Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:09 AM - Matronics 2004 Email List Fund Raiser [PLEASE READ] (Matt Dralle)
2. 03:37 AM - Re: Gross Weight (Stephen Adams)
3. 03:48 AM - Sky Shop custom Interiors for 601 XL (Jeffrey Glasserow)
4. 05:13 AM - Re: Canopy build order (Trevor Page)
5. 05:43 AM - Re: Canopy build order (Bill Howerton)
6. 05:43 AM - Re: Sky Shop custom Interiors for 601 XL (Ron DeWees)
7. 06:00 AM - Subject: Speed, G-Loads, Gross Weight, etc. (Phil Raker)
8. 07:14 AM - Re: Skyshops 701 bubble doors - question (baileys)
9. 07:25 AM - Sand bags (Grant Corriveau)
10. 07:38 AM - 601 heavy left wing (Bob Miller)
11. 08:08 AM - Re: 601 and fuel return line, redux (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
12. 08:21 AM - Re: Sand bags (Mike Fothergill)
13. 08:47 AM - Re: 601 heavy left wing (bryanmmartin@comcast.net)
14. 08:48 AM - Re: 601 heavy left wing (VideoFlyer@aol.com)
15. 09:13 AM - VG's on an 801 (Keystone Engineering LLC)
16. 09:17 AM - Re: 601 heavy left wing (Scott Laughlin)
17. 10:01 AM - Re: Skyshops 701 bubble doors - question (Larry Martin)
18. 11:42 AM - Composite spring gear (Brandon Tucker)
19. 12:01 PM - Re: Sand bags (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
20. 01:40 PM - Re: VG's on an 801 (Land Shorter)
21. 02:29 PM - Re: Sand bags (Tom Zelie)
22. 03:01 PM - Re: 601 heavy left wing (cgalley)
23. 03:07 PM - Re: RE; Gross Weight (Kent Brown)
24. 03:20 PM - Re: 601 heavy left wing (Michel Therrien)
25. 03:29 PM - Re: RE; Gross Weight (Jeff Paden)
26. 03:33 PM - Re: Sand bags (Jeff Paden)
27. 03:46 PM - Re: Gross Weight (Jeff Paden)
28. 04:12 PM - Re: Sand bags (Bryan Martin)
29. 04:12 PM - Re: Sand bags (Frank Jones)
30. 04:37 PM - Re: Gross Weight (VideoFlyer@aol.com)
31. 04:46 PM - Re: 601 heavy left wing (Tim & Diane Shankland)
32. 04:48 PM - Re: Sand bags (Chris Boultinghouse)
33. 05:15 PM - Simple Questions: Builders Logs and more (Crvsecretary@aol.com)
34. 05:48 PM - Re: Sand bags (Jerry Latimer)
35. 05:53 PM - Steering rod boots (Fred Sanford)
36. 05:58 PM - Re: Gross Weight (Michel Therrien)
37. 06:03 PM - Re: Simple Questions: Builders Logs and more (Jack Russell)
38. 06:18 PM - 701 flap handle (Ron Lee)
39. 06:22 PM - Re: Gross Weight (Larry)
40. 06:23 PM - Re: Sand bags (cgalley)
41. 06:43 PM - Re: Steering rod boots (Frank Jones)
42. 06:57 PM - Re: Gross Weight (Jeff Paden)
43. 07:32 PM - Re: Sand bags (Frank Stutzman)
44. 07:45 PM - Suggestions for lowering seat height in a 601 HDS (Jeffrey Glasserow)
45. 08:08 PM - Re: Simple Questions: Builders Logs and more (Pwalsh4539@aol.com)
46. 08:17 PM - Re: Rotax 912 wires (Pwalsh4539@aol.com)
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: | Matronics 2004 Email List Fund Raiser [PLEASE READ] |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
Each November I hold a PBS-like Fund Raiser to support the continued
operation and upgrade of the Email List servers at Matronics. The Lists
sponsored here are supported solely though the direct contributions of its
members each year during the Fund Raiser. As you have likely noticed,
there is no commercial advertising on any of the Lists or on any of the
List-related web sites such as the List Browser and List Search Engine.
That doesn't mean they're free to operate, however. To run a first class,
high-performance, highly-available service such as the Forums at Matronics,
its take resources. These resources fall into the categories of financial
and personnel. As far as "personnel" is concerned, its a one-man show and
I perform all of the work required to operate and upgrade the Lists without
being directly compensated for my work. But that's a labor of love. The
financial resources required, on the other hand, are covered primarily
though the generous contributions of the List members.
Direct costs include, for example, a commercial-grade T1 line Internet
connection dedicated primarily to serving the Lister Community. This T1
Internet connection provides a high-performance, dedicated connection to
the Archive and Browsing Tools and assures the quickest, most reliable
delivery of List messages. It seems like there's always an upgrade
required and this year I've added an all new online backup system to
automatically backup all of the Lists Archives as well as provide for
complete system disaster recovery. This new system would enable me to
restore the email and/or web server systems to 100% in only a couple of
hours if one of them were to blow up.
The number of messages processed by the Matronics Forums continues to
increase as well. In the last 12 months, there have been over 70,000
unique messages posted across the various lists, amounting to well over 32
MILLION messages that have been redistributed to List members in that same
period! The List web site also sees an equally high level of traffic with
some 148,000 Archive searches performed last year and a staggering 13
million web site hits!
During the month of November, I will be sending out a Fund Raiser reminder
message a couple of times a week and I ask for your patience and
understanding during this time. The Fund Raiser is the sole means of
support for the Lists, and the existence and longevity of the Lists hinges
directly its success.
This year once again, Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore has provided a
number of great incentive gifts during the Fund Raiser. Andy provides
these items to me at a substantial discount and they have proven to be very
popular among the Listers. Thank you Andy for your extraordinary
generosity and support of the Lists again this year! Please visit Andy's
web site, the Builder's Bookstore:
http://www.buildersbooks.com
If you use the Matronics Email Lists and enjoy the quick and easy access to
one of the best resources on the Internet for Homebuilt and General
aviation discussion forums, please make a Contribution today to support the
continued operation. Remember, its *your* Contribution that keeps these
Lists running.
The Contribution web site is freshly updated with a list of all new
incentive gifts! Transactions are SSL secured and you can make your
Contribution using a credit card, Paypal, or a personal check. The
Contribution web site can be found at:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your support!!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
do not archive
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: Gross Weight |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Stephen Adams <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
Jeff,
I am building the CH640 so I have followed your
construction quite closely on your website. I think
you need to step back and look at a few things. You
say the engine added an extra 110 pounds and that was
the only modification. What about the electronic
ignition, fuel injection, non-standard air induction,
starter and alternator. Your engine mount is beefier.
The cowl is quite a bit larger. The battery is bigger.
You added steel slides for the seats, added an extra
bulkhead, strengthened the instrument panel, have a
different prop, and have a panel full of avionics and
instruments not in the prototype. A few pounds here
and there adds up.
I think the value of this list is is gives us the
opportunity to get the opinions of others who are not
so emotionally attached to our own projects. I don't
want to offend anyone, but in my opinion, you seem to
be pushing the envelope with your aircraft. You have
have already flown far in excess of the design
limitations. You seem much more concerned about trying
to increase the gross weight than trying to correct
the weight problem. You might want to put your
airplane in the garage and step back for a bit. If the
aircraft doesn't meet your needs, then it seems a
shame to have built such a beautiful aircraft with
such marginal utility, and then dismiss any thought of
bringing it more in line with the original design to
improve the utility and most likely the safety of your
plane. Again, I hope I am not offending you, but
That's my 2-cents.
Steve Adams
--- Jeff Paden <jeffpaden@madbbs.com> wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff Paden"
> <jeffpaden@madbbs.com>
>
> Actually I did not deviate from the design. The
> engine I installed is prop
> limited to 240 hp which is the max allowed hp and
> the installed engine
> weight is a few pounds below the published max.
> Also Chris approved the
> installation of this engine before I even purchased
> it.
> I made sure to check everything before putting the
> past two years into
> building her and ZAC has always been very good at
> answering any questions I
> had while building. We have actually helped each
> other out quite a bit over
> the past two years. I am the one that fixed the CD
> they send to all
> builders since the one they sent to me did not work
> at all and my business
> at that time was web page design and the CD is
> nothing more than a web page
> on CD. We have a good working relationship and I am
> sure that if I can ever
> get ahold of them that they will be able to clear up
> most of my questions
>
> Thank you for your input though
>
> Jeff Paden
>
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "cgalley"
> <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> Hate to burst your bubble. The stall speed is
> probably much higher even
> though you airspeed says 45 mph. Most airspeeds are
> very inaccurate at low
> speed due to positional errors of the pitot. Using
> my Bellanca 14-13-2 the
> listed speed is 48 MPH but I see an indicated
> airspeed of 38 MPH before the
> break. You might want to get out the GPS and see
> what it says by trying
> several directions to cancel out the wind. This is
> what the Test period is
> all about.
