Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:56 AM - Re: 701 extra ribs? (jnbolding1)
2. 06:41 AM - Re: 701 extra ribs? (Larry)
3. 07:03 AM - Re: A Good Word for the FAA (Bruce Johnson)
4. 08:06 AM - Re: 701 extra ribs? (Keith Ashcraft)
5. 09:20 AM - Re: 701 extra ribs & nitrous sys (skyshops)
6. 10:04 AM - Re: Tire Mounting (Kent Brown)
7. 10:06 AM - N166DK CH601 HDS Crash (Richard Herndon)
8. 11:12 AM - Re: N166DK CH601 HDS Crash (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
9. 11:53 AM - Hangar size for 601 sharing with another airplane? (Lance Gingell)
10. 04:57 PM - Re: N166DK CH601 HDS Crash (Larry McFarland)
11. 06:31 PM - Re: 701 extra ribs? (Larry)
12. 06:47 PM - upper fairlead, perhaps? (Jack Russell)
13. 07:16 PM - Re: N166DK CH601 HDS Crash (The Meiste's)
14. 07:17 PM - Re: N166DK CH601 HDS Crash (VideoFlyer@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: | Re: 701 extra ribs? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "jnbolding1" <jnbolding1@mail.ev1.net>
OH !! I thought we were talking about ZENITH wings .. you threw a sheep in there
with the goats. Just because they are similar doesn't mean you can swap parts
and come up with the same load paths and ultimate strengths.
I don't know if it's still the case but I was told by Danny at Skyshops that airfoil
shaped angles instead of full ribs were added to the three spots on the
701 wing where there is a lot of space between the ribs, this held oil canning
to a minimum and resulted in more speed. However this gave no increase in gross
weight .. Tried to get Chris to fess up on the wings used on the 701 in Europe
(which are longer) but he wouldn't give any info, only saying that they
didn't help or hurt. (I have a little problem with that assessment) LOW&SLOW
John
>Check their site, it's in one of the studies.
>
>http://www.dedaliusaviation.com/newdedalius/anglais.htm
>
>There are over 8 more sq ft of surface area, you figure. Larry N1345L
>
>Do Not Archive
>
>
>>
>> They add a little weight, but also increase
>> >useful load by 100 pounds.
>>
>>
>> Who says??
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: 701 extra ribs? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Larry" <lrm@isp.com>
I guess I'm just confused. But adding more ribs to the ZENITH wing doesn't
seem to me, I'm no engineer, could in any way add speed, it can only add
strength. You have to reduce drag or increase power to get any more speed
out of a Zenith wing. And you can only do that by changing the air foil or
retracting the slats. I'm gonna go look at the Skyshops site and see what I
see, but if I remember correctly they got their speed increase from a
slicker cowling. Think I'll got tend the goats. Larry N1345L
----- Original Message -----
From: "jnbolding1" <jnbolding1@mail.ev1.net>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 extra ribs?
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "jnbolding1" <jnbolding1@mail.ev1.net>
>
> OH !! I thought we were talking about ZENITH wings .. you threw a sheep
in there with the goats. Just because they are similar doesn't mean you can
swap parts and come up with the same load paths and ultimate strengths.
> I don't know if it's still the case but I was told by Danny at Skyshops
that airfoil shaped angles instead of full ribs were added to the three
spots on the 701 wing where there is a lot of space between the ribs, this
held oil canning to a minimum and resulted in more speed. However this gave
no increase in gross weight .. Tried to get Chris to fess up on the wings
used on the 701 in Europe (which are longer) but he wouldn't give any info,
only saying that they didn't help or hurt. (I have a little problem with
that assessment) LOW&SLOW John
>
>
> >Check their site, it's in one of the studies.
> >
> >http://www.dedaliusaviation.com/newdedalius/anglais.htm
> >
> >There are over 8 more sq ft of surface area, you figure. Larry N1345L
> >
> >Do Not Archive
> >
> >
>
> >>
> >> They add a little weight, but also increase
> >> >useful load by 100 pounds.
> >>
> >>
> >> Who says??
