
> > > > to give a look at the recovered engine mount... Anybody knows more?
> > > >
> > > > Philip
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Don't get me started !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do not archive
> > >
> > > Ben Haas N801BH
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 7
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 01:07:54 PM PST US
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: why have a fuel selector?
> > From: Ray Montagne <ac6qj@earthlink.net>
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Ray Montagne <ac6qj@earthlink.net>
> >
> > On 4/24/04 10:50 AM, "Brett Hanley" <bretttdc@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Think about it. How many or the recent crashes where
> > > caused by improvements to the system?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Probably very few. The real cause is poor management of the system. To
a
> > large degree, adherence to training and use of check lists (including
> > periodic review of the enroute check list - say every 15 minutes or so)
> > would avoid most problems with the exception of failure of the system.
> >
> >
> > DO NOT ARCHIVE
> >
> > Best Regards, Ray Montagne
> > Cupertino, CA
> >
> >
>
===========================================================================
> >
> > Zenith Aircraft Zodiac CH-601-XL
> > Build Status: Rudder completed
> > Elevator Completed
> > Stabilizer Completed
> > Flaps Completed
> > Ailerons Completed
> > Right Wing Completed
> > Right Wing Tip Completed
> > Left Wing Completed
> > Right Wing Tip Completed
> > Fuselage Under Construction
> >
> > NOTE: Heavy SPAM filters in place. Replies that do not include
> > the word 'Zenith' or 'Zodiac' will be rejected and will not
> > be viewable by me.
> >
> >
>
===========================================================================
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 8
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 01:12:30 PM PST US
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
> > From: wizard-24@juno.com
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: wizard-24@juno.com
> >
> >
> > > Since I read about the Mitchell 801s crash in California, Ive been
> > > wondering: what on earth could happen to a plane that would scatter
> > > it over a two miles long trail?
> >
> > I'm no NTSB investigator, but I am on a search & rescue team and have
> > responded to more light plane crashes than I care to remember. Only
thing
> > I'll add to this subject is that you would be surprised how wreckage
> > scatters. Not unusual at all to have parts thrown over a mile or two.
> >
> > Mike Fortunato
> > 601XL
> >
> > do not archive
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 9
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 02:41:24 PM PST US
> > From: "Lowell Metz" <lowellmetz@earthlink.net>
> > Subject: Zenith-List: 701 Lands off-field
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Lowell Metz"
> <lowellmetz@earthlink.net>
> >
> > Readers,
> > A little heads up for something to check on your pre-flight. This
> morning
> > with only 12.1 hours on my 701 / 912 UL-S and at 2,500 feet I hears the
> engine
> > change sound and then smelled hot fiberglass. I was 8 miles from an
> airport
> > but decided the prudent thing to do was to get out of the air and on to
> the ground
> > quickly. There was a stretch of road in an undeveloped part of a
housing
> > development without houses and no electric or phone poles that I could
see
> so
> > I dropped in for a nice ( I was paying a whole lot of attention )
landing.
> Right
> > in the town of North Port Florida. I had heard an Aircam call the
airport
> > unicom that I was headed toward and knew he was behind me some distance
so
> called
> > him on the radio. While I waited for him to find me I took the cowl off
> > to see what had caused the racket and discovered that the #1 exhaust
stack
> cracked
> > and broke off right at the weld line of the stub stack to the pipe. My
> > EGT probe kept the pipe inside the cowl . The Aircam dropped in and
flew
> me out
> > with the pipe. I TIG welded it back together and had a friend drive me
> back
> > to the plane. Three police cars were there waiting. I put the pipe on,
> re-cowled
> > it, and took off while the police secured both ends of the road. They
were
> > great and didn't check for any paperwork and I didn't have to fill out
any
> > reports.
> >
> > 1. The 701 can get in and out of pretty short places.
> > 2. Check for exhaust cracks even when the engine is fairly new.
> >
> > Lowell Metz
> > Venice, FL.
> >
> > Do Not Archive
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 10
> ____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 03:00:17 PM PST US
> > From: ZSMITH3rd@aol.com
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 Lands off-field
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: ZSMITH3rd@aol.com
> >
> > Regardless of the circumstances, I was under the impression that a 701
was
> > REQUIRED to land off-airport. Congrats on the cool head, quick thinking
> and
> > easy fix. Texas may not be within gliding distance, but I have a 900 ft
> > "dog-leg" strip you're welcome to use. The joke around here is that if
> you complete
> >
> > three takeoffs and landings you qualify for a "Pucker Ribbon". Looks
like
> you
> >
> > got yours with only one landing!
> > Zed/701/R912/90.xx% do not archive
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 11
> ____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 03:10:07 PM PST US
> > From: "Roger Roy" <Savannah174@msn.com>
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 Lands off-field
> > Seal-Send-Time: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 18:10:12 -0400
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Roger Roy" <Savannah174@msn.com>
> >
> > Lowell, Thanks for the tip. I guess when one says Florida the "Sunshine
> State"
> > you can mean that literally. I my state of Massachusetts the police are
> there
> > waiting for you with a citation and all the beauracratic paperwork,
anyway
> nice
> > job!
> > RJ
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 12
> ____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 04:04:36 PM PST US
> > From: "Cdngoose" <601xl@sympatico.ca>
> > Subject: Zenith-List: Rudder pedal travel
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Cdngoose" <601xl@sympatico.ca>
> >
> > Can anyone on the list tell me the amount of travel the rudder pedals
> > take from neutral to full right and from neutral to full left on any
> > series of 601. I'm changing the design and need to calculate the arc of
> > the pedals for the brakes.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Mark
> > 601XL EJ 2.2L
> > Alma, Ontario
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 13
> ____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 11:18:56 PM PST US
> > From: "Kevin W Bonds" <kbonds@worldshare.net>
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re:Header tanks, balance lines, etc
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Kevin W Bonds"
<kbonds@worldshare.net>
> >
> >
> > > of us who learned flying Pipers, switching tanks is nothing new. I
> > > apologize in advance if I offend.
> > > Jeff Davidson
> > >
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > No offense taken.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >
>
>
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: 701 Lands off-field |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: RURUNY@aol.com
Lowell,
Very glad you got it in and out without damage to you, plane, or wallet. Nice to
see the police work with you on getting the plane out. Was the exhaust from
Zenith and do you think
the crack formed in the 12.1 hours or was it there all along but not visable.