>
> Flutter is not the only problem at higher speeds.
> There are some strength
> considerations. The FAA establishes the red-line by
> demonstrating flight to
> a number and then making the red-line at 90% of this
> demonstrated figure.
> The faster you go, the stronger the airframe has to
> be to withstand air
> loads and turbulence. That is why the safe
> maneuvering speed is much less
> than the red line.
>
> The VNE for your plane you say is 167. That is
> designed into the airframe
> by the designer. You probably don't have an margin
> of error for gust
> loading above that point unless you have redesigned
> the airframe. Just one
> bout of clear air turbulence could ruin your day. Or
> you could do the damage
> yourself by full rapid control inputs.
>
> I hate to say this but your plane is every
> designer's worse nightmare. When
> you make the modifications then all the careful
> calculations of the designer
> are gone.
>
> I hope that you understand that due to liability
> considerations, the factory
> probably will not give advice. Remember it is no
> longer a Zenith design, it
> is yours and yours alone due to the deviations from
> the design parameters
>
> Right now there is a move underfoot to ground a
> certified airplane via an
> AD. Why? Because these airplanes have been
> re-engined not even with greater
> weight but just added horsepower.
>
> I hope you can get some structural analysis done.
> All airplanes fly better
> when they are lighter.
>
> Cy Galley
> EAA Safety Programs Editor
> Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport
> Pilot
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Paden" <jeffpaden@madbbs.com>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Gross Weight
>
>
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff Paden"
> <jeffpaden@madbbs.com>
> >
> >
> > I have had many members of the list point out the
> fact that I have
> installed
> > a 260 hp engine. However this is not the problem
> as is easy to see when
> you
> > do the calculations. The engine I installed is
> only 110 lbs heavier than
> > the 180 hp engine that the aircraft was tested
> with. This also keeps me
> > within the max installed power plant weight as I
> had checked this before
> > installing the engine.
> > My aircraft is 1560 lbs empty and the proto was
> 1147 lbs empty. This
> means
> > that some how I have added over 400 lbs and the
> engine only accounts for
> 110
> > lbs of that. If I had the other 300 lbs to play
> with then I would not
> have
> > a problem at all.
> >
> > As for swapping out the engine for a smaller one,
> that just simply is not
> an
> > option. Everything was built around this engine
> and if needed then I will
> > simply have a very nice two place aircraft or only
> carry 20 gal of fuel
> with
> > four.
> > So far I have found that almost every aspect of
> the figures on the web
> site
> > are WAY off and I am just looking for answers as
> to why.
> >
> > For example, the Vne is published at 167 mph
> however I have done flutter
> > testing up to 190 mph with no sign of any problems
> as of yet and that is
> > still only at 75% power. I will post to the list
> once I figure out what
> the
> > real Vne is. By the way, I do NOT recommend to
> anyone on the list that
> you
> > perform flutter testing unless you really know
> what you are doing. I have
> a
> > friend who is a test pilot and he is the one that
> is helping me with this
> > test. Do the test wrong and you will destroy the
> aircraft and probably
> not
> > survive the test.
> >
> > With that said, I have also found that my stall
> speed is 45 mph with full
> > flaps so the fact that the aircraft is heavy has
> not increased that number
> > as we expected it to do. Also my take off roll is
> only about 500 feet but
> > that is probably because of the extra power.
> >
> > Once I have all the numbers confirmed then I will
> post them all to the
> list.
> >
> > I guess my next job is to try to find a way to
> make the aircraf lighter
> but
> > I really can't think of anything that is going to
> make that happen.
> >
> > Thank you all for your help and don't worry, after
> putting one aircraft in
> > the trees I don't have any plans of flying this
> one in any condition that
> > would be unsafe. We just need to figure out what
> is "SAFE" for this
> > aircraft and the published numbers simply do not
> seem to have anything to
> do
> > with my aircraft.
> >
> > Jeff Paden
> > CH-640 Test flight stage.
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
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: | Sky Shop custom Interiors for 601 XL |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeffrey Glasserow" <jeffglass@starband.net>
I went to the Light Sport Expo this weekend down in Sebring Fl. There were
three 601 XL's there. WIlliam Wynne had his test pilot fly in with his
Corvair powered 100 HP XL tail dragger. Brett from HogAir was there with his
100 HP Harley powered XL tri-gear. Very interesting plane! He has his
throttle rigged on the joy stick. You twist away from you, much like the
cyclic on a helicopter. The throttle arrangement looked very
familiar...Yup, right off a Hog! You have to HEAR this airplane! No doubt
about what its got for an engine. If you like Harleys, you'll LOVE this
airplane.
The third XL was a Czech Aircraft Works factory built with the fiberglass
landing gear. It has a Rotax 912 for power.
This plane is brought in by Sky Shop and somehow they get it certified as an
experimental. In any event, it attracted ALOT of attention and Danny was
hard pressed to answer all the questions that came his way. I was able to
ask him how much a custom interior was and he said the prices started at
$680. I asked him if the interior in the plane he brought was indicative of
that cost and he said it was. I can attest it is a very nice interior!
That plane is for sale for $57,000 with very basic instrumentation and one
Com radio. Bret is also selling his HD-XL and he is asking $56,000. His
instrument package is a little larger and comes with a handheld GPS. I
asked if the Corvair powered XL was for sale but I got an emphatic no. The
pilot said it was to much fun to fly and they really loved it. They're
building another one right now so we'll see if this one comes up for sale in
the future. Three different planes, three different engine packages.
Choices are good, especially when they work! The consensus at one of the
engine seminars was that there were (are) lots of problems with the NSI
Subaru. Rotax had their own seminar and they talked about the oil foaming
problem. Their only solution right now is to use Exon Elite aviation oil
until they can figure out what's causing the problem. Also, they're going
to require all their dealers and service center personnel to attend
mandatory factory school before they can be certified for field repair.
There were lots of interesting new planes there and I got to fly a few. I
was very impressed with the Sting Sport, the Kappa 77 KP 5, and the Alpi
Pioneer 200. The Alpi is an all wood and fabric low wing with an 80 HP
Rotax. It was brand new, just finished the week before, and was for sale
for $40,500. This was by far the best deal there. The majority of the
planes will net out at about $70-75,000 once radios are added. Base prices
were in the $55,000 to $60,000 range. Shipping IS NOT included nor are
taxes. None of the new crop of LSA's are made in America. What a shame!
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: Canopy build order |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Trevor Page <webmaster@upac.ca>
Bill, before you begin this, has you considered building the
forward-opening canopy instead for you HD?? I did a lot of soul
searching on this matter and decided the forward canopy was the way to
go. I heard a few stories about the side tilt opening or even coming
off during flight (Art Michell @ FlyPass had such an experience I'm
told). A local friend a month ago said his bolts on one side broke off
and the canopy had to held in place until he could land. Not a good
thing in my opinion.
The parts for the forward canopy are easy to make and the mods are
minimal to the panel and front skin. Installing the whole thing is not
something I look forward to doing again but in the end I have a safer
plane I think.
Trevor Page
601HD 97% complete.
P.S. If you want to see my plane under construction (and the canopy
construction) go see it here:
http://pagefamily.homeunix.org/picture_album
On Oct 31, 2004, at 9:44 PM, Bill Steer wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bill Steer" <bsteer@gwi.net>
>
> I've just started working on the canopy for my 601 HD and am wondering
> about the build order (I'm using the side-tilt). The manual says to
> construct the frame so it fits nicely on the fuselage and then to
> "fine tune" it to fit the canopy. Does that mean the frames, parts
> 6E4-1 and 6E4-2, are cut to about the dimensions shown in the plans,
> so it fits the fuselage, and then the canopy itself is trimmed to fit
> that frame? That doesn't seem to allow for raising and lowering the
> height of the canopy with dimension "h" shown on the plans. And the
> frames and the other frame parts can obviously only be drilled once,
> so can't be changed for fine tuning. Last, does "fine tune" refer to
> changing the shape of the frames so they exactly fit the canopy?
>
> Thanks very much for any help.