>
>
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: | A Good Word for the FAA |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bruce Johnson" <bruce@satx.rr.com>
Randy,
How is your 601 performing with the corvair???? Are you getting the increase
in performance you were expecting????
I'm in Schertz, TX so I want a ride!!! (ok, after your wife, and Leo... and
...)
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Stout
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: A Good Word for the FAA
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Randy Stout <n282rs@earthlink.net>
Leo
Have you flown a 601 before? I have about 14 more hours of test time on
mine, then I'll be able to take passengers. I'll offer a familization ride
after I'm finished. Hopefully before the end of the month. Only catch is
that my wife has to get a ride first. She's been anxiously waiting for a
long time.
Randy Stout
n282rs "at" earthlink.net
www.geocities.com/r5t0ut21
---
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: 701 extra ribs? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Keith Ashcraft <keith.ashcraft@itt.com>
Hi Larry,
I think what is being said is, if you can keep the oil-canning down to a
minimum, then there is less drag and a smoother air-foil, hench a
slightly faster airplane!!
Keith
*********************************************************************
Larry wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Larry" <lrm@isp.com>
>
>I guess I'm just confused. But adding more ribs to the ZENITH wing doesn't
>seem to me, I'm no engineer, could in any way add speed, it can only add
>strength. You have to reduce drag or increase power to get any more speed
>out of a Zenith wing. And you can only do that by changing the air foil or
>retracting the slats. I'm gonna go look at the Skyshops site and see what I
>see, but if I remember correctly they got their speed increase from a
>slicker cowling. Think I'll got tend the goats. Larry N1345L
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "jnbolding1" <jnbolding1@mail.ev1.net>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 extra ribs?
>
>
>
>
>>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "jnbolding1" <jnbolding1@mail.ev1.net>
>>
>>OH !! I thought we were talking about ZENITH wings .. you threw a sheep
>>
>>
>in there with the goats. Just because they are similar doesn't mean you can
>swap parts and come up with the same load paths and ultimate strengths.
>
>
>>I don't know if it's still the case but I was told by Danny at Skyshops
>>
>>
>that airfoil shaped angles instead of full ribs were added to the three
>spots on the 701 wing where there is a lot of space between the ribs, this
>held oil canning to a minimum and resulted in more speed. However this gave
>no increase in gross weight .. Tried to get Chris to fess up on the wings
>used on the 701 in Europe (which are longer) but he wouldn't give any info,
>only saying that they didn't help or hurt. (I have a little problem with
>that assessment) LOW&SLOW John
>
>
>>
>>
>>>Check their site, it's in one of the studies.
>>>
>>>http://www.dedaliusaviation.com/newdedalius/anglais.htm
>>>
>>>There are over 8 more sq ft of surface area, you figure. Larry N1345L
>>>
>>>Do Not Archive
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> They add a little weight, but also increase
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>useful load by 100 pounds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Who says??
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
*************************************
*Keith Ashcraft*
ITT Industries
Advanced Engineering & Sciences
5009 Centennial Blvd.
Colorado Springs, CO
80919
(719) 599-1787 -- work
(719) 332-4364 -- cell
keith.ashcraft@itt.com
************************************
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are proprietary and intended solely
for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you
have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender. Please note that
any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of ITT Industries, Inc. The recipient should
check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. ITT Industries
accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted
by this e-mail.
************************************
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 701 extra ribs & nitrous sys |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "skyshops" <danny@skyshops.org>
Larry
The extra ribs help only to keep down the oil canning. The speed
increase comes from more streamlined cowling, new NACA induction system
and different oil and radiator placement. And the nitrous system...just
kidding..
Danny (SKYSHOPS.ORG)
Hi Larry,
I think what is being said is, if you can keep the oil-canning down to a
minimum, then there is less drag and a smoother air-foil, hench a
slightly faster airplane!!
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Kent Brown" <kentbrown@verizon.net>
Thanks to all for the help, the list always comes through!
