---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 07/22/04: 14 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:25 AM - Re: CH701with floats -- MTOW? Skyshop (Monty Graves) 2. 05:23 AM - Re: Re: CH701with floats -- MTOW? (bryanmmartin@comcast.net) 3. 05:31 AM - Re: ZAC Dinner (Greg Lamoree) 4. 05:42 AM - New Sport Pilot Limits and 601HDS (Phil Raker) 5. 07:01 AM - Re: New Sport Pilot Limits and 601HDS (Bruce Johnson) 6. 08:20 AM - Aileron Trim (Scott Laughlin) 7. 09:04 AM - Re: 601XL or RV9A? (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 8. 09:23 AM - 701 nose bungee... (Bima, Martin) 9. 11:58 AM - Spinner size and sources (john H) 10. 05:19 PM - ZAC Dinner (Lance Gingell) 11. 05:35 PM - Re: 601XL or RV9A? (Ray Montagne) 12. 06:26 PM - flaps, flaperons of no help to LSA stall speeds (Jeff Small) 13. 07:44 PM - 701 Bubble Doors (Larry Martin) 14. 07:56 PM - Re: 701 nose bungee... (JERICKSON03E@aol.com) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:25:32 AM PST US From: Monty Graves Subject: RE: Zenith-List: CH701with floats -- MTOW? Skyshop --> Zenith-List message posted by: Monty Graves Chip, What "Installation angle" did you change. On the floats, or the wings? Monty >--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Chip W. Erwin" > >We changed the installation angle on the 701 which results in slightly >longer take-off runs and significantly improved cruise. The 601XL does not >hae the extreme rotation angles as possible with the 701 so the angle is >already low on the 601. > >CHIP > >CZECH AIRCRAFT WORKS >LUCNI 1824 >686 02 >STARE MESTO, CZECH REPUBLIC >TEL: +420 572 543 456 >FAX: +420 572 543 692 >USA FAX: 772-264-0936 >E-MAIL: AIRCRAFT@CZAW.CZ >WWW.AIRPLANE.CZ > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:23:41 AM PST US From: bryanmmartin@comcast.net Subject: Re: Zenith-List: RE: CH701with floats -- MTOW? --> Zenith-List message posted by: bryanmmartin@comcast.net -------------- Original message -------------- > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gordon Duke" > > Please allow me to pursue my question about the effect of floats on max > take-off weight. I do not see how floats can do anything other than eat up > weight capacity. In my opinion, the issue is possible overstress of the > airframe. The added structural rigging of floats may beef up the front of > the fuselage, but does nothing for the wings and aft fuselage. If I am > flying a 701 at more than 1100 pounds, how can I not have an increased risk > of overstressing the airplane no matter what the source of the extra weight? The floats are rigged to develop enough aerodynamic lift to carry their own weight so they do not reduce the usefull load of the airplane. The wings don't carry the weight of the floats so there is no additional load on the wings. See http://www.zenithair.com/kit-data/floats.htm > In support, I found that the Department of the Interior faced a similar > question of flying amphibian C206's overgross by about 300 pounds. They had > an extensive study and detailed specific directions for when this was to be > allowed This article deals with the effect of carrying extra fuel in the airplane in order to increase the range of the aircraft. The main concerns with floats are the reduction in performance due to the drag and weight of the floats and the possible reduction of yaw stability due to the forces on the floats, not an increase in wing loading. -- N61BM, CH 601 XL, Stratus Subaru. Construction complete. Waiting on the paperwork. do not archive -------------- Original message -------------- -- Zenith-List message posted by: "Gordon Duke" Please allow me to pursue my question about the effect of floats on max take-off weight. I do not see how floats can do anything other than eat up weight capacity. In my opinion, the issue is possible overstress of the airframe. The added structural rigging of floats may beef up the front of the fuselage, but does nothing for the wings and aft fuselage. If I am flying a 701 at more than 1100 pounds, how can I not have an increased risk of overstressing the airplane no matter what the source of the extra weight? The floats are rigged to developenough aerodynamic lift to carry their own weight so they do not reduce the usefull load of the airplane. The wings don't carry the weight of the floats so there is no additional load on the wings. See http://www.zenithair.com/kit-data/floats.htm In support, I found that the Department of the Interior faced a similar question of flying amphibian C206's overgross by about 300 pounds. They had an extensive study and detailed specific directions for when this was to be allowed This article deals with the effect of carrying extra fuel in the airplane in order to increase the range of the aircraft. The main concerns with floatsare the reduction in performance due to the drag and weight of the floats and the possible reduction of yaw stability due to the forces on the floats, not an increase in wing loading. -- N61BM, CH 601 XL, Stratus Subaru. Construction complete. Waiting on the paperwork. do not archive ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:31:48 AM PST US From: "Greg Lamoree" Subject: Zenith-List: Re: ZAC Dinner --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Greg Lamoree" I'll be at the show Tues