Brian Unruh 701
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: | Re: Rudder pedal travel |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bob Miller" <drmiller@cvillepsychology.net>
While you're at it, could someone tell me the distance traveled fore and aft
from neutral by the stick, say measured at the fork of the "Y" or other
convenient reference? I'm laying out a center console that will include the
stick.
Thanks,
Bob Miller
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: | 701 912s Exhaust crack |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Dabusmith@aol.com
Lowell
Thanks for the info. It would also be a good idea to check the right
underside of the engine mount at the points where exhaust from #1 and #3 might
be
making contact. I noticed mine had been making contact there. Ben Masengil found
the same problem. He suggested extending the #3 stack about 3/4 in. That worked
for mine. I wouldn't be surprised to find that contributing to your cracking.
Dave Smith
Graham Wa.
N701XL 912ULS
Almost 150 hours of great fun!
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: Zenith-List continental 0200 fuel system |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Clive Richards" <stephen@crichards.flyer.co.uk>
Hi James
I am working with Ray Lasnier on his 601 HD with a
continental 0200
After various designs of his fuel system at the moment we have, the header
tank feeding via a fuel shutoff valve to a gascolator on the fire wall to a
engine driven fuel pump with a parallel facet 40106 electric fuel pump. The
Marvel Carburetor fitted to the engine has a design Min 4 psi & max 6 psi
fuel inlet pressure. We are using the valves in the design of the engine &
electric pumps as the non returns, We can get sufficient gravity flow
through the fuel lines but not design pressure, when we can start the
engine we will test if the engine will actualy run with a gravity feed. So
if you plan to use gravity I would check you have the correct carburetor.
We also have wing tanks which are selected by a Left Right Off fuel selector
ex PA28 on LH cockpit wall to a water trap on cockpit floor & via a facet
40105 electric fuel pump to top of the header tank. At one
time we were to use wing tanks only with a seperate fuel tap on each tank
feed as the XL but Rays inspector would not accept this.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Neely" <jneely@cogeco.ca>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/24/04
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "James Neely" <jneely@cogeco.ca>
>
> I am installing an 0-200 in a 601 and was wondering if any of you who have
> done the same used a fuel pump. I get 30gph (imp) w/ gravity feed and
> putting a pump in the line slows it down to about 4gph. I could set up
the
> pump in parallel, but then I'd need to put a check valve in the line,
> perhaps slowing the flow again. Also replumbing is a PITA and it would
be
> great to have the nice simple gravity system. I asked Zenair, but their
> answer was a little vague on the 0-200 situation since they have never
done
> it.
> Thoughts?
> James
> 601HD TD
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Zenith-List Digest Server" <zenith-list-digest@matronics.com>
> To: "Zenith-List Digest List" <zenith-list-digest@matronics.com>
> Subject: Zenith-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/24/04
>
>
> > *
> >
> > ==================================================
> > Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> > ==================================================
> >
> > Today's complete Zenith-List Digest can be also be found in either
> > of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest
> > formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features
Hyperlinked
> > Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII
> > version of the Zenith-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic
> > text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser.
> >
> > HTML Version:
> >
> >
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list/Digest.Zenith-List.2004-04-24.ht
ml
> >
> > Text Version:
> >
> >
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list/Digest.Zenith-List.2004-04-24.tx
t
> >
> >
> > ================================================
> > EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> > ================================================
> >
> >
> > Zenith-List Digest Archive
> > ---
> > Total Messages Posted Sat 04/24/04: 13
> >
> >
> > Today's Message Index:
> > ----------------------
> >
> > 1. 05:23 AM - Mitchell's 801 crash (Philip A. C.)
> > 2. 05:53 AM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (Benford2@aol.com)
> > 3. 06:20 AM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (cummings@stingray.net)
> > 4. 09:45 AM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (Benford2@aol.com)
> > 5. 10:51 AM - why have a fuel selector? (Brett Hanley)
> > 6. 11:48 AM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (John Maselli - optonline)
> > 7. 01:07 PM - Re: why have a fuel selector? (Ray Montagne)
> > 8. 01:12 PM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (wizard-24@juno.com)
> > 9. 02:41 PM - 701 Lands off-field (Lowell Metz)
> > 10. 03:00 PM - Re: 701 Lands off-field (ZSMITH3rd@aol.com)
> > 11. 03:10 PM - Re: 701 Lands off-field (Roger Roy)
> > 12. 04:04 PM - Rudder pedal travel (Cdngoose)
> > 13. 11:18 PM - Re: Re:Header tanks, balance lines, etc (Kevin W
> Bonds)
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 05:23:42 AM PST US
> > From: "Philip A. C." <paclimited@hotmail.com>
> > Subject: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Philip A. C."
<paclimited@hotmail.com>
> >
> > Since I read about the Mitchell 801s crash in California, Ive been
> > wondering: what on earth could happen to a plane that would scatter it
> over
> > a two miles long trail?
> >
> > This was not an airliner, it was a four-seater flown by a lawyer and his
> > daughters boyfriend. I doubt very much that they were carrying a warhead
> > with them, or that a terrorist slipped a bomb in their luggage, or even
> that
> > they were mistakenly blown out of the sky by a lost Hellfire missile.
> >
> > No mention in the report of anything that could indicate a mid-air
> > collision, either.
> >
> > Structural failure? Well, if you lose a wing, thats pretty much it: you
> > lose a wing, and you crash in a heap, with the wing falling wherever it
> > likes to. If part of the fuselage goes bye-bye, its the same result. If
> the
> > airplane had broken down due to stress during manoeuvers exceeding its
> > limits, I still dont see how it could break down over such a wide area.
> >
> > A plane ripping off at the seams, with all the rivets going
> > pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop? I have my doubts.
> >
> > Think and think, the only thing I could contrive was the blender-mixer
> > effect: the engine mount gives up in a way that allows the mount and the
> > engine to fold over, and the prop chops down whatever it can reach in so
> > many tiny pieces.
> >
> > Then, I learned that this particular plane was the one depicted on
Zeniths
> > site in the article about Lom-engined 801s. I went to my computer,
opened
> > the 801 folder, and started poring over the files and pictures. There is
> > one picture that pops out, the one with that long blue Lom engine
sticking
> > out of the firewall.