As a teenager, I did my obligatory stint in a "filling station", pumping
gas, checking the oil, washing windshields, and fixing tires. Yes Virginia,
we DID give full service then. There was always a can of Murphy's Tire Soap
with a small piece of carpet on a wire for a brush to spread it around the
bead of the tire sitting next to the tire machine. I guess the old training
kicked in and I automatically went to get some Murphy's when I had tires to
mount. A sign of age when you discover what you think is the "normal" way
of doing things is now the "we used to" way.
Thanks all.
Kent
601HDS, mounting the tires!
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 |
|
| Subject: | N166DK CH601 HDS Crash |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Richard Herndon <rickherndon@erols.com>
List,
Just found the following NTSB preliminary report on their web site.
With sympathy for Andy and his test pilot's family I post the report.
NTSB Identification: IAD05LA007
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, October 26, 2004 in Leominster, MA
Aircraft: SanClemente Zenith CH 601HDS, registration: N166DK
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the
final report has been completed.
On October 26, 2004, about 1540 eastern daylight time, a homebuilt
Zenith CH 601HS, N166DK, was destroyed when it
impacted a machine shop in Leominster, Massachusetts, shortly after
takeoff from Fitchburg Municipal Airport (FIT),
Fitchburg, Massachusetts. The certificated airline transport pilot was
fatally injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed,
and no flight plan had been filed for local flight test, conducted under
14 CFR Part 91.
According to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector, the
accident occurred during the airplane's first flight. The
inspector also reported that the pilot had previously flight tested many
other homebuilt airplanes.
According to the owner/builder of the airplane, both he and the pilot
conducted a thorough preflight, and the pilot subsequently
started the airplane per the start-up checklist, with the owner/builder
looking over his shoulder. The owner then reminded the
pilot to remove the Ballistic Recovery System (BRS) safety pin prior to
takeoff, and to double check the trim indications.
The pilot then taxied to runway 32, and announced over the radio that
he'd hold in the run-up area to allow the engine to warm
up. About that time, the owner/builder reminded the pilot again, via
hand-held radio, to double check the trim indications and
make sure the BRS safety pin was removed. The pilot then taxied the
airplane onto runway 32, announced his intentions, and
stated that it was the airplane's first flight.
The owner/builder observed the first part of the takeoff roll to be
"completely normal, and there was no side-to-side motion of
the aircraft and a rapid acceleration as he brought in full power." The
engine sounded "smooth with no misfires or strange
noises."
As soon as the airplane lifted off the runway, it climbed to
approximately 40-50 feet, while simultaneously veering to the left. It
appeared that the pilot was "fighting for control" as the airplane
"veered slightly back towards the runway." There may have
been a reduction of engine power, but the owner/builder was not sure.
The airplane then veered back towards the left, toward a tree line. As
it approached the tree line, the engine noise grew
"noticeably louder," and the airplane went into a "very nose-high
attitude." The airplane "appeared to hang on the prop as it was
pulled up and over [the] trees;" however, no stall occurred, and the
engine "appeared to be working without any issue."
According to another witness, a certificated flight instructor, he saw
the accident airplane after it took off, and initially saw it
20-50 feet above the runway, near runway centerline, "but apparently
experiencing what [he] believed was a stability or control
problem." He saw the airplane "oscillating (porpoising?) in pitch, wings
approximately level." The pilot then appeared to gain
pitch control, and the airplane began a climbing left turn about 90
degrees from the runway heading, toward a tree line. The
airplane then descended below and beyond the tree line, but subsequently
came back up above it, and made another left turn
back toward the airport. Then the airplane "banked steeply left, pitched
down, and went into the trees in a steep nose-down
and banked attitude (possibly stalled)."
According to the FAA inspector, because the airplane was consumed in an
intense post-impact fire, a detailed examination of
the wreckage could not be made.
The pilot held an airline transport pilot certificate for multi-engine
airplanes. He also held a commercial pilot certificate for single
engine land and sea airplanes, multi-engine sea airplanes, and gliders.
According to his application for his latest FAA second
class medical certificate, dated March 5, 2004, the pilot had accrued
5,250 hours of flight time.