>
> Bill
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
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: | Re: Canopy build order |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bill Howerton" <Bill@Howerton.com>
Actually Trevor, mine IS a forward tilting canopy -- I'm building an XL.
Got an update though - After hearing everybody's recommendations, I
contacted Todd's canopies. I've been very pleasantly surprised. He seems
to be a very He will sell me a new tinted bubble for $300 (packing included)
plus about $80.00 for shipping from Florida to Colorado Springs. Not as bad
as the 522.00 + shipping that ZAC wants for it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Trevor Page" <webmaster@upac.ca>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Canopy build order
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Trevor Page <webmaster@upac.ca>
>
> Bill, before you begin this, has you considered building the
> forward-opening canopy instead for you HD?? I did a lot of soul
> searching on this matter and decided the forward canopy was the way to
> go. I heard a few stories about the side tilt opening or even coming
> off during flight (Art Michell @ FlyPass had such an experience I'm
> told). A local friend a month ago said his bolts on one side broke off
> and the canopy had to held in place until he could land. Not a good
> thing in my opinion.
>
> The parts for the forward canopy are easy to make and the mods are
> minimal to the panel and front skin. Installing the whole thing is not
> something I look forward to doing again but in the end I have a safer
> plane I think.
>
> Trevor Page
> 601HD 97% complete.
>
> P.S. If you want to see my plane under construction (and the canopy
> construction) go see it here:
>
> http://pagefamily.homeunix.org/picture_album
>
>
> On Oct 31, 2004, at 9:44 PM, Bill Steer wrote:
>
>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bill Steer" <bsteer@gwi.net>
>>
>> I've just started working on the canopy for my 601 HD and am wondering
>> about the build order (I'm using the side-tilt). The manual says to
>> construct the frame so it fits nicely on the fuselage and then to
>> "fine tune" it to fit the canopy. Does that mean the frames, parts
>> 6E4-1 and 6E4-2, are cut to about the dimensions shown in the plans,
>> so it fits the fuselage, and then the canopy itself is trimmed to fit
>> that frame? That doesn't seem to allow for raising and lowering the
>> height of the canopy with dimension "h" shown on the plans. And the
>> frames and the other frame parts can obviously only be drilled once,
>> so can't be changed for fine tuning. Last, does "fine tune" refer to
>> changing the shape of the frames so they exactly fit the canopy?
>>
>> Thanks very much for any help.
>>
>> Bill
>>
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: Sky Shop custom Interiors for 601 XL |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Ron DeWees" <rdewees@mindspring.com>
Hi Jeff,
Thanks so much for the report!
Ron
N601TD
do not archive
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 |
|
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=HGmWj0tsiwGws5iaaYgXv2BpxTHlFwjD/KjTzm8JZri2AEzFopldjfyywmwZ3/0iZFJVHr/rxSNJoV9pCIfdxHfED89ZlxFYIhM0lK1QTAtwBCNNZS5DpOZhG6Tp9koSBSfzcKvXme4/HWvmBIFlxyuRVIRGKIsMEXcOASUjoFs=
;
| Subject: | Subject: Speed, G-Loads, Gross Weight, etc. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Phil Raker <phadr1@yahoo.com>
Hello, List,
I find it interesting that in this thread regarding gross weight, G-loads,
top speeds, etc., that no-one has yet mentioned the question of torsional
loading on the wing. What follows is a simplified explanation of one further
item that must be considered in setting Vne for any airplane.
The center of lift for any airfoil is rarely exactly at the main spar. In
fact, it moves for & aft as the airspeed changes. The distance between the
center of lift and the main spar creates a moment loading (a torque) on the
wing. At high airspeeds, this torsional loading can be significant. On some
airplanes, if Vne (and its built-in safety factor) is exceeded, that torsional
loading will literally twist the wings off of the fuselage! It makes no
difference how much weight is supported by the wing; it's strictly an
aerodynamic property of the airfoil and the structure. I know of at least one
A/C design where wing torsional loading is the limiting factor in Vne, not
G-loading with the weight of the aircraft.
Sandbags are the method most commonly used to determine the critical
G-loading on a wing, but the torsional loading must be calculated (unless you
want to fly it to way past the published Vne to find out what happens). I
don't know of any way to test for it without a NASA type of budjet supporting
you. That's one area where I'm glad we have a designer with Chris Heintz's
background in stress analysis. That's his specific area of expertise. I'll
not try to second-guess him on any of that. I plan to keep my 601 well under
CH's published Vne (160 mph for the HDS).
Phil Raker N556P HDS/Stratus ~85% completed
__________________________________
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: Skyshops 701 bubble doors - question |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "baileys" <baileys@ktis.net>
If Skyshops won't sell the cylinders how is one supposed to get replacement parts?
Those things don't last forever.
BTW I'm going to hinge my doors from the front so I can mount half doors in the
summertime.
Bob B. 701 #75552
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Martin
To: Zenith Forum
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 7:31 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Skyshops 701 bubble doors
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Larry Martin" <earthloc@att.net>
I was looking at the Skyshop site and noticed that they use gas cylinders to
hold their new bubble doors open, excellent idea. I have already purchased Zenith's
bubble doors and thought I would put the cylinders on my doors. I don't
like those rinky dinky suction cups that ZAC uses.
I e-mailed Skyshops to buy the cylinders or at least get part numbers. They
won't sell me just the cylinders and they get them from Czech as a complete kit,
so no part numbers available.
Size is no problem but all lift cylinders are not the same in as far as pressure
goes. They really need to be fairly low pressure for those light weight doors.
Anybody out there have any idea what cylinders might work, what car they
fit? Or have any Czech cylinders they might get some numbers off of? Thanks,
Larry N1345L
Take a look, www.gyrostabs.com
---
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Grant Corriveau <grantc@ca.inter.net>
> Sand bags. Lots of them.
> I guess engineers can make all the calculations on a
> supercomputor and come up with a very close
> theoretical approximation of performance but I think
> the real test is real weight.
I happened to be working at Canadair/Bombarier on the day the engineers did
the ultimate load test on the RJ50 wing structure. It was a 'big day'
because if the wing happened to break before the engineers' calculations
said it should, it would probably have bankrupted the company (having to
redesign it -- delays in production etc.....)
I wasn't in the hangar to witness the test, but I understand that the wing
finally failed way over the predicted requirements, and when it 'let go'
there was one heck of a 'crack'
This sandbag test is required for all certified aircraft designs, but is it
required (or performed anyways) for amateur-built designs? I 'think' not --
but please correct me anyone who knows... As far as I can tell, anyone can
draw up the plans for a 'new and improved' kitplane and start marketing it
Caveat emptor (?).... Buyer beware
--
Grant Corriveau
C-GHTF / HDS / CAM100
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 601 heavy left wing |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bob Miller" <drmiller@cvillepsychology.net>
A number of people have reported heavy left wings on Zodiacs and, like Jeff Paden,
many have described the first flight as "scarey" due to the problem. I've
found scattered references (and post hoc solutions) to the problem but no authoritative
answers as to why it so frequently occurs in the first place. I'm
planning on putting some weight in my right wing locker for the first flight
just in case, but what do you guys think could be the problem?
Bob
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: | 601 and fuel return line, redux |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
The Straus motors use the same carbs and do not have a return line or an
engine drivem fuel pump. Without the header tank the engine pump is in
the wrong place anyway as it should be down by the wing tank
outlet...Assuming you don't have a header.
The vapour (and there shouldn't be any if the pump is in the right
place) will simply get pushed through the float bowls.
Frank
601 HDS 345 hours Stratus with ram heads
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
Latimer
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 601 and fuel return line, redux
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jerry Latimer" <jlatimer1@cox.net>
The fuel return line is called out to prevent vapor lock and to prevent
over flowing the carbs float bowls. Whether they are needed is kind of
up to the builder. The Rotax install manual does call them out. Jerry
Latimer 601 HDS rotax 912
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Trevor Page
Subject: Zenith-List: 601 and fuel return line, redux
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Trevor Page <webmaster@upac.ca>
Since my last question seems to have slipped through the cracks I'll
have to ask it again.
I'm in the process of installing a 912UL in my 601 and it has a fuel
return line on the carb distribution manifold. Is it required for me to
run this back into the header tank or can I cap it off? ZAC hasn't
answered me and the instructions make no mention of it.
Thanks!
Trevor Page
601 HD
==
==
==
==
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Fothergill <mfothergill@sympatico.ca>
Hi;
We did a sandbag test on the Merlin ultralight years ago. It was way
over the requirement. I expect that the 601 is very conservative too.