and Weds... I'm tying to convince the folks I'm going with to stay one more day so that I can make the dinner, but it doesn't look promissing. Looking forward to seeing you all at the ZAC booth! ----------------------- Rudder Done Working on Horiz Stab ----------------------- -- -------------------------- Greg Lamoree Zodiac 601 XL www.GregsPlane.com -------------------------- -- ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 05:42:17 AM PST US From: Phil Raker Subject: Zenith-List: New Sport Pilot Limits and 601HDS --> Zenith-List message posted by: Phil Raker Yes, Tom, There are some of us who have. I'm one who has designed and built a system of drooping ailerons (flaperons) for the HDS. Both ailerons deflect downward by about 15 degrees. Since they are almost full span, this should have a significant effect on stall speed. Since I'm not yet flying, I don't yet know HOW significant that effect will be. I'm hoping it will put me under the 45KT barrier. Chris H. has approved my approach to the issue, but he has asked me not make public the details of how I did it (There are other designs out there, too.) until it's flying and I'm confident that all works well and is safe. Then, I plan to write a brief article for the Zenair News. For those who are anxious to know how well it works, I'm willing to accept volunteered assistance in getting my plane in the air quicker than I can do it alone. You just have to come to my humble airplane factory on Taxiway Alpha at Y91, Lake City, MI. A minor milestone passed yesterday - the plane now has TWO wings mounted! Phil Raker N556P HDS/Stratus ~85% completed > > Time: 08:56:10 PM PST US > From: "Tom Orsborn" > Subject: Zenith-List: New Sport Pilot Limits and 601HDS > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Tom Orsborn" > > Has anyone explored what it takes to get the 601HDS at gross below the new > Sport Pilot limits of 45 knots/52 mph stall speed. > > Tom Orsborn > __________________________________ http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:01:30 AM PST US From: "Bruce Johnson" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: New Sport Pilot Limits and 601HDS --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bruce Johnson" The 45knot stall requirement is "clean", therefore your flaperons would have to be "drooping" all the time to qualify. Bruce > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list- > server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil Raker > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 7:42 AM > To: zenith-list@matronics.com > Subject: Zenith-List: New Sport Pilot Limits and 601HDS > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Phil Raker > > Yes, Tom, > There are some of us who have. I'm one who has designed and built a > system of drooping ailerons (flaperons) for the HDS. Both ailerons > deflect > downward by about 15 degrees. Since they are almost full span, this > should > have a significant effect on stall speed. Since I'm not yet flying, I > don't > yet know HOW significant that effect will be. I'm hoping it will put me > under > the 45KT barrier. Chris H. has approved my approach to the issue, but he > has > asked me not make public the details of how I did it (There are other > designs > out there, too.) until it's flying and I'm confident that all works well > and is > safe. Then, I plan to write a brief article for the Zenair News. > For those who are anxious to know how well it works, I'm willing to > accept > volunteered assistance in getting my plane in the air quicker than I can > do it > alone. You just have to come to my humble airplane factory on Taxiway > Alpha at > Y91, Lake City, MI. > A minor milestone passed yesterday - the plane now has TWO wings > mounted! > > Phil Raker N556P HDS/Stratus ~85% completed > > > > > > Time: 08:56:10 PM PST US > > From: "Tom Orsborn" > > Subject: Zenith-List: New Sport Pilot Limits and 601HDS > > > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Tom Orsborn" orsborn@houston.rr.com> > > > > Has anyone explored what it takes to get the 601HDS at gross below the > new > > Sport Pilot limits of 45 knots/52 mph stall speed. > > > > Tom Orsborn > > > --- ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 08:20:58 AM PST US From: "Scott Laughlin" Subject: Zenith-List: Aileron Trim --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Scott Laughlin" Somebody posted a question about aileron trim a few days ago and I wanted to respond, but accidentally deleted the message. If you still need information on this, email me off-line and I can send you a drawing that may help. Scott Laughlin http://www.cooknwithgas.com/ Website up and running Working on front of fuselage. DO NOT ARCHIVE Discover the best of the best at MSN Luxury Living. http://lexus.msn.com/ ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 09:04:57 AM PST US Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 601XL or RV9A? From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" I think we will have to disagree, but that's OK I have no problem with healthy argument and I will still fly the thing overgross on my once/twice per year camping trip. I do have the following points however... 