Weather at Fitchburg Airport, recorded at 1552, included clear skies,
winds from 310 degrees true, variable between 290
degrees and 010 degrees true, at 9 knots.
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: | N166DK CH601 HDS Crash |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
This is truly a tragic accident.
For those of you getting near your first flight experience it might be
worth just reviewing what this report described and making suggestions.
It looks like the A/C was badly out of trim ("heavy" left wing and
possibly for/aft) and it must be remembered that part of ZAC's
instructions are to perform high speed taxi tests. Really a high spped
taxi is flying the thing on the ground, in other words you should be
able to feel what the airplane wants to do with the weight of the
airplane on the wings.
The other issue I have with many builders is they choose an airport with
a short runway surrounded by trees. Many first flight flight accidents
could have been avoided by choosing a more suitable airport, i.e long
runway surrounded by flat fields. Yes you may have to travel and set it
up with your DAR but surely better to do this and avoid disaster.
When I did my high speed taxi it really was a first flight on a 6000ft
runway and yes the wheels just left the ground...But I knew it flew
straight before taking the plunge.
Even using a quiet towerd controlled airport is a possibility.
With great sadness...
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Herndon
Subject: Zenith-List: N166DK CH601 HDS Crash
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Richard Herndon
--> <rickherndon@erols.com>
List,
Just found the following NTSB preliminary report on their web site. With
sympathy for Andy and his test pilot's family I post the report.
NTSB Identification: IAD05LA007
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, October 26, 2004 in Leominster, MA
Aircraft: SanClemente Zenith CH 601HDS, registration: N166DK
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.
On October 26, 2004, about 1540 eastern daylight time, a homebuilt
Zenith CH 601HS, N166DK, was destroyed when it impacted a machine shop
in Leominster, Massachusetts, shortly after takeoff from Fitchburg
Municipal Airport (FIT), Fitchburg, Massachusetts. The certificated
airline transport pilot was fatally injured. Visual meteorological
conditions prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed for local flight
test, conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.
According to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector, the
accident occurred during the airplane's first flight. The inspector also
reported that the pilot had previously flight tested many other
homebuilt airplanes.
According to the owner/builder of the airplane, both he and the pilot
conducted a thorough preflight, and the pilot subsequently started the
airplane per the start-up checklist, with the owner/builder looking over
his shoulder. The owner then reminded the pilot to remove the Ballistic
Recovery System (BRS) safety pin prior to takeoff, and to double check
the trim indications.
The pilot then taxied to runway 32, and announced over the radio that
he'd hold in the run-up area to allow the engine to warm up. About that
time, the owner/builder reminded the pilot again, via hand-held radio,
to double check the trim indications and make sure the BRS safety pin
was removed. The pilot then taxied the airplane onto runway 32,
announced his intentions, and stated that it was the airplane's first
flight.
The owner/builder observed the first part of the takeoff roll to be
"completely normal, and there was no side-to-side motion of the aircraft
and a rapid acceleration as he brought in full power." The engine
sounded "smooth with no misfires or strange noises."
As soon as the airplane lifted off the runway, it climbed to
approximately 40-50 feet, while simultaneously veering to the left. It
appeared that the pilot was "fighting for control" as the airplane
"veered slightly back towards the runway." There may have been a
reduction of engine power, but the owner/builder was not sure.
The airplane then veered back towards the left, toward a tree line. As
it approached the tree line, the engine noise grew "noticeably louder,"
and the airplane went into a "very nose-high attitude." The airplane
"appeared to hang on the prop as it was pulled up and over [the] trees;"
however, no stall occurred, and the engine "appeared to be working
without any issue."
According to another witness, a certificated flight instructor, he saw
the accident airplane after it took off, and initially saw it 20-50 feet
above the runway, near runway centerline, "but apparently experiencing
what [he] believed was a stability or control problem." He saw the
airplane "oscillating (porpoising?) in pitch, wings approximately
level." The pilot then appeared to gain pitch control, and the airplane
began a climbing left turn about 90 degrees from the runway heading,
toward a tree line. The airplane then descended below and beyond the
tree line, but subsequently came back up above it, and made another left
turn back toward the airport. Then the airplane "banked steeply left,
pitched down, and went into the trees in a steep nose-down and banked
attitude (possibly stalled)."