Mike
UHS Spinners
Grant Corriveau wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Grant Corriveau <grantc@ca.inter.net>
>
>>Sand bags. Lots of them.
>>I guess engineers can make all the calculations on a
>>supercomputor and come up with a very close
>>theoretical approximation of performance but I think
>>the real test is real weight.
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: 601 heavy left wing |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: bryanmmartin@comcast.net
I haven't noticed any great tendency for my zodiac to have a heavy wing. I have
an aileron trim system and usually dial in a little left up trim with just my
weight and full fuel. Even with zero trim there is only a slight tendency to
roll left at cruise and it takes a barely noticable force to correct it, but then
I haven't flown it for more than an hour at at time yet. The trim tab doesn't
have a great effect at cruise speed, I can't produce any significant roll
rate even with full trim in either direction. The tab does have a definite effect
when diving at near Vne. There may be enough friction in my aileron control
system to balance out some of the trim force. On the ground the stick tends
to stay where I put it for small deflection angles. It's kind of hard to tell
when the plane is trimmed because it seems to have nearly neutral roll stability.
If I put it into a bank it tends to stay there with little tendency to return
to wings level.
I suspect that the cause of many of the heavy wing problems being encountered
are caused by an assymetry in the wings. They're either not quite built symmetrical
or they are not quite mounted at the same angle of incidence. I took great
care to make sure my wings were symmetical duing construction and was very
carefull mounting them. It seems to have paid off. It's very important to have
a flat sturdy work surface during construction of the wings. If your table has
any twist in it, that twist will transfer to both wings but will increase the
built in twist of one wing and probably decrease it in the other.
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL, Stratus Subaru.
In phase I testing.
do not archive
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bob Miller"
>
> A number of people have reported heavy left wings on Zodiacs and, like Jeff
> Paden, many have described the first flight as "scarey" due to the problem.
> I've found scattered references (and post hoc solutions) to the problem but no
> authoritative answers as to why it so frequently occurs in the first place.
> I'm planning on putting some weight in my right wing locker for the first flight
> just in case, but what do you guys think could be the problem?
> Bob
I haven't noticed any great tendency for my zodiac to have a heavy wing. I have
an aileron trim system and usually dial in a little left up trim with just my
weight and full fuel. Even with zero trim there is only a slight tendency to
roll left at cruise and it takes a barely noticable force to correct it, but then
I haven't flown it for more than an hour at at time yet. The trim tab doesn't
have a great effect at cruise speed, I can't produce any significant roll
rate even with full trim in either direction. The tab does have a definite effect
when diving at near Vne. There may be enough friction in my aileron control
system to balance out some of the trim force. On the ground the stick tends
to stay where I put it for small deflection angles. It's kind of hard to tell
when the plane is trimmed because it seems to have nearly neutral roll stability.
If I put it into a bank it tends to stay there with little tendency to return
to wings level.
I suspect that the cause of many of the heavy wing problems being encountered are
caused by an assymetry in the wings. They're either not quite built symmetrical
or they are not quite mounted at the same angle of incidence. I took great
care to make sure my wings were symmetical duing construction and was very carefull
mounting them. It seems to have paid off. It's very important to have
a flat sturdy work surface during construction of the wings. If your table has
any twist in it, that twist will transfer to both wings but will increase the
built in twist of one wing and probablydecrease it in the other.
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL, Stratus Subaru.
In phase I testing.
do not archive
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Zenith-List message posted by: "Bob Miller" <DRMILLER@CVILLEPSYCHOLOGY.NET>
A number of people have reported heavy left wings on Zodiacs and, like Jeff
Paden, many have described the first flight as "scarey" due to the problem.
I've found scattered references (and post hoc solutions) to the problem but no
authoritative answers as to why it so frequently occurs in the first place.
I'm planning on putting some weight in my right wing locker for the first flight
just in case, but what do you guys think could be the problem?
Bob
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: 601 heavy left wing |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: VideoFlyer@aol.com
Here is a message I posted last June ....concerning heavy left wings...and
dihedral. I didn't really get much response. Apparently I'm the only only one
who has encountered a problem.
<<<
> I've been following the thread about heavy left wings on the 601XL. It
> seems
> to be a common trait on the XL. And it also comes up often enough that I
> wonder if it's more than just an empty right hand seat. At any rate, I have
>
> discovered something interesting and thought I would pass it along.
>
> I am building a 601XL from a kit. I have just started working on the wings.
>
> I took the center spar and the two wing spars and bolted them together and
> laid them out on the floor to check the dihedral. The plans call for a 5.65
>
> degree angle from horizontal...a 10 percent dihedral. I chalked a line on
> the
>
> floor and proceeded to measure. It seems like my left wing has an angle of
> a
> little more than 6 degrees...and my right wing has an angle of about 5
> degrees.
>
> In other words, according to my calculations, and my chalk lines on the
> floor, my left wing is about an inch low, and my right wing is about an inch
> high.
>
> The bolt holes are drilled at the factory. Has anyone else come across
> this
> problem? Are the spars drilled on a jig of some kind at the factory? Are
> they all this way? Or just mine? And finally, if there are other planes
> out
> there with this same error, could that contribute to a low wing during
> flight?
>
> I think I will leave them the way they are. I really don't want to try to
> redrill with larger holes. But it seems to me that these parts should be
> accurately aligned from the factory.>>>>>
Since I posted this letter in June.......
I talked to Nick about this at OshKosh. He didn't seem to believe me. I
know that Nick can be rather defensive about issues like this. He said there was
no way that the holes could be drilled that far off. He suggested that my
floor might not be level...or my chalk line might not be straight. Sorry!
Wrong on both counts.
At any rate, he said even it they were crooked, it wouldn't make all that
much difference in the way the plane flies.
Has anyone else checked the dihedral of their 601XL wings/spars?
Dave Harms
videoflyer@aol.com
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Keystone Engineering LLC <keystone@gci.net>
Dave
I installed VG's on the bottom of my horizontal stabilizer on my 801. The ones
I used were the only design I could find on the web. The may have not been aggressive
enough but they did not make enough of a difference to justify flying
off the 5 hours after a significant modification.
I installed them just forward of the rivet line for the leading edge. I installed
them on with double sided tape. They went on much faster than they came off.
I think the problem (well everything is a comprise) is the tail is out of the prop
blast. I assume ZAC did this to allow the big angle of attach we need to
get the plane to fly slow. As I have previously stated I wish I could lift the
nose wheel with power. On the other side my prop has not been damaged when
operating off unimproved strips.
So far so good!
Bill Wilcox
N801BW
140 hrs
Valdez, AK
Subject: Zenith-List: VG's on horizontal stabilizer
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Dabusmith@aol.com
Has anyone ever put VG's on the underside of the horizontal stabilizer of
the 701 or 801? Anyone know what effects they might have?
Dave Smith
N701XL 300+hrs and loving this plane!
Graham WA
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: 601 heavy left wing |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Scott Laughlin" <cookwithgas@hotmail.com>
Hi Dave:
I used a full-scale CAD plot to drill my holes since I'm plans-building. I
must have spent 2 hours adjusting and re-adjusting before building up the
courage to make the first hole. Here's a photo capturing the event:
http://www.cooknwithgas.com/10_19_03_SparAttachAngle.JPG
You may want to use a CAD plot to compare yours to see if they are the same.
It looks like you are making good progress this year. Keep up the good
work. Maybe one day when we are both flying we can meet somewhere and
compare notes.
Scott Laughlin
www.cooknwithgas.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: VideoFlyer@aol.com
Has anyone else checked the dihedral of their 601XL wings/spars?
Dave Harms
videoflyer@aol.com
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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: | Re: Skyshops 701 bubble doors - question |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Larry Martin" <lrm@isp.com>
I ending up buying mine at NAPA. I don't have the part number handy, but it
is somewhere in the archives. If you really need it, e-mail me. Larry
N1345L
----- Original Message -----
From: "baileys" <baileys@ktis.net>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Skyshops 701 bubble doors - question
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "baileys" <baileys@ktis.net>
>
> If Skyshops won't sell the cylinders how is one supposed to get
replacement parts? Those things don't last forever.
>
> BTW I'm going to hinge my doors from the front so I can mount half doors
in the summertime.
> Bob B. 701 #75552
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Larry Martin
> To: Zenith Forum
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 7:31 PM
> Subject: Zenith-List: Skyshops 701 bubble doors
>
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Larry Martin" <earthloc@att.net>
>
> I was looking at the Skyshop site and noticed that they use gas
cylinders to hold their new bubble doors open, excellent idea. I have
already purchased Zenith's bubble doors and thought I would put the
cylinders on my doors. I don't like those rinky dinky suction cups that ZAC
uses.