> >
> > You see that engine mount? I never liked it. The engine is held by four
> > mounting points, right? No, wrong. Look again. In engineering, thats
what
> > is called a typical lack of redundancy: in this particular mount, the
> > forward attach points are attached, not to the airframe, but to the rear
> > attach points. These are held by welds working in tension. Cant see any
> > gusset plate. If one of these welds develops a crack, this attach point
> will
> > soon fail. And if this happens, your engine will not hang on three other
> > points, allowing you to hopefully limp back to ground: most of the
weight
> > shifts to the two points on the other side, which in fact, as we have
> seen,
> > hold only on ONE point!
> >
> > I am really curious to know what really happened to that plane. And Id
> like
> > to give a look at the recovered engine mount... Anybody knows more?
> >
> > Philip
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 2
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 05:53:02 AM PST US
> > From: Benford2@aol.com
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
> >
> > In a message dated 4/24/2004 6:24:31 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> > paclimited@hotmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Philip A. C."
> <paclimited@hotmail.com>
> > >
> > > Since I read about the Mitchell 801s crash in California, Ive been
> > > wondering: what on earth could happen to a plane that would scatter it
> over
> > > a two miles long trail?
> > >
> > > This was not an airliner, it was a four-seater flown by a lawyer and
his
> > > daughters boyfriend. I doubt very much that they were carrying a
warhead
> > > with them, or that a terrorist slipped a bomb in their luggage, or
even
> that
> >
> > >
> > > they were mistakenly blown out of the sky by a lost Hellfire missile.
> > >
> > > No mention in the report of anything that could indicate a mid-air
> > > collision, either.
> > >
> > > Structural failure? Well, if you lose a wing, thats pretty much it:
you
> > > lose a wing, and you crash in a heap, with the wing falling wherever
it
> > > likes to. If part of the fuselage goes bye-bye, its the same result.
If
> the
> > > airplane had broken down due to stress during manoeuvers exceeding its
> > > limits, I still dont see how it could break down over such a wide
area.
> > >
> > > A plane ripping off at the seams, with all the rivets going
> > > pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop? I have my doubts.
> > >
> > > Think and think, the only thing I could contrive was the blender-mixer
> > > effect: the engine mount gives up in a way that allows the mount and
the
> > > engine to fold over, and the prop chops down whatever it can reach in
so
> > > many tiny pieces.
> > >
> > > Then, I learned that this particular plane was the one depicted on
> Zeniths
> > > site in the article about Lom-engined 801s. I went to my computer,
> opened
> > > the 801 folder, and started poring over the files and pictures. There
is
> > > one picture that pops out, the one with that long blue Lom engine
> sticking
> > > out of the firewall.
> > >
> > > You see that engine mount? I never liked it. The engine is held by
four
> > > mounting points, right? No, wrong. Look again. In engineering, thats
> what
> > > is called a typical lack of redundancy: in this particular mount, the
> > > forward attach points are attached, not to the airframe, but to the
rear
> > > attach points. These are held by welds working in tension. Cant see
any
> > > gusset plate. If one of these welds develops a crack, this attach
point
> will
> >
> > >
> > > soon fail. And if this happens, your engine will not hang on three
other
> > > points, allowing you to hopefully limp back to ground: most of the
> weight
> > > shifts to the two points on the other side, which in fact, as we have
> seen,
> > > hold only on ONE point!
> > >
> > > I am really curious to know what really happened to that plane. And Id
> like
> > > to give a look at the recovered engine mount... Anybody knows more?
> > >
> > > Philip
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Don't get me started !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do not archive
> >
> > Ben Haas N801BH
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 3
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 06:20:01 AM PST US
> > From: cummings@stingray.net
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: cummings@stingray.net
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Philip A. C. wrote:
> >
> > > Structural failure? Well, if you lose a wing, thats pretty much it:
you
> > > lose a wing, and you crash in a heap, with the wing falling wherever
it
> > > likes to. If part of the fuselage goes bye-bye, its the same result.
If
> the
> >
> > Not really what can happen if you go by the case that started the modern
> > style of investigation according to the NTSB, i.e. the V tail bonanza
that
> > come apart midair. In that case it did much the same thing as this
plane
> > and it resulted from so many things that there is now not just a single
> > reason they look for but rather a chain of events. It was titled the
Saga
> > of Beech N801SB not sure of the N number. But, it essentially had the
> > tail fail, then the plane fell apart, and I mean everything, the wing
spar
> > broke, engine ripped off, nothing survived. The pilot and the cadever
he
> > carried was turned into jelly according to the safety seminar I attended
> > many years ago.
> >
> > So yes, an inflight failure can result in a large wreckage field, though
> > there is a tremendous difference in speeds here that would make a person
> > wonder about the distance. It does show that it's not a nice neat thing
> > however when the airframe self destructs. I saw pictures of that Beech,
> > and it's absolutely amazing how little was left of it, even the cabin
was
> > destroyed in the air.
> >
> > --
> > Matthew P. Cummings
> > 1974 Cessna 150L N10667
> > Moberly, MO (MBY)
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 4
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 09:45:06 AM PST US
> > From: Benford2@aol.com
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
> >
> > In a message dated 4/24/2004 7:20:46 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> > cummings@stingray.net writes:
> >
> >
> > > the case that started the modern
> > > style of investigation according to the NTSB, i.e. the V tail bonanza
> that
> > > come apart midair. In that case it did much the same thing as this
> plane
> > > and it resulted from so many things that there is now not just a
single
> > > reason they look for but rather a chain of events. It was titled the
> Saga
> > > of Beech N801SB not sure of the N number. But, it essentially had the
> > > tail fail, then the plane fell apart, and I mean everything, the wing
> spar
> > > broke, engine ripped off, nothing survived. The pilot and the cadever
> he
> > > carried was turned into jelly according to the safety seminar I
attended
> > > many years ago.
> > >
> > > So yes, an inflight failure can result in a large wreckage field,
though
> > > there is a tremendous difference in speeds here that would
> >
> > Here is a link to a newsgroup that brought this crash to my attention.
I
> was
> > srarted by the heli pilot of the TV station that filmed the wreckage.
Read
> > through it all, there was a link to the TV's vidio of it. I don't know
if
> they
> >
> > archive that footage. I was even going to buy the wreckage from the
> salvage
> > yard but the storage fees were over a thousand back then. Usually the
NYSB
> > buttens up the report in a year but this one is not close to a final
> report. If
> >
> > anyone knows late breaking nwes I wouls like to hear of it...