According to the FAA inspector, because the airplane was consumed in an
intense post-impact fire, a detailed examination of the wreckage could
not be made.
The pilot held an airline transport pilot certificate for multi-engine
airplanes. He also held a commercial pilot certificate for single engine
land and sea airplanes, multi-engine sea airplanes, and gliders.
According to his application for his latest FAA second class medical
certificate, dated March 5, 2004, the pilot had accrued 5,250 hours of
flight time.
Weather at Fitchburg Airport, recorded at 1552, included clear skies,
winds from 310 degrees true, variable between 290 degrees and 010
degrees true, at 9 knots.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Hangar size for 601 sharing with another airplane? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Lance Gingell" <lgingell@matrix-logic.com>
Is anyone out there storing their 601 in a hangar with a
PA28/Archer/Warrior or similar? I need some hangar sizing information.
I'm planning on building a hangar on my property, and I'd like to make
it just big enough to house a Piper PA28-xxx and a 601XL. However at
this point my XL isn't finished and I don't have a Piper hanging around!
I'd like to size it up, and see how big/small a hangar i'd need to
squeeze these two in together.
Cheers,
..lance
Wings/tail complete. About to start fuse.
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N166DK CH601 HDS Crash |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Larry McFarland" <larrymc@qconline.com>
Though tragic, there is room to exercise improved awareness. Like you, I've
read and reread the sequence of events here and there were two other things
come to mind that could cause the HDS to be only half-stabilized in flight.
Considering flight experience and the basic design of the HDS, it's hard to
believe the aircraft could have been that far out of balance or trim. But,
if it were a bit of either, the following items would aggravate the problem.
If the propeller were inadvertently under-pitched, rpms would provide great
acceleration, but be short of enough pitch to actually stay at a stable
airspeed. The oscillating nose might have been just a repeated effort to
stay in the air.
The other is detail 2, the fairlead at bulkhead B5 for the elevator top bell
crank. If the fairlead itself were ever to let go, the cable would have a
lot of slack and up elevator would be reduced or not available. Trim and
throttle would be the only alternative if that were the case. Though less
likely, this was the item first thought of when reading the post clear thru.
I put a couple of holes in the flange and made a U-shaped wire retainer that
goes under the cable catching the bulkhead flange each side of the fairlead
a year ago, because on hindsight, I didn't like rivets securing the nylon
fairlead for the long term. It's got quite a divergent angle.
We may never know what happened for sure, but our sympathies are with Andy
and his family.
Larry McFarland - 601HDS
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: N166DK CH601 HDS Crash
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> This is truly a tragic accident.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 extra ribs? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Larry" <lrm@isp.com>
I understood that was what they were getting at, you were just the first to
say it. I believe anything that reduces drag helps, even if it can't be
measured. I don't know how much they (Z-wings) beer can. If it were a lot,
then stiffing would help with reducing drag, but how much I would think
wouldn't be very much. And, if the beer canning is a lot, then there is a
more sever issue than lost speed. Larry N1345L
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Ashcraft" <keith.ashcraft@itt.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 extra ribs?
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Keith Ashcraft <keith.ashcraft@itt.com>
>
>
> Hi Larry,
> I think what is being said is, if you can keep the oil-canning down to a
> minimum, then there is less drag and a smoother air-foil, hench a
> slightly faster airplane!!
>
> Keith
> *********************************************************************
>
> Larry wrote:
>
> >--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Larry" <lrm@isp.com>
> >
> >I guess I'm just confused. But adding more ribs to the ZENITH wing
doesn't
> >seem to me, I'm no engineer, could in any way add speed, it can only add
> >strength. You have to reduce drag or increase power to get any more
speed
> >out of a Zenith wing. And you can only do that by changing the air foil
or
> >retracting the slats. I'm gonna go look at the Skyshops site and see
what I
> >see, but if I remember correctly they got their speed increase from a
> >slicker cowling. Think I'll got tend the goats. Larry N1345L
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "jnbolding1" <jnbolding1@mail.ev1.net>
> >To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 extra ribs?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "jnbolding1"
<jnbolding1@mail.ev1.net>
> >>
> >>OH !! I thought we were talking about ZENITH wings .. you threw a
sheep
> >>
> >>
> >in there with the goats. Just because they are similar doesn't mean you
can
> >swap parts and come up with the same load paths and ultimate strengths.