>
> I e-mailed Skyshops to buy the cylinders or at least get part numbers.
They won't sell me just the cylinders and they get them from Czech as a
complete kit, so no part numbers available.
>
> Size is no problem but all lift cylinders are not the same in as far as
pressure goes. They really need to be fairly low pressure for those light
weight doors. Anybody out there have any idea what cylinders might work,
what car they fit? Or have any Czech cylinders they might get some numbers
off of? Thanks, Larry N1345L
>
>
> Take a look, www.gyrostabs.com
>
>
> ---
>
>
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: | Composite spring gear |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Brandon Tucker <btucke73@yahoo.com>
Gents,
Just some interim information RE: spring gear.
I recieved a reply from Chip Erwin of CAW, and
the reported weight of his composite landing gear for
the 601XL is 5,20 KG or 11.46 LBS. Here is the
comparison:
Stock 6061 XL landing gear: 43 lbs
Grove 2024 landing gear: 27.8 lbs
CAW composite gear: 11.46 lbs
Stock HD / HDS gear (estimation) 15 - 20 lbs
(including box and hardware inside wings)
This information is quite surprising to me, and
reveals that if the composite gear can be adapted to
the HD / HDS, there would (most likely, by my
estimation only) be a weight savings, and a HUGE
weight advantage to the XL guys. He did not give me
exact pricing information, but he did say a few months
ago, when I first contacted him, that his gear pricing
would be comparable to the Grove gear. I will report
more when I find out more.
Respectfully,
Brandon
__________________________________
www.yahoo.com
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
FWIW,
I do remember that Van's went through a sandbag test for one of its
designs when a wing misteriously failed on one of their prototypes
killing the pilot.
Because they could find nothing wrong with the design they did this test
and it failed in excess of design.
I guess beware when employing ex fighter jocks...:)
Frank
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Grant
Corriveau
Subject: Zenith-List: Sand bags
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Grant Corriveau <grantc@ca.inter.net>
> Sand bags. Lots of them.
> I guess engineers can make all the calculations on a supercomputor and
> come up with a very close theoretical approximation of performance but
> I think the real test is real weight.
I happened to be working at Canadair/Bombarier on the day the engineers
did the ultimate load test on the RJ50 wing structure. It was a 'big
day' because if the wing happened to break before the engineers'
calculations said it should, it would probably have bankrupted the
company (having to redesign it -- delays in production etc.....)
I wasn't in the hangar to witness the test, but I understand that the
wing finally failed way over the predicted requirements, and when it
'let go' there was one heck of a 'crack'
This sandbag test is required for all certified aircraft designs, but is
it required (or performed anyways) for amateur-built designs? I 'think'
not -- but please correct me anyone who knows... As far as I can tell,
anyone can draw up the plans for a 'new and improved' kitplane and start
marketing it
Caveat emptor (?).... Buyer beware
--
Grant Corriveau
C-GHTF / HDS / CAM100
Message 20
| 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: VG's on an 801 |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Land Shorter <landshorter2@yahoo.com>
What percent of tail chord is "just forward of the rivet line for the leading edge"
and how far in front of the elevator hinge line is this?
Thanks.
Joa
www.landshorter.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I installed them just forward of the rivet line for the leading edge. I installed
them on with double sided tape. They went on much faster than they came off.
---------------------------------
Message 21
| 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: "Tom Zelie" <tzelie@adelphia.net>
The Sonex and Xenos aircraft have both been sandbag tested. The test wings
are hanging in their showroom marked with the failure weight. It took a lot
of sand to cause either of them to fail.
Tom Zelie
N429SX
Tech Counselor #4831
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grant Corriveau" <grantc@ca.inter.net>
Subject: Zenith-List: Sand bags
>
> This sandbag test is required for all certified aircraft designs, but is
> it
> required (or performed anyways) for amateur-built designs? I 'think'
> not --
> but please correct me anyone who knows... As far as I can tell, anyone can
> draw up the plans for a 'new and improved' kitplane and start marketing it
>
> Caveat emptor (?).... Buyer beware
>
> --
> Grant Corriveau
> C-GHTF / HDS / CAM100
Message 22
| 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: 601 heavy left wing |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
So what if you are wrong and it is the right wing that is heavy?
You might do a high speed taxi and see which wing lifts first or which lifts
easiest with aileron input.
Still recommend the Flight Advisor Program.
Incidentally when talking to EAA HQ they seem to think that the 601 that
crashed last week might have been due to a medical problem and nothing with
the plane itself.
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Miller" <drmiller@cvillepsychology.net>
Subject: Zenith-List: 601 heavy left wing
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bob Miller"
<drmiller@cvillepsychology.net>
>
> A number of people have reported heavy left wings on Zodiacs and, like
Jeff Paden, many have described the first flight as "scarey" due to the
problem. I've found scattered references (and post hoc solutions) to the
problem but no authoritative answers as to why it so frequently occurs in
the first place. I'm planning on putting some weight in my right wing
locker for the first flight just in case, but what do you guys think could
be the problem?
> Bob
>
>
Message 23
| 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; Gross Weight |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Kent Brown" <kentbrown@verizon.net>
Re the heavy 640, just a quick 2 cents. I can visualize some very nasty
results of a hard landing; or of encountering turbulence at 180 MPH (when
VNe is 167),in an airplane so very much heavier fore and aft than most. As
another lister said, it may be time for a major re-think.
Kent
HDS, most of airframe done. (Yeah, yeah, 80% to go)
Message 24
| 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: 601 heavy left wing |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Michel Therrien <mtherr@yahoo.com>
When I drilled my spars, I used trigonometry.
Imagine a triangle and you now that Y = d Sin(angle).
So, I marked the table at 2 or 3 meters from the root
at 2000 or 3000 * sin( 6.5 ) -- I used milimeters
--from the reference line. Root of the spar was at
reference line. Did the same on the other side. This
way, I was very certain that both sides had same
incidence.
Michel
--- VideoFlyer@aol.com wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by:
> VideoFlyer@aol.com
>
> Here is a message I posted last June ....concerning
> heavy left wings...and
> dihedral. I didn't really get much response.
> Apparently I'm the only only one
> who has encountered a problem.
>
> <<<
> > I've been following the thread about heavy left
> wings on the 601XL. It
> > seems
> > to be a common trait on the XL. And it also comes
> up often enough that I
> > wonder if it's more than just an empty right hand
> seat. At any rate, I have
> >
> > discovered something interesting and thought I
> would pass it along.
> >
> > I am building a 601XL from a kit. I have just
> started working on the wings.
> >
> > I took the center spar and the two wing spars and
> bolted them together and
> > laid them out on the floor to check the dihedral.
> The plans call for a 5.65
> >
> > degree angle from horizontal...a 10 percent
> dihedral. I chalked a line on
> > the
> >
> > floor and proceeded to measure. It seems like my
> left wing has an angle of
> > a
> > little more than 6 degrees...and my right wing has
> an angle of about 5
> > degrees.
> >
> > In other words, according to my calculations, and
> my chalk lines on the
> > floor, my left wing is about an inch low, and my
> right wing is about an inch
> > high.
> >
> > The bolt holes are drilled at the factory. Has
> anyone else come across
> > this
> > problem? Are the spars drilled on a jig of some
> kind at the factory? Are
> > they all this way? Or just mine? And finally, if
> there are other planes
> > out
> > there with this same error, could that contribute
> to a low wing during
> > flight?
> >
> > I think I will leave them the way they are. I
> really don't want to try to
> > redrill with larger holes. But it seems to me
> that these parts should be
> > accurately aligned from the factory.>>>>>
>
>
> Since I posted this letter in June.......
>
> I talked to Nick about this at OshKosh. He didn't
> seem to believe me. I
> know that Nick can be rather defensive about issues
> like this. He said there was
> no way that the holes could be drilled that far off.
> He suggested that my
> floor might not be level...or my chalk line might
> not be straight. Sorry!
> Wrong on both counts.
>
> At any rate, he said even it they were crooked, it
> wouldn't make all that
> much difference in the way the plane flies.
>
> Has anyone else checked the dihedral of their 601XL
> wings/spars?
>
>
> Dave Harms
> videoflyer@aol.com
>
>
>
> Click on the
> this
> by the
> Admin.