> > threadm=afcf2e7d.0303170638.4b6fbc0%40posting.google.com&rnum=9&
> > prev=/groups%3Fq%3D801%2Bcrash%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3D
> >
> > Ben Haas N801BH
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 5
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 10:51:03 AM PST US
> > From: Brett Hanley <bretttdc@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Zenith-List: why have a fuel selector?
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Brett Hanley <bretttdc@yahoo.com>
> >
> > Why do we need to have the capacity to switch tanks
> > any way? What purpose does it serve? If the plane
> > that crashed had a system as per the plans there would
> > have been no loss of power. I am of the opinion that
> > the simpler the system has fewer failure modes. The
> > simpler system is lighter. The simpler system is less
> > expensive as well.
> >
> > Think about it. How many or the recent crashes where
> > caused by improvements to the system?
> >
> > Brett Hanley
> > 701 plans built
> > San Jose, Costa Rica
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 6
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 11:48:37 AM PST US
> > From: John Maselli - optonline <jfmasell@optonline.net>
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: John Maselli - optonline
> <jfmasell@optonline.net>
> >
> > Hi Ben,
> > It's John Maselli i have to tend to agree with you and your theory.
I
> > also remember pouring over the LOM pic's and remembering that about the
> only
> > thing i didn't like about the LOM engine was the fact that that engine
> mount
> > looked way to precarious out there in front of the fuselage. I had my
> > doubt's!
> > I still haven't made a desicion as to the engine. I liked the LOM but
> would
> > not use it. Lycoming or continental, subaru?, I'm not sure, but getting
> back
> > to the crash your theory sounds plausable.
> > Yours Truly
> > John Maselli
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <Benford2@aol.com>
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
> >
> >
> > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
> > >
> > > In a message dated 4/24/2004 6:24:31 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> > > paclimited@hotmail.com writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Philip A. C."
> > <paclimited@hotmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > Since I read about the Mitchell 801s crash in California, Ive been
> > > > wondering: what on earth could happen to a plane that would scatter
it
> > over
> > > > a two miles long trail?
> > > >
> > > > This was not an airliner, it was a four-seater flown by a lawyer and
> his
> > > > daughters boyfriend. I doubt very much that they were carrying a
> warhead
> > > > with them, or that a terrorist slipped a bomb in their luggage, or
> even
> > that
> > > >
> > > > they were mistakenly blown out of the sky by a lost Hellfire
missile.
> > > >
> > > > No mention in the report of anything that could indicate a mid-air
> > > > collision, either.
> > > >
> > > > Structural failure? Well, if you lose a wing, thats pretty much it:
> you
> > > > lose a wing, and you crash in a heap, with the wing falling wherever
> it
> > > > likes to. If part of the fuselage goes bye-bye, its the same result.
> If
> > the
> > > > airplane had broken down due to stress during manoeuvers exceeding
its
> > > > limits, I still dont see how it could break down over such a wide
> area.
> > > >
> > > > A plane ripping off at the seams, with all the rivets going
> > > > pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop? I have my doubts.
> > > >
> > > > Think and think, the only thing I could contrive was the
blender-mixer
> > > > effect: the engine mount gives up in a way that allows the mount and
> the
> > > > engine to fold over, and the prop chops down whatever it can reach
in
> so
> > > > many tiny pieces.
> > > >
> > > > Then, I learned that this particular plane was the one depicted on
> > Zeniths
> > > > site in the article about Lom-engined 801s. I went to my computer,
> > opened
> > > > the 801 folder, and started poring over the files and pictures.
There
> is
> > > > one picture that pops out, the one with that long blue Lom engine
> > sticking
> > > > out of the firewall.
> > > >
> > > > You see that engine mount? I never liked it. The engine is held by
> four
> > > > mounting points, right? No, wrong. Look again. In engineering, thats
> > what
> > > > is called a typical lack of redundancy: in this particular mount,
the
> > > > forward attach points are attached, not to the airframe, but to the
> rear
> > > > attach points. These are held by welds working in tension. Cant see
> any
> > > > gusset plate. If one of these welds develops a crack, this attach
> point
> > will
> > > >
> > > > soon fail. And if this happens, your engine will not hang on three
> other
> > > > points, allowing you to hopefully limp back to ground: most of the
> > weight
> > > > shifts to the two points on the other side, which in fact, as we
have
> > seen,
> > > > hold only on ONE point!
> > > >
> > > > I am really curious to know what really happened to that plane. And
Id
> > like
> > > > to give a look at the recovered engine mount... Anybody knows more?
> > > >
> > > > Philip
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Don't get me started !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do not archive
> > >
> > > Ben Haas N801BH
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 7
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 01:07:54 PM PST US
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: why have a fuel selector?
> > From: Ray Montagne <ac6qj@earthlink.net>
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Ray Montagne <ac6qj@earthlink.net>
> >
> > On 4/24/04 10:50 AM, "Brett Hanley" <bretttdc@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Think about it. How many or the recent crashes where
> > > caused by improvements to the system?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Probably very few. The real cause is poor management of the system. To
a
> > large degree, adherence to training and use of check lists (including
> > periodic review of the enroute check list - say every 15 minutes or so)
> > would avoid most problems with the exception of failure of the system.
> >
> >
> > DO NOT ARCHIVE
> >
> > Best Regards, Ray Montagne
> > Cupertino, CA
> >
> >
>
===========================================================================
> >
> > Zenith Aircraft Zodiac CH-601-XL
> > Build Status: Rudder completed
> > Elevator Completed
> > Stabilizer Completed
> > Flaps Completed
> > Ailerons Completed
> > Right Wing Completed
> > Right Wing Tip Completed
> > Left Wing Completed
> > Right Wing Tip Completed
> > Fuselage Under Construction
> >
> > NOTE: Heavy SPAM filters in place. Replies that do not include
> > the word 'Zenith' or 'Zodiac' will be rejected and will not
> > be viewable by me.
> >
> >
>
===========================================================================
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 8
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 01:12:30 PM PST US
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
> > From: wizard-24@juno.com
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: wizard-24@juno.com
> >
> >
> > > Since I read about the Mitchell 801s crash in California, Ive been
> > > wondering: what on earth could happen to a plane that would scatter
> > > it over a two miles long trail?
> >
> > I'm no NTSB investigator, but I am on a search & rescue team and have
> > responded to more light plane crashes than I care to remember. Only
thing
> > I'll add to this subject is that you would be surprised how wreckage
> > scatters. Not unusual at all to have parts thrown over a mile or two.