1) there have been a number of 601's that have come out heavy (800lb empty weights). These A/C have (with Chris Heintz permission) been plated at 1300lb rather than the normal 1200. These A/C have had no further structural modification. A 601HDS is not a fun plane to fly at 1260lbs, don't think I have ever have the need to hit 1300lbs so I would call this MY personal limit. 2) I belive Cessna often have dual ratings, for their 172 (I believe) i.e "normal category" for heavy gross weight and "utility category" for a lighter plane. If you look at the difference between the categories you will find that utility is +4.5G...same as the 601...but normal category is less than this (can't remember what the number is) ...My argument is that if the FAA is happy to accept a lower G limit for "Normal airplanes" it would be reasonable to expect to be able to avoid 4G+ when flying straight and level, even in turbulence...Unless you want to do aerobatics when loaded up...:) 3) I have been in turbulence where I have been banged from wing tip to wingtip and I never felt anything like 4.5 G's. 4) Flying throught the wake of a DC 10 heavy was an interesting experience last Friday...thank heaven for altitude...:) Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ray Montagne Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 601XL or RV9A? --> Zenith-List message posted by: Ray Montagne On 7/21/04 12:47 PM, "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" wrote: > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > > > but for on an occasional basis its OK. I'm not intending to create a big argument but actually it is not OK - ever. Drain a little fuel or leave something behind but please do not fly over gross. You don't know when you might encounter unexpected turbulence that may overstress a component, possibly not to the point of immediate failure but weakening the component such that it no longer can tolerate its original design limits. Be aware that light acceleration forces may lead to catastrophic failure after overloading. Each overload event is cumulative (ask any aerobatic pilot about cumulative stress) and your betting your life (and possibly your passengers) that you'll get away with this in the future because you've gotten away with it in the past. I'm not intending to argue. I am very concerned about your safety. I would very much like to continue to see your posts to this list. I refer you back to and more specifically, search the page for "REAL WORLD RAMIFICATIONS OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE EXISTING BUSH PLANE FLEET". Best regards, Ray Montagne Cupertino, CA == direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. == == == ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:23:47 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: 701 nose bungee... From: "Bima, Martin" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bima, Martin" Looking for bungee cord... What are the specs of the 1,100 GW nose gear bungee? Thickness, length, type, manufacturer, part number? Thanks all, Martin Bima STOL-Vair www.autobahn.mb.ca/~bima ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 11:58:23 AM PST US From: "john H" Subject: Zenith-List: Spinner size and sources --> Zenith-List message posted by: "john H" I was wondering what spinner size people are using wit the big fish mouth style cowlings. I have a 912UL with a 3 blade Warp prop Thanks ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 05:19:09 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: ZAC Dinner From: "Lance Gingell" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Lance Gingell" I'm probably going to attend the dinner. I get into ATW that afternoon. ..lance 601XL, Working on right wing http://lancegingell.com/plane.asp --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Chuck Deiterich" Listers, Is anyone planning to attend the July 29, ZAC dinner at Oshkosh? USA Jabiru is having a gathering the same day but Pete K. says it will last to after dark so I hope to go to it after the ZAC fling. Chuck D. N701TX do not archive ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 05:35:19 PM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 601XL or RV9A? From: Ray Montagne --> Zenith-List message posted by: Ray Montagne On 7/22/04 9:04 AM, "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" wrote: > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > > > I think we will have to disagree, but that's OK I have no problem with > healthy argument and I will still fly the thing overgross on my > once/twice per year camping trip. I do have the following points > however... > > 1) there have been a number of 601's that have come out heavy (800lb > empty weights). These A/C have (with Chris Heintz permission) been > plated at 1300lb rather than the normal 1200. These A/C have had no > further structural modification. A 601HDS is not a fun plane to fly at > 1260lbs, don't think I have ever have the need to hit 1300lbs so I would > call this MY personal limit. Obviously this is still within the design limits or Chris would not have accepted the liability of approving such a thing. I doubt very much that he would approve exceeding the maximum design limits. The specifications on the XL on the ZAC web page are certainly published differently for Sport Pilot (may no longer need to be different) than for Experimental. It is the ultimate design limit that is important. If the maximum gross has been artificially reduced then there is some margin to recover. Exceeding the maximum design limit is a different story... > > 2) I belive Cessna often have dual ratings, for their 172 (I believe) > i.e "normal category" for heavy gross weight and "utility category" for > a lighter plane. Yes, there is two categories but neither exceeds the maximum design limit gross weight. > > 3) I have been in turbulence where I have been banged from wing tip to > wingtip and I never felt anything like 4.5 G's. I have! In VMC and virtually no winds aloft. No Tango Airmet either. Seat belts very tight but my head hit the ceiling several times with substantial acceleration. Count yourself lucky and I hope you continue to be. 