> _->
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Zenith-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
>
=====
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
Message 25
| 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 |
|
Received-SPF: none (MAIL-SERVER.madbbs.com: domain of jeffpaden@madbbs.com
does not designate any permitted senders)
| Subject: | RE; Gross Weight |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff Paden" <jeffpaden@madbbs.com>
Why does everyone seem to have a problem with the weight of this aircraft
She is well within the design limits and if you can make a hard landing with
this aircraft then you really must be trying to make a hard landing. The
aircraft flies GREAT and lands very smoothly with no help from the pilot. I
know that sounds crazy, but I did it. I set the RPM to 1200, trimmed the
aircraft for the correct angle of attack and sat back while the aircraft
landed itself. I was ready to push or pull throttle or to nose up or nose
down... but I did not have to do ANYTHING other than cut back to an idle
once I was over the field. The aircraft approached at 60 mph, and in ground
effect she felt just like someone pulled back but I did not... I just sat
there. Then at about 42 mph she settled down to the field for a perfect
landing. I have done this now about 12 times so I know that when Chris said
the CH-640 is capable of almost unconscious landings, he really was not
kidding. It would be VERY hard to force this aircraft to make a hard
landing. Even if you could make that happen, the landing gear is VERY heavy
and strong and all it would do is to absorb the force and turn the hard
landing into a still fair landing.
I have to say the more I fly this aircraft the happier I am that I have
installed 260 hp. I would have never been happy with the performance with a
180 hp. I was able to climb out today at 2000 FPS and that alone could save
a life some day. My last aircraft was called UBU because we had to keep
saying UP UBU UP! She did not want to climb more than about 300 FPS and
when you have hills on every side of you, this tends to be a pain in the
rear <grin>
Don't take me wrong.. I would like to thank EVERYONE for their help and
their concerns. But don't worry, this aircraft is VERY safe and I will
calculate the exact numbers that this aircraft shoule have and that is where
we will fly her.
Thank you all for you help
Jeff Paden
-------Original Message-------
From: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: RE; Gross Weight
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Kent Brown" <kentbrown@verizon.net>
Re the heavy 640, just a quick 2 cents. I can visualize some very nasty
results of a hard landing; or of encountering turbulence at 180 MPH (when
VNe is 167),in an airplane so very much heavier fore and aft than most. As
another lister said, it may be time for a major re-think.
Kent
HDS, most of airframe done. (Yeah, yeah, 80% to go)
Message 26
| 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 |
|
Received-SPF: none (MAIL-SERVER.madbbs.com: domain of jeffpaden@madbbs.com
does not designate any permitted senders)
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff Paden" <jeffpaden@madbbs.com>
Here is a good question for you all. Why do they put sand bags on the TOP
of the wings? When you fly the wing LIFTS the aircraft to the load would
not be on the top of the wing at all.
Just a thought
Jeff
do not archive
Message 27
| 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 |
|
Received-SPF: none (MAIL-SERVER.madbbs.com: domain of jeffpaden@madbbs.com
does not designate any permitted senders)
| Subject: | Re: Gross Weight |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff Paden" <jeffpaden@madbbs.com>
Again, I respect your opinion, but most of what you have brought up here we
already thought of.
The battery is lighter not heavier than the one that the aircraft is
designed for. The electronic ignition is lighter than mags, the starter is
a fly weight starter, the alternator is a fly weight 40 amp... the list goes
on and on. The only things I added that are heavier is the engine mount..
(for obvious reasons), the seat slides which are exactly 0.75 lbs heavier
than the original ones. and 12 pounds of instruments. YUP, I pulled them
all out except the needed ones to see what I added with all my glass cockpit
stuff. So, if I took out the things that I really like about the aircraft
then I will save about 12.75 lbs. Hmmm... I think I'd rather go on a diet
than pull $40,000.00 of instruments out of my aircraft.
As for flying past the Vne, I had a "TEST PILOT" do that and that is what
they do. They test the design of an aircraft. He plans on doing faster
tests the next nice clear day until he finds the flutter point and then we
will do our airspeed calculations from there. He knows the percentages and
I trust him as far as that goes. What he is not testing is what the gross
weight of the aircraft is so I just might go as far as doing a sand bag test
If I rip the wings off then I rip them off and will build new ones.
Better to do it on the ground than in the air.
Jeff Paden
-------Original Message-------
From: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Gross Weight
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Stephen Adams <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
Jeff,
I am building the CH640 so I have followed your
construction quite closely on your website. I think
you need to step back and look at a few things. You
say the engine added an extra 110 pounds and that was
the only modification. What about the electronic
ignition, fuel injection, non-standard air induction,
starter and alternator. Your engine mount is beefier.
The cowl is quite a bit larger. The battery is bigger.
You added steel slides for the seats, added an extra
bulkhead, strengthened the instrument panel, have a
different prop, and have a panel full of avionics and
instruments not in the prototype. A few pounds here
and there adds up.
I think the value of this list is is gives us the
opportunity to get the opinions of others who are not
so emotionally attached to our own projects. I don't
want to offend anyone, but in my opinion, you seem to
be pushing the envelope with your aircraft. You have
have already flown far in excess of the design
limitations. You seem much more concerned about trying
to increase the gross weight than trying to correct
the weight problem. You might want to put your
airplane in the garage and step back for a bit. If the
aircraft doesn't meet your needs, then it seems a
shame to have built such a beautiful aircraft with
such marginal utility, and then dismiss any thought of
bringing it more in line with the original design to
improve the utility and most likely the safety of your
plane. Again, I hope I am not offending you, but
That's my 2-cents.
Steve Adams
--- Jeff Paden <jeffpaden@madbbs.com> wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff Paden"
> <jeffpaden@madbbs.com>
>
> Actually I did not deviate from the design. The
> engine I installed is prop
> limited to 240 hp which is the max allowed hp and
> the installed engine
> weight is a few pounds below the published max.
> Also Chris approved the
> installation of this engine before I even purchased
> it.
> I made sure to check everything before putting the
> past two years into
> building her and ZAC has always been very good at
> answering any questions I
> had while building. We have actually helped each
> other out quite a bit over
> the past two years. I am the one that fixed the CD
> they send to all
> builders since the one they sent to me did not work
> at all and my business
> at that time was web page design and the CD is
> nothing more than a web page
> on CD. We have a good working relationship and I am
> sure that if I can ever
> get ahold of them that they will be able to clear up
> most of my questions
>
> Thank you for your input though
>
> Jeff Paden
>
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "cgalley"
> <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> Hate to burst your bubble. The stall speed is
> probably much higher even
> though you airspeed says 45 mph. Most airspeeds are
> very inaccurate at low
> speed due to positional errors of the pitot. Using
> my Bellanca 14-13-2 the
> listed speed is 48 MPH but I see an indicated
> airspeed of 38 MPH before the
> break. You might want to get out the GPS and see
> what it says by trying
> several directions to cancel out the wind. This is
> what the Test period is
> all about.
>
> Flutter is not the only problem at higher speeds.
> There are some strength
> considerations. The FAA establishes the red-line by
> demonstrating flight to
> a number and then making the red-line at 90% of this
> demonstrated figure.
> The faster you go, the stronger the airframe has to
> be to withstand air
> loads and turbulence. That is why the safe
> maneuvering speed is much less
> than the red line.
>
> The VNE for your plane you say is 167. That is
> designed into the airframe
> by the designer. You probably don't have an margin
> of error for gust
> loading above that point unless you have redesigned
> the airframe. Just one
> bout of clear air turbulence could ruin your day. Or
> you could do the damage
> yourself by full rapid control inputs.
>
> I hate to say this but your plane is every
> designer's worse nightmare. When
> you make the modifications then all the careful
> calculations of the designer
> are gone.
>
> I hope that you understand that due to liability
> considerations, the factory
> probably will not give advice. Remember it is no
> longer a Zenith design, it
> is yours and yours alone due to the deviations from
> the design parameters
>
> Right now there is a move underfoot to ground a
> certified airplane via an
> AD. Why? Because these airplanes have been
> re-engined not even with greater
> weight but just added horsepower.
>
> I hope you can get some structural analysis done.
> All airplanes fly better
> when they are lighter.
>
> Cy Galley
> EAA Safety Programs Editor
> Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport
> Pilot
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Paden" <jeffpaden@madbbs.com>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Gross Weight
>
>
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff Paden"
> <jeffpaden@madbbs.com>
> >
> >
> > I have had many members of the list point out the
> fact that I have
> installed
> > a 260 hp engine. However this is not the problem
> as is easy to see when
> you
> > do the calculations. The engine I installed is
> only 110 lbs heavier than
> > the 180 hp engine that the aircraft was tested
> with. This also keeps me
> > within the max installed power plant weight as I
> had checked this before
> > installing the engine.