> >
> > Mike Fortunato
> > 601XL
> >
> > do not archive
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 9
> _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 02:41:24 PM PST US
> > From: "Lowell Metz" <lowellmetz@earthlink.net>
> > Subject: Zenith-List: 701 Lands off-field
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Lowell Metz"
> <lowellmetz@earthlink.net>
> >
> > Readers,
> > A little heads up for something to check on your pre-flight. This
> morning
> > with only 12.1 hours on my 701 / 912 UL-S and at 2,500 feet I hears the
> engine
> > change sound and then smelled hot fiberglass. I was 8 miles from an
> airport
> > but decided the prudent thing to do was to get out of the air and on to
> the ground
> > quickly. There was a stretch of road in an undeveloped part of a
housing
> > development without houses and no electric or phone poles that I could
see
> so
> > I dropped in for a nice ( I was paying a whole lot of attention )
landing.
> Right
> > in the town of North Port Florida. I had heard an Aircam call the
airport
> > unicom that I was headed toward and knew he was behind me some distance
so
> called
> > him on the radio. While I waited for him to find me I took the cowl off
> > to see what had caused the racket and discovered that the #1 exhaust
stack
> cracked
> > and broke off right at the weld line of the stub stack to the pipe. My
> > EGT probe kept the pipe inside the cowl . The Aircam dropped in and
flew
> me out
> > with the pipe. I TIG welded it back together and had a friend drive me
> back
> > to the plane. Three police cars were there waiting. I put the pipe on,
> re-cowled
> > it, and took off while the police secured both ends of the road. They
were
> > great and didn't check for any paperwork and I didn't have to fill out
any
> > reports.
> >
> > 1. The 701 can get in and out of pretty short places.
> > 2. Check for exhaust cracks even when the engine is fairly new.
> >
> > Lowell Metz
> > Venice, FL.
> >
> > Do Not Archive
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 10
> ____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 03:00:17 PM PST US
> > From: ZSMITH3rd@aol.com
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 Lands off-field
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: ZSMITH3rd@aol.com
> >
> > Regardless of the circumstances, I was under the impression that a 701
was
> > REQUIRED to land off-airport. Congrats on the cool head, quick thinking
> and
> > easy fix. Texas may not be within gliding distance, but I have a 900 ft
> > "dog-leg" strip you're welcome to use. The joke around here is that if
> you complete
> >
> > three takeoffs and landings you qualify for a "Pucker Ribbon". Looks
like
> you
> >
> > got yours with only one landing!
> > Zed/701/R912/90.xx% do not archive
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 11
> ____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 03:10:07 PM PST US
> > From: "Roger Roy" <Savannah174@msn.com>
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 Lands off-field
> > Seal-Send-Time: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 18:10:12 -0400
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Roger Roy" <Savannah174@msn.com>
> >
> > Lowell, Thanks for the tip. I guess when one says Florida the "Sunshine
> State"
> > you can mean that literally. I my state of Massachusetts the police are
> there
> > waiting for you with a citation and all the beauracratic paperwork,
anyway
> nice
> > job!
> > RJ
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 12
> ____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 04:04:36 PM PST US
> > From: "Cdngoose" <601xl@sympatico.ca>
> > Subject: Zenith-List: Rudder pedal travel
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Cdngoose" <601xl@sympatico.ca>
> >
> > Can anyone on the list tell me the amount of travel the rudder pedals
> > take from neutral to full right and from neutral to full left on any
> > series of 601. I'm changing the design and need to calculate the arc of
> > the pedals for the brakes.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Mark
> > 601XL EJ 2.2L
> > Alma, Ontario
> >
> >
> > ________________________________ Message 13
> ____________________________________
> >
> >
> > Time: 11:18:56 PM PST US
> > From: "Kevin W Bonds" <kbonds@worldshare.net>
> > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re:Header tanks, balance lines, etc
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Kevin W Bonds"
<kbonds@worldshare.net>
> >
> >
> > > of us who learned flying Pipers, switching tanks is nothing new. I
> > > apologize in advance if I offend.
> > > Jeff Davidson
> > >
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > No offense taken.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >
>
>
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: 701 Lands off-field |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Robert Schoenberger" <hrs1@frontiernet.net>
Lowell (do not archive) - this is one of the better 701 stories I have
heard and it's one of the reasons I chose a 701. I'm glad you were not
hurt. We have a place near New Smyrna Beach on the oposite coast, and there
are a lot of areas near there that I wouldn't want toattempt an emergency
landing. In fact, a GA went into the wetlands last year with two
fatalities.
Your landing on a subdivision street reminds me of a book I read about the
development of Cape Coral on the west coast of Florida. It was started by a
couple of guys from New Jersey and was sort of a scam (switching lots,
selling lots that were underwater, etc.) They used to take their plane to
other cities, gather up potential customers, fly them down to Cape Coral and
practically force them to buy a lot. They landed the DC3 (I think) on one
of their subdivision streets. How uncontrolled was aviation then (late 40's
or early 50's)? This is remeniscent of the 1920's in Florida when the
promotors of Hollywood, Coral Gables, etc. used to send hordes of buses out
to a variety of cities in the early morning, collect potential customers,
bus them to the site, feed them a box lunch, and them give them an inspiring
speech on the attributes of buying a lot. Williams Jennings Bryan was the
speaker for Coral Gables. The history of the development of Florida makes
facinating reading. A recommended book is Florida's Promoters by Harner.
I think it still is in print. That's your trivia for today.
I might suggest you (and anyone else in a similar circumstance) write to the
Police Chief complimenting the actions of his men who were at the scene.
Also you might write a letter to the editor of the local paper re same.
I've been in the public arena for a long time with my land development
business, and anytime you can compliment someone in public office, it
usually pays dividends. We in aviation need all the good will we can get.
Just a thought. God Speed. Robert 701 wing and tail complete, working on
second wing. Do not archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell Metz" <lowellmetz@earthlink.net>
Subject: Zenith-List: 701 Lands off-field
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Lowell Metz"
<lowellmetz@earthlink.net>
>
> Readers,
> A little heads up for something to check on your pre-flight. This
morning with only 12.1 hours on my 701 / 912 UL-S and at 2,500 feet I hears
the engine change sound and then smelled hot fiberglass. I was 8 miles from
an airport but decided the prudent thing to do was to get out of the air and
on to the ground quickly. There was a stretch of road in an undeveloped
part of a housing development without houses and no electric or phone poles
that I could see so I dropped in for a nice ( I was paying a whole lot of
attention ) landing. Right in the town of North Port Florida. I had heard
an Aircam call the airport unicom that I was headed toward and knew he was
behind me some distance so called him on the radio. While I waited for him
to find me I took the cowl off to see what had caused the racket and
discovered that the #1 exhaust stack cracked and broke off right at the weld
line of the stub stack to the pipe. My EGT probe kept the pipe inside the
cowl . The Airca!