> >
> >
> >>I don't know if it's still the case but I was told by Danny at Skyshops
> >>
> >>
> >that airfoil shaped angles instead of full ribs were added to the three
> >spots on the 701 wing where there is a lot of space between the ribs,
this
> >held oil canning to a minimum and resulted in more speed. However this
gave
> >no increase in gross weight .. Tried to get Chris to fess up on the wings
> >used on the 701 in Europe (which are longer) but he wouldn't give any
info,
> >only saying that they didn't help or hurt. (I have a little problem with
> >that assessment) LOW&SLOW John
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>Check their site, it's in one of the studies.
> >>>
> >>>http://www.dedaliusaviation.com/newdedalius/anglais.htm
> >>>
> >>>There are over 8 more sq ft of surface area, you figure. Larry N1345L
> >>>
> >>>Do Not Archive
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> They add a little weight, but also increase
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>useful load by 100 pounds.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>Who says??
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> *************************************
>
> *Keith Ashcraft*
>
> ITT Industries
>
> Advanced Engineering & Sciences
>
> 5009 Centennial Blvd.
>
> Colorado Springs, CO
>
> 80919
>
> (719) 599-1787 -- work
>
> (719) 332-4364 -- cell
>
> keith.ashcraft@itt.com
>
>
> ************************************
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are proprietary and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender. Please
note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of ITT Industries, Inc.
The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence
of viruses. ITT Industries accepts no liability for any damage caused by any
virus transmitted by this e-mail.
> ************************************
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | upper fairlead, perhaps? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Jack Russell <clojan@sbcglobal.net>
Larry: I agree with you on this one. I was also bothered with the fairlead so I
made a reinforcing backing plate (see pg 1 pg my page). Jack in Clovis cA
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Larry McFarland"
The other is detail 2, the fairlead at bulkhead B5 for the elevator top bell
crank. If the fairlead itself were ever to let go, the cable would have a
lot of slack and up elevator would be reduced or not available. Trim and
throttle would be the only alternative if that were the case. Though less
likely, this was the item first thought of when reading the post clear thru.
I put a couple of holes in the flange and made a U-shaped wire retainer that goes
under the cable catching the bulkhead flange each side of the fairlead a year
ago, because on hindsight, I didn't like rivets securing the nylon fairlead
for the long term. It's got quite a divergent angle.
Jack Russell -Clovis CA
601 XL Jabiru 3300
Progress update at:
http://www.geocities.com/clojan@sbcglobal.net/zodiacbarn.html
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: N166DK CH601 HDS Crash |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "The Meiste's" <meiste@essex1.com>
>the fairlead at bulkhead B5 for the elevator top bell
> crank. If the fairlead itself were ever to let go, the cable would have a
> lot of slack and up elevator would be reduced or not available.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is scary now that you mention it Larry, good observation.
Especially if one were to install the rivet head on the aluminum bulkhead
side and the stem going into the plastic fairlead WITHOUT a backup washer.
Sounds like I'll be cutting an inspection panel soon.
Kelly
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: N166DK CH601 HDS Crash |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: VideoFlyer@aol.com
In a message dated 11/9/04 , larrymc@qconline.com writes:
> <<<If the propeller were inadvertently under-pitched, rpms would provide
> great acceleration, but be short of enough pitch to actually stay at a stable
> airspeed. The oscillating nose might have been just a repeated effort to stay
> in the air.>>>>
As I was reading the description, I thought, too, that perhaps the prop was
underpitched. It sounds like the engine was running fine. A louder sound as
the plane turned could be attributed to the prop's axis changing in relation
to the listener.
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! --
|