> > My aircraft is 1560 lbs empty and the proto was
> 1147 lbs empty. This
> means
> > that some how I have added over 400 lbs and the
> engine only accounts for
> 110
> > lbs of that. If I had the other 300 lbs to play
> with then I would not
> have
> > a problem at all.
> >
> > As for swapping out the engine for a smaller one,
> that just simply is not
> an
> > option. Everything was built around this engine
> and if needed then I will
> > simply have a very nice two place aircraft or only
> carry 20 gal of fuel
> with
> > four.
> > So far I have found that almost every aspect of
> the figures on the web
> site
> > are WAY off and I am just looking for answers as
> to why.
> >
> > For example, the Vne is published at 167 mph
> however I have done flutter
> > testing up to 190 mph with no sign of any problems
> as of yet and that is
> > still only at 75% power. I will post to the list
> once I figure out what
> the
> > real Vne is. By the way, I do NOT recommend to
> anyone on the list that
> you
> > perform flutter testing unless you really know
> what you are doing. I have
> a
> > friend who is a test pilot and he is the one that
> is helping me with this
> > test. Do the test wrong and you will destroy the
> aircraft and probably
> not
> > survive the test.
> >
> > With that said, I have also found that my stall
> speed is 45 mph with full
> > flaps so the fact that the aircraft is heavy has
> not increased that number
> > as we expected it to do. Also my take off roll is
> only about 500 feet but
> > that is probably because of the extra power.
> >
> > Once I have all the numbers confirmed then I will
> post them all to the
> list.
> >
> > I guess my next job is to try to find a way to
> make the aircraf lighter
> but
> > I really can't think of anything that is going to
> make that happen.
> >
> > Thank you all for your help and don't worry, after
> putting one aircraft in
> > the trees I don't have any plans of flying this
> one in any condition that
> > would be unsafe. We just need to figure out what
> is "SAFE" for this
> > aircraft and the published numbers simply do not
> seem to have anything to
> do
> > with my aircraft.
> >
> > Jeff Paden
> > CH-640 Test flight stage.
>
message truncated
__________________________________
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
Message 28
| 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: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
They usually hang the wing upside down and load the sand bags on the lower
surface which is now facing up. Putting the sand bags on the top surface of
the wing tests the negative G load.
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL, Stratus Subaru.
In Phase I testing.
do not archive.
on 11/1/04 6:34 PM, Jeff Paden at jeffpaden@madbbs.com wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff Paden" <jeffpaden@madbbs.com>
>
> Here is a good question for you all. Why do they put sand bags on the TOP
> of the wings? When you fly the wing LIFTS the aircraft to the load would
> not be on the top of the wing at all.
>
> Just a thought
>
> Jeff
>
> do not archive
Message 29
| 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: "Frank Jones" <fjones@sympatico.ca>
They flip the wings over and put the weights on the bottom to simulate a
lifting load.
Frank
> Here is a good question for you all. Why do they put sand bags on the
TOP
>of the wings? When you fly the wing LIFTS the aircraft to the load
would
>not be on the top of the wing at all.
Message 30
| 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: Gross Weight |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: VideoFlyer@aol.com
In a message dated 11/1/2004 jeffpaden@madbbs.com writes:
> Hmmm... I think I'd rather go on a diet
> than pull $40,000.00 of instruments out of my aircraft.
There's your problem, right there. Do you have any idea how much $40,000
weighs??!!
Message 31
| 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: 601 heavy left wing |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Tim & Diane Shankland <tshank@megsinet.net>
Dave,
I used a different method that I think was pretty foolproof. I took two
pieces of 1 1/2 inch angle iron each about four feet long. I bolted them
together with a metal plate such that the angle between them was 5
degrees. I then clamped whichever joint I was working on to this rig.
Then was I wasn't worried about anything moving or changing when I moved
it to the drill press. I used a bench top unit on the floor. I though
that the most important thing was that the two angle be equal.
Tim Shankland
Scott Laughlin wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Scott Laughlin" <cookwithgas@hotmail.com>
>
>Hi Dave:
>
>I used a full-scale CAD plot to drill my holes since I'm plans-building. I
>must have spent 2 hours adjusting and re-adjusting before building up the
>courage to make the first hole. Here's a photo capturing the event:
>
>http://www.cooknwithgas.com/10_19_03_SparAttachAngle.JPG
>
>You may want to use a CAD plot to compare yours to see if they are the same.
>
>It looks like you are making good progress this year. Keep up the good
>work. Maybe one day when we are both flying we can meet somewhere and
>compare notes.
>
>Scott Laughlin
>www.cooknwithgas.com
>
>----Original Message Follows----
>From: VideoFlyer@aol.com
>Has anyone else checked the dihedral of their 601XL wings/spars?
>
>
>Dave Harms
>videoflyer@aol.com
>
>Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
>http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
>
Message 32
| 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: "Chris Boultinghouse" <sonex260@austin.rr.com>
I've never seen a test performed with the sandbags on the top of the wing.
Typically a fixture is created to support the wing inverted and simulate the
fuselage attachment. Weight is then loaded appropriately to simulate the
lift distribution until the wing fails (or doesn't) in an "upward" direction
(towards the floor).
Testing by stacking weight on top would only be to verify the negative-G
capability.
See: http://www.whisperaircraft.com/galleries/dev/wing210p6.jpg
And: http://www.sonex-ltd.com/xenos_0301.html
-Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jeff Paden
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 5:34 PM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Sand bags
>
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff Paden" <jeffpaden@madbbs.com>
>
> Here is a good question for you all. Why do they put sand bags
> on the TOP
> of the wings? When you fly the wing LIFTS the aircraft to the load would
> not be on the top of the wing at all.
>
> Just a thought
>
> Jeff
>
> do not archive
Message 33
| 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: | Simple Questions: Builders Logs and more |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Crvsecretary@aol.com
Hello Fellow Listers:
I am starting work on a 601 XL, and I'm loving it! I have a few simple questions:
1) - I'm using Kitlog Pro to keep track of hours and dollars. Do I include in
my kit-building expenses workshop tools and supplies specific to building the
airplane? I wouldn't think so, but I have to ask.
2) - For expenses directly into the airplane, do you include shipping expense in
the total?
I'm concerned - even this early in the process - to have clear and complete logs.
I was warned to declare and pay state tax on all this stuff - the Connecticut
tax collectors are brutal !
Now, to an actual building question: I'm using zinc chromate to prime the interior
surfaces. I completed the horizontal stabilizer, but I just cheaned all
the surfaces well with lacquer thinner and sprayed away...no scuffing with Scotch-brite.
Did I waste my time?
At the Rudder Workshop all the interior surfaces were already coated with a wash
primer...and then during deburring we were told to drag a file right over it...that
didn't seem right to me, so I hit every hole individually with the twist
of a large drill as shown at the workshop. Did I waste my time ??
After I use up my zinc chromate I'll be using WB 6583 Wash Primer from Eastern
ChemLac...any thoughts ?
As always, I want to thank the posters - both the very active and the 'lurkers'
like me..I appreciate reading everyone's comments.
Best Regards,
Tracy
Message 34
| 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: "Jerry Latimer" <jlatimer1@cox.net>
The Zodie was also tested using sandbags.
Try this link:
http://zenithair.com/zodiac/pic02/weighted.jpg
Jerry Latimer
601HDS 912 fuel lines, electric wires etc.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Martin
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Sand bags
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
They usually hang the wing upside down and load the sand bags on the lower
surface which is now facing up. Putting the sand bags on the top surface of
the wing tests the negative G load.
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL, Stratus Subaru.
In Phase I testing.
do not archive.
on 11/1/04 6:34 PM, Jeff Paden at jeffpaden@madbbs.com wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff Paden" <jeffpaden@madbbs.com>
>
> Here is a good question for you all. Why do they put sand bags on the TOP
> of the wings? When you fly the wing LIFTS the aircraft to the load would
> not be on the top of the wing at all.
>
> Just a thought
>
> Jeff
>
> do not archive
Message 35
| 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: | Steering rod boots |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Fred Sanford <sonar1@cox.net>
Hi group:
I made my rudder steering rod boots from kevlar fabric, sewed with
kevlar thread, and tied on in several places with safety wire, and
rivets. The stuff doesn't burn, doesn't give off poison gasses, etc. I
think it should keep the fire out.