> m dropped in and flew me out with the pipe. I TIG welded it back together
and had a friend drive me back to the plane. Three police cars were there
waiting. I put the pipe on, re-cowled it, and took off while the police
secured both ends of the road. They were great and didn't check for any
paperwork and I didn't have to fill out any reports.
>
> 1. The 701 can get in and out of pretty short places.
> 2. Check for exhaust cracks even when the engine is fairly new.
>
> Lowell Metz
> Venice, FL.
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 Lands off-field |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: ZSMITH3rd@aol.com
Not to put a damper on any praise of the police in this particular instance,
BUT.......with all the "homeland security" issues, and considering that the
non-flying public constitutes 99.9% of all members of the Flat Earth Society, I
would suggest letting this dog lie. I would not write ANY newspaper. By the
time some cub reporter (who doesn't fly) is assigned the follow-up, we'll be
reading about all those un-licensed 'sport pilot' chaps who have no training,
lack proper manners, build un-safe craft in their garages by dark of night,
have only one engine and are a threat to national security. CNN will then
interview some homeowner, who was not even home at the time, and he'll be some
jerk
with an axe to grind.
The Mayor, bless his pointed political head, will promise an investigation.
State legislators will view this as an opportunity for some TV face time. An
the beat goes on........
Let this one die right where it is.
Zed/701/R912/90.xx% and former investigative muck-raker.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
DO NOT ARCHIVE !!!
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: | Pilot error: was fuel selectors |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Brandon Tucker <btucke73@yahoo.com>
> Think about it. How many or the recent crashes where
> caused by improvements to the system?
>
>Probably very few. The real cause is poor
>management of the system. To a
>large degree, adherence to training and use of >check
lists (including
>periodic review of the enroute check list - say
>every 15 minutes or so)
>would avoid most problems with the exception of
>failure of the system.list,
Take a look through a number of NTSB reports and
you will inevitably see the same term pop up over and
over again. Pilot error. It is easy for those who
through a professional approach and, whether they will
admit it or not, a little luck, have never been
involved in an aircraft mishap to say that adhering to
a checklist every 15 minutes can prevent pilot error
mishaps. When doing case studies on Naval aviation
mishaps, I remember being completely amazed at the
comedy of errors that inevitably preceded every mishap
and the missed steps in the checklists. Personally, I
think the Navy prints checklists to have something to
hang the pilots from after a mishap.
Let's face it, you could have the checklists
memorized, displayed for you on a heads up display or
tattooed to your ass - us mere mortals are going to
miss a step sooner or later and make a mistake. I
have made hundreds - some coming in for an approach to
the back of an aircraft carrier. I have just been
lucky enough not to kill myself - like a few of my
friends did. (who were better pilots than me)
I think that there have been some pretty
interesting ideas posted on the list recently on fuel
systems. Personally, I don't like the idea of having
a header tank over my legs either, but I would rather
take that risk than have the NTSB report come back
saying that while I didn't burn to death, I died
anyway, with fuel in one wing tank but selected to the
other that was empty! No matter how good your training
was and how good you think you are, it CAN happen to
you. The simpler your airplane, the shorter your
checklist, the less likely you will miss a step.
I got a kick out of my safety officer getting
into a mishap after failing to adhere to a checklist.
He was always the one telling us that if we just go by
the book and remember our training, we will never go
wrong!
My two cents. You guys take a check?
Respectfully,
Brandon Tucker
601HDS working on wings
Do not archive
__________________________________
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "ronnie wehba" <rwehba@wtxs.net>
New braunsfuls,tx, next month,,SWRFI
anyone with a 701 gonna be there?
Message 11
| 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: Pilot error: was fuel selectors |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Ray Montagne <ac6qj@earthlink.net>
On 4/25/04 12:19 PM, "Brandon Tucker" <btucke73@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I got a kick out of my safety officer getting
> into a mishap after failing to adhere to a checklist.
> He was always the one telling us that if we just go by
> the book and remember our training, we will never go
> wrong!
Yes - and Scuba Instructors make the worst dive buddies too! Its when we
get arrogant about our abilities that leads to something going wrong that
will humbles us (and hopefully doesn't kill us).
RE CheckLists: I've never read of anyone suffering from a fuel starvation
problem because the check list instructed them to change fuel tanks on
approach. Like most things, check lists are a guide to check our common
sense and to remind us not to forget something. On the other hand, if a
check list doesn't instruct us to do something then it might be a good bet
that doing what is not instructed (relative to a specific phase of flight
covered by the check list) would not be prudent.
Not meaning to argue here but I've never run into a check list in General
Aviation (either Normal or Emergency Procedures) that was so wrong that the
pilot / crew / passengers would be put at risk by that check list. I'd be
interested in hearing the details of any such cases as I'm sure it would be
most educational for all of us...
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Best Regards, Ray Montagne
Cupertino, CA
===========================================================================
Zenith Aircraft Zodiac CH-601-XL
Build Status: Rudder completed
Elevator Completed
Stabilizer Completed
Flaps Completed
Ailerons Completed
Right Wing Completed
Right Wing Tip Completed
Left Wing Completed
Right Wing Tip Completed
Fuselage Under Construction
NOTE: Heavy SPAM filters in place. Replies that do not include
the word 'Zenith' or 'Zodiac' will be rejected and will not
be viewable by me.
===========================================================================
Message 12
| 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: Rudder centering and pressures |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Thilo Kind" <thilo.kind@gmx.net>
Hi Brian,
sorry for the late answer, but was traveling to Sun'n Fun and just made it
back.
Delrin is a trademark for a thermoplastic resin called POM (or Polyactetal).
Nylon is a thermoplastic resin also known as Polyamide. Finally, UHMWPE is a
thermoplastic resin. UHMWPE stands for Ultra High Molecular Weight
Polyethylene. This is a special Polyethylene, which has a very high
viscosity due to the very long molecular chains. It can't be processed by
normals means such as extrusion or injection molding.