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:26:08 PM PST US From: "Jeff Small" Subject: Zenith-List: flaps, flaperons of no help to LSA stall speeds Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:26:53 -0400 --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff Small" from tonight's EAA e-mail hotline: Question of the Week Question for EAA Aviation Information Services: Your summary of the final stall speed (for the sport pilot/light-sport aircraft) rule confuses me a bit. If an aircraft that stalls at less than 45 knots with flaps, can it qualify for LSA even if it stalls at a speed above 45 knots without flaps, or is the only configuration that matters the "clean" stall speed? Answer The aircraft must have a stall speed of 45 knots or less without the use of lift enhancing devices. In other words, a clean stall speed of 45 knots or less. Sorry, but the aircraft you describe in your question would not qualify for operation by sport pilots. ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 07:44:18 PM PST US From: "Larry Martin" Subject: Zenith-List: 701 Bubble Doors --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Larry Martin" I've had some trouble with the bubble doors I purchased from Zenith. Zenith put me in touch with the manufacturer, LP Aero Plastics, Inc. The main problem I had was that the holes for the snap vents were cut 1/8" to large. In addition to that I was having a problem with the doors cracking. My main question/concern was, why the doors were made out of Plexiglas/acrylic instead of Lexan/polycarbonate. I am a firm believer in Lexan and thought that the cracking problem was due to the brittle nature of the Plexiglas. Following are the comments sent to me by the Vice President of the company. Plus they are replacing my doors, which in my book says a lot for the company. Lexan, polycarbonate sheet does have some very positive properties, but there are some huge disadvantages, which were found out by various companies like Skystar, Avid and Murphy. 1. Fuel drains are usually located on the underside of the wing near the door. Any fuel drips onto a polycarbonate window will cause immediate crazing. 2. When heat formed, the optics on the polycarbonate sheet are considered poor as compared to acrylic sheet. 3. Because of the very soft surface, polycarbonate windows will scratch simply by rubbing your fingers across the surface. They cannot be polished back to the original luster as the much harder acrylic sheet can be polished. 4. Normally kit manufacturers recommend use of "POP" rivets to attach the windows to their frames. Buy using this method, polycarbonate windows craze around these fastener holes. Normally acrylic windows are attached using windows mounting channels, with no holes through the acrylic, or oversized holes through the acrylic with mounting screws and nuts. 5. Polycarbonate windows will degrade faster than acrylic in the sunlight and thus require more frequent replacement. 6. The manufacturing process is much more complicated to heat form polycarbonate sheet thus making it a much more costly window to produce. 7. Polycarbonate windows are extremely rare in General Aviation, type certified aircraft. Of over 1500 FAA-PMA windows that we manufacture, only one is made of polycarbonate. These manufacturers understand the many benefits of using acrylic sheet stock in the manufacture of their windshields and windows. Thank you for your cooperation. Best Regards, George Mesiarik Vice President & General Manager LP Aero Plastics, Inc. 1086 Boquet Rd. Jeannette, PA 15644-4707 www.lpaero.com Office: 724-744-4448 Toll-Free: 800-957-2376 Fax: 724-744-3116 Larry Martin, N1345L Take a look at my site. Larry's 701 --- ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 07:56:51 PM PST US From: JERICKSON03E@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 nose bungee... --> Zenith-List message posted by: JERICKSON03E@aol.com See 701 SP print 7-L-1, P/N 1080 5/8" X 8" {inside dimension} Wicks shows several, with that P.N. included and in that size. Different weight's though. So call ZAC and ask for the weight & full PN for the SP. In a message dated 7/22/2004 11:24:20 AM Central Daylight Time, mbima@hydro.mb.ca writes: > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bima, Martin" > > Looking for bungee cord... > > What are the specs of the 1,100 GW nose gear bungee? > > Thickness, length, type, manufacturer, part number? > > Thanks all, > > > Martin Bima > STOL-Vair > www.autobahn.mb.ca/~bima > >