Pictures at:
http://members.cox.net/sonar1/kevlarsock.jpg
http://members.cox.net/sonar1/sockbase.jpg
Fred Sanford Ca. 701 Working on doors
do not archive
Message 36
| 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: Gross Weight |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Michel Therrien <mtherr@yahoo.com>
> I just might go as far
> as doing a sand bag test
> If I rip the wings off then I rip them off and
> will build new ones.
You're right... if it actually rips off.
If I understand things right, up to the design load,
constraints applied to metal is supposed to be in the
elastic portion of the metal capability. And metal
should fail at its ultimate load.
Between elastic and ultimate, however, the metal would
reshape and change property (such as when we bend the
parts). And if you do that, then, you're wing is not
the same anymore and can fail with repetitive
constraints at load smaller than design load.
I'm not an ingineer, but that's what I retained from a
presentation at our local RAA chapter.
I would not test my wings using this method (not being
sure how the design load factor has been determined...
I'm not even sure if it is design or ultimate...
documentation is inconsistent on this subject). But I
would expect the designer to have done a series of
such test finishing with a destructive test.
Michel
=====
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
__________________________________
www.yahoo.com
Message 37
| 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: Simple Questions: Builders Logs and more |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Jack Russell <clojan@sbcglobal.net>
Tracy: My primer process is to Scotchbrite, wipe down with safety solvent and spray
with Zinc OXide Spray cans (not Chromate). I have only sprayed mating surfaces.
Some of the areas are over a year old and thing seem to be sticking well.
My favorite method of deburring is also the 1/2 drill in hand andI have tried
them all! Jack in Clovis CA.
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Crvsecretary@aol.com
At the Rudder Workshop all the interior surfaces were already coated with a wash
primer...and then during deburring we were told to drag a file right over it...that
didn't seem right to me, so I hit every hole individually with the twist
of a large drill as shown at the workshop. Did I waste my time ??
After I use up my zinc chromate I'll be using WB 6583 Wash Primer from Eastern
ChemLac...any thoughts ?
Jack Russell -Clovis CA
601 XL Jabiru 3300
Progress update at:
http://www.geocities.com/clojan@sbcglobal.net/zodiacbarn.html
Message 38
| 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: "Ron Lee" <rlee468@comcast.net>
Is there a reason for the flap handle to have two long tabs. It seems the lower
one would only have to be an inch or less. What am I missing?
Message 39
| 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: Gross Weight |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Larry" <lrm@isp.com>
Boy, my wife thought I was out of my mind when I spent $7,000 on
instruments, no telling what your wife thinks.
Don't archive this. Larry N1345L
----- Original Message -----
From: <VideoFlyer@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Gross Weight
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: VideoFlyer@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 11/1/2004 jeffpaden@madbbs.com writes:
>
> > Hmmm... I think I'd rather go on a diet
> > than pull $40,000.00 of instruments out of my aircraft.
>
>
> There's your problem, right there. Do you have any idea how much $40,000
> weighs??!!
>
>
Message 40
| 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: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Because they mount the wing upside down before doing the loading.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Paden" <jeffpaden@madbbs.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Sand bags
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff Paden" <jeffpaden@madbbs.com>
>
> Here is a good question for you all. Why do they put sand bags on the
TOP
> of the wings? When you fly the wing LIFTS the aircraft to the load would
> not be on the top of the wing at all.
>
> Just a thought
>
> Jeff
>
> do not archive
>
>
Message 41
| 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: | Steering rod boots |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Frank Jones" <fjones@sympatico.ca>
Fred,
I'm curious to know if Kevlar breaths or if it would be a barrier to any
gases entering the cabin (e.g. CO). If you put it over your mouth can
you breath through it?
Frank Jones
Message 42
| 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 |
|
Received-SPF: none (MAIL-SERVER.madbbs.com: domain of jeffpaden@madbbs.com
does not designate any permitted senders)
| Subject: | Re: Gross Weight |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff Paden" <jeffpaden@madbbs.com>
> Hmmm... I think I'd rather go on a diet
> than pull $40,000.00 of instruments out of my aircraft.
>>There's your problem, right there. Do you have any idea how much $40,000
>>weighs??!!
Yup, about 10 lbs. Electronics do not weigh much but they sure are
expensive.
I will admit though, originally I had planned on an all glass cockpit and I
would not have had any of the old heavy instruments. However after my
little accident with the trees I had all the instruments from my CH300
available so I installed them in this aircraft as backup instruments.
I guess I could make a new instrument panel and ditch all of the old heavy
instruments. I just might do that once the snow starts to fly up here since
I will have all winter to complete the change. I'm not sure that it would
make that big of difference, but every pound I can remove would help I guess
Jeff Paden
Message 43
| 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: Frank Stutzman <stutzman@stutzman.com>
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Grant Corriveau wrote:
> This sandbag test is required for all certified aircraft designs, but is it
> required (or performed anyways) for amateur-built designs? I 'think' not --
Not in the US. However, in Finland (and perhaps other places), homebuilt
aircraft are required to go through the same design testing that
production aircraft do.
Somewhere on www.bowersflybaby.com is a picture of Finnish flybaby upside
down with sandbags loaded on it.
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR
Message 44
| 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: | Suggestions for lowering seat height in a 601 HDS |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeffrey Glasserow" <jeffglass@starband.net>
Looks like I might have bought a plane today. Boy, was I impressed with its
performance with the Lycoming O-235!
It was very gusty, with crosswinds of 12 to 19 Knots on the ground. I held
it down and rotated at 60 K to make sure a gust wouldn't stall us. After a
800' roll off we went, bouncing around like the ping pong balls in the
lottery machine. Winds aloft were 25 to 40 K in gusts. The plane handled
well and was very responsive. Power off stalls were gentle, with a
pronounced buffet before break. Once into the stall there was no tendency
to drop a wing. Again I was impressed with the stability and quick recovery.
Power on stalls were a bit more lively. It seemed like I had to get the
plane vertical before it broke. Once into the stall there was a slight
tendency to break to the left but it was easily corrected. Has anybody
tried a spin? I'd be interested to know how it handled and whether there
was a tendency to tighten up if it went past 1 full turn. Landing was a
treat... Carried in more power than I normally would and kept my approach
speed high to make sure there was plenty of rudder authority. Luckily, the
wind stayed down the runway so touchdown was uneventful. Based on the way
the plane handled and the quality of the build, I made an offer. I'll find
out tomorrow if my offer was accepted.
Now, Big question. I'm 5'11 and weigh about 226 fully clothed. My head is
bumping the canopy with my headset on and I'll need to do... something... to
get my head down. No, taking an inch off the top is out of the question!
The seller is 5'9 and weighs 180 and he has no problem with the seat height.
The seat bottom and seat back look to be about 3/4" to 1" thick.
Can the seat be lowered or canted back to give me a bit more headroom? Any
suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
Jeff G.
Message 45
| 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: Simple Questions: Builders Logs and more |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Pwalsh4539@aol.com
Tracy,
I do not think you can put too much info in your logs. The point is to
document that you built the majority of the aircraft and that is really for the
repairman, maintainance certificate as I recall. Of course there is also the cost
basis for tax purposes,but that is another subject which I surely am not very
educated about.
The zinc chromate primer is good to have between mating surfaces, but is not
all that necessary with the 6061 aluminum where exposed on the interior, at
least that is how it was explained to me. That said, I cleaned all interior
surfaces with lacquer thinner and primed anyway..not a lot of trouble. All rivets
were dipped in zinc chromate before installing. I"m sure most folks know that
the zinc chromate is very toxic, but it is worth mentioning that is is known
to cause cancer.
De-urring is a very important (and boring) step. If it is de-burred, then it
is de-burrd. A file runs the risk of scratching surrounding metal, drill bits
are OK, but may remove too much and roughen the surface of the hole. When I
went to the workshop way back in 1996, drill bits were used. Most suppliers
sell de-burring tools.
Check the archives about scotch brite pads, as there are some which should
not be used on aluminum. Happy building.
Regards,
Patrick Walsh
601 HD/Rotax 912
Message 46
| 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: Rotax 912 wires |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Pwalsh4539@aol.com
List,
A few days ago, I posted a note about wires running from the Rotax 912
stator to the regulator. The 2 yellow wires. On mine, they are deteriorated to
the
point of the insulation being no better than chewing gum. Not good, I am sure.
Does anyone know of, or has anyone had experience with this?
I kind of hope that my last post got mis-sent or something, as this seems to
be quite an important item which I certainly am not going to ignore and it
would be worth anyone flying with the 912 to check before flying again.
Regards,
Patrick Walsh
601HD
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! --
|