Although all three resins have very different properties, all three
materials can be used as bearing material - at least for applications like
we have in our planes. Don't worry about the Nylon - it won't crack.
There was another question regarding cutting boards from K Mart. I tend to
advice against that, cause you don't know, whether they are really made from
UHMWPE. They can also be made from HDPE - same chemical class of resin, but
much shorter molecular chains and thus less usefull as bearing material.
Best regards
Thilo Kind
----- Original Message -----
From: <RURUNY@aol.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Rudder centering and pressures
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: RURUNY@aol.com
>
> John (Croke),
>
> What is Delrin and its properties?
> I have somewhat the same setup as you for the nose centering bearing. I
ordered sheets of Nylon 66 from McMaster Carr one of them 1/4 " thick for
the nose steering. I also slightly shallowed out the V. The other thinner
Nylon 66 is for fairlead material. It seems tough enough. But.... then I saw
another builder site (601) that used UHMW Plastic for his. I ordered a sheet
of this (1/4") from US Plastics corp.
> I have not done anything with this yet but it does seem a softer material.
I cut the pieces slightly higher than the Aluminum, maybe 1/8" or less. I am
concerned about the nylon cracking (or whatever I end up using) in cold
temps, possibly jamming the rudder in flight. I can say (on the bench) with
no bungee installed at all, the nose strut turns alot easier riding on the
nylon.
>
> Thanks
> Brian
>
>
Message 13
| 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: Zenith-List continental 0200 fuel system |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Thomas F Marson" <tmarson@pressenter.com>
Not sure how this fits what your Marvel requirements are. But my
Continental manal says 6 psi max and 1/2 psi min.
In actual practice mine runs very well with a fuel head of as little as 10
inches. This equates to 2/10 psi.
Been flying it for 8 years now I do have boost pumps that will put our about
8 psi to the carb an it flys will with boost on in normal flight (except
for landing and takeoff) I fly with pumps off. Tom Marson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clive Richards" <stephen@crichards.flyer.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith-List continental 0200 fuel system
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Clive Richards"
<stephen@crichards.flyer.co.uk>
>
> Hi James
> I am working with Ray Lasnier on his 601 HD with a
> continental 0200
> After various designs of his fuel system at the moment we have, the header
> tank feeding via a fuel shutoff valve to a gascolator on the fire wall to
a
> engine driven fuel pump with a parallel facet 40106 electric fuel pump.
The
> Marvel Carburetor fitted to the engine has a design Min 4 psi & max 6 psi
> fuel inlet pressure. We are using the valves in the design of the engine &
> electric pumps as the non returns, We can get sufficient gravity flow
> through the fuel lines but not design pressure, when we can start the
> engine we will test if the engine will actualy run with a gravity feed.
So
> if you plan to use gravity I would check you have the correct carburetor.
> We also have wing tanks which are selected by a Left Right Off fuel
selector
> ex PA28 on LH cockpit wall to a water trap on cockpit floor & via a facet
> 40105 electric fuel pump to top of the header tank. At
one
> time we were to use wing tanks only with a seperate fuel tap on each tank
> feed as the XL but Rays inspector would not accept this.
>
> do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Neely" <jneely@cogeco.ca>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/24/04
>
>
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "James Neely" <jneely@cogeco.ca>
> >
> > I am installing an 0-200 in a 601 and was wondering if any of you who
have
> > done the same used a fuel pump. I get 30gph (imp) w/ gravity feed and
> > putting a pump in the line slows it down to about 4gph. I could set up
> the
> > pump in parallel, but then I'd need to put a check valve in the line,
> > perhaps slowing the flow again. Also replumbing is a PITA and it would
> be
> > great to have the nice simple gravity system. I asked Zenair, but their
> > answer was a little vague on the 0-200 situation since they have never
> done
> > it.
> > Thoughts?
> > James
> > 601HD TD
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Zenith-List Digest Server" <zenith-list-digest@matronics.com>
> > To: "Zenith-List Digest List" <zenith-list-digest@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Zenith-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/24/04
> >
> >
> > > *
> > >
> > > ==================================================
> > > Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> > > ==================================================
> > >
> > > Today's complete Zenith-List Digest can be also be found in either
> > > of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest
> > > formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features
> Hyperlinked
> > > Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain
ASCII
> > > version of the Zenith-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic
> > > text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser.
> > >
> > > HTML Version:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list/Digest.Zenith-List.2004-04-24.ht
> ml
> > >
> > > Text Version:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list/Digest.Zenith-List.2004-04-24.tx
> t
> > >
> > >
> > >
Message 14
| 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: Zenith-List continental 0200 fuel system |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Thomas F Marson" <tmarson@pressenter.com>
If that Marvel carb really required 4 lb of pressure to work it could never
be flown gravity feed. That would require a head of more than 12 feet. As
I mentioned previously mine work well with less than 1/4 psi. tom M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clive Richards" <stephen@crichards.flyer.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith-List continental 0200 fuel system
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Clive Richards"
<stephen@crichards.flyer.co.uk>
>
> Hi James
> I am working with Ray Lasnier on his 601 HD with a
> continental 0200
> After various designs of his fuel system at the moment we have, the header
> tank feeding via a fuel shutoff valve to a gascolator on the fire wall to
a
> engine driven fuel pump with a parallel facet 40106 electric fuel pump.
The
> Marvel Carburetor fitted to the engine has a design Min 4 psi & max 6 psi
> fuel inlet pressure. We are using the valves in the design of the engine &
> electric pumps as the non returns, We can get sufficient gravity flow
> through the fuel lines but not design pressure, when we can start the
> engine we will test if the engine will actualy run with a gravity feed.
So
> if you plan to use gravity I would check you have the correct carburetor.
> We also have wing tanks which are selected by a Left Right Off fuel
selector
> ex PA28 on LH cockpit wall to a water trap on cockpit floor & via a facet
> 40105 electric fuel pump to top of the header tank. At
one
> time we were to use wing tanks only with a seperate fuel tap on each tank
> feed as the XL but Rays inspector would not accept this.
>
> do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Neely" <jneely@cogeco.ca>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/24/04
>
>
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "James Neely" <jneely@cogeco.ca>
> >
> > I am installing an 0-200 in a 601 and was wondering if any of you who
have
> > done the same used a fuel pump. I get 30gph (imp) w/ gravity feed and
> > putting a pump in the line slows it down to about 4gph. I could set up
> the
> > pump in parallel, but then I'd need to put a check valve in the line,
> > perhaps slowing the flow again. Also replumbing is a PITA and it would
> be
> > great to have the nice simple gravity system. I asked Zenair, but their
> > answer was a little vague on the 0-200 situation since they have never
> done
> > it.
> > Thoughts?
> > James
> > 601HD TD
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Zenith-List Digest Server" <zenith-list-digest@matronics.com>
> > To: "Zenith-List Digest List" <zenith-list-digest@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Zenith-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 04/24/04
> >
> >
> > > *
> > >
> > > ==================================================
> > >
Message 15
| 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: | Intercom + Radio sidetone volume |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Frank Jones" <fjones@sympatico.ca>
I've just installed a Icom a200 with a Flightcom intercom and wonder if
anyone else has the same combination. On transmission I'm getting
extremely high volume back into my headset. It seems like I'm getting
the sidetone provided by the radio as well as the intercom - basically
double the volume that I should have. Does anyone know of a
configuration to suppress either sidetone on transmit? I would like to
have similar volumes showing up in my headset for both transmit and
receive.
Frank Jones
C-GYXQ 601XL
Message 16
| 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: Pilot error: was fuel selectors |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Larry Martin" <earthloc@att.net>
Run a check list every 15 minutes, that's a little much. Do a good preflight,
watch gauges and stay on top of you situation. Enjoy flying.
I agree with you on a header tank in the cabin. I never did like gas near my ass.
It's probably just a matter of interpretation, but a six gallon plus tank
inside of the fuselage is just a gas tank in the fuselage. A header tank is
a small tank mounted on the firewall that will hold just enough gas ( 2 quarts)
so that you won't starve the engine while in banks opposite of the wing tank
you are using. At least that's my interpretation, right or wrong. Larry N1345L
----- Original Message -----
From: Brandon Tucker
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 2:19 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Pilot error: was fuel selectors
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Brandon Tucker <btucke73@yahoo.com>
> Think about it. How many or the recent crashes where
> caused by improvements to the system?
>
>Probably very few. The real cause is poor
>management of the system. To a
>large degree, adherence to training and use of >check
lists (including
>periodic review of the enroute check list - say
>every 15 minutes or so)
>would avoid most problems with the exception of
>failure of the system.list,
Take a look through a number of NTSB reports and
you will inevitably see the same term pop up over and
over again. Pilot error. It is easy for those who
through a professional approach and, whether they will
admit it or not, a little luck, have never been
involved in an aircraft mishap to say that adhering to
a checklist every 15 minutes can prevent pilot error
mishaps. When doing case studies on Naval aviation
mishaps, I remember being completely amazed at the
comedy of errors that inevitably preceded every mishap
and the missed steps in the checklists. Personally, I
think the Navy prints checklists to have something to
hang the pilots from after a mishap.
Let's face it, you could have the checklists
memorized, displayed for you on a heads up display or
tattooed to your ass - us mere mortals are going to
miss a step sooner or later and make a mistake. I
have made hundreds - some coming in for an approach to
the back of an aircraft carrier. I have just been
lucky enough not to kill myself - like a few of my
friends did. (who were better pilots than me)
I think that there have been some pretty
interesting ideas posted on the list recently on fuel
systems. Personally, I don't like the idea of having
a header tank over my legs either, but I would rather
take that risk than have the NTSB report come back
saying that while I didn't burn to death, I died
anyway, with fuel in one wing tank but selected to the
other that was empty! No matter how good your training
was and how good you think you are, it CAN happen to
you. The simpler your airplane, the shorter your
checklist, the less likely you will miss a step.
I got a kick out of my safety officer getting
into a mishap after failing to adhere to a checklist.
He was always the one telling us that if we just go by
the book and remember our training, we will never go
wrong!
My two cents. You guys take a check?
Respectfully,
Brandon Tucker
601HDS working on wings
Do not archive
__________________________________
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
---
Version: 6.0.581 / Virus Database: 368 - Release Date: 2/9/2004
Message 17
| 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: | 701 Fuselage help |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: RURUNY@aol.com
I'm ready to join the fwd fuselage section to the rear section of my 701 to
make one big
section. Does anyone have any tips, advice or regrets to keep in mind as I go
about doing
this.
Thanks
Brian
Message 18
| 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: Intercom + Radio sidetone volume |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Thomas F Marson" <tmarson@pressenter.com>
I have that combo. Don't press m e on this but I seem to remember a
screwdriver adjustmen on the Icom radio for sidetone volume. tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Jones" <fjones@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Zenith-List: Intercom + Radio sidetone volume
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Frank Jones" <fjones@sympatico.ca>
>
> I've just installed a Icom a200 with a Flightcom intercom and wonder if
> anyone else has the same combination. On transmission I'm getting
> extremely high volume back into my headset. It seems like I'm getting
> the sidetone provided by the radio as well as the intercom - basically
> double the volume that I should have. Does anyone know of a
> configuration to suppress either sidetone on transmit? I would like to
> have similar volumes showing up in my headset for both transmit and
> receive.
>
> Frank Jones
> C-GYXQ 601XL
>
>
Message 19
| 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: Mitchell's 801 crash, engine choices |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jim Frisby" <n801za@hotmail.com>
>Time: 11:48:37 AM PST US
>From: John Maselli - optonline <jfmasell@optonline.net>
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
>
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: John Maselli - optonline
><jfmasell@optonline.net>
>
>Hi Ben,
> It's John Maselli i have to tend to agree with you and your theory. I
>also remember pouring over the LOM pic's and remembering that about the
>only
>thing i didn't like about the LOM engine was the fact that that engine
>mount
>looked way to precarious out there in front of the fuselage. I had my
>doubt's!
>I still haven't made a desicion as to the engine. I liked the LOM but would
>not use it. Lycoming or continental, subaru?, I'm not sure, but getting
>back
>to the crash your theory sounds plausable.
>Yours Truly
>John Maselli
>
John,
On engine choices for 801, I have just completed mine, with a very old
narrow deck O-320, 300 SMOH. I have found the power very adequate, haven't
loaded the airplane above 1600# yet, but I think it would be hard to beat a
320 or 360 Lycoming in this application.
Jim Frisby
N801ZA
(first flight video @ http://www.horizonsignposting.com/N801ZA)
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! --
|