Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:39 AM - Re: full fuel indicator? (ron dewees)
2. 05:29 AM - Re: Main Gear Change (N5SL)
3. 05:50 AM - Re: Help finding the right kit (Larry McFarland)
4. 06:24 AM - Re: Main Gear Change (Hunt Malcolm)
5. 06:29 AM - Re: full fuel indicator? (David Barth)
6. 07:03 AM - Re: Help finding the right kit (Jake Reyna)
7. 07:14 AM - Re: Help finding the right kit (Garrou, Douglas)
8. 07:29 AM - Re: Help finding the right kit (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
9. 07:39 AM - Re: Re: Help finding the right kit (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
10. 07:42 AM - Re: Help finding the right kit (Rob Campbell)
11. 07:45 AM - Re: Re: Help finding the right kit (Rob Campbell)
12. 08:03 AM - Re: Re: Help finding the right kit (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
13. 08:11 AM - Re: Re: Help finding the right kit (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
14. 08:18 AM - Re: Help finding the right kit (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
15. 08:53 AM - Re: Fuel line protection needed? (Rick)
16. 08:54 AM - Re: Help finding the right kit (Rob Campbell)
17. 09:26 AM - Re: Correct Tire Pressures? (Leo Corbalis)
18. 09:38 AM - Re: Fuel line protection needed? (Jon Croke)
19. 09:56 AM - Re: Fuel line protection needed? (JERICKSON03E@aol.com)
20. 10:10 AM - Re: Re: Help finding the right kit ()
21. 10:10 AM - Re: Fuel line protection needed? (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
22. 10:12 AM - Re: Fuel line protection needed? (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
23. 10:39 AM - Re: Re: Help finding the right kit. (Gary Gower)
24. 10:46 AM - Re: Re: Help finding the right kit (David Barth)
25. 11:17 AM - Re: Help finding the right kit (Larry McFarland)
26. 11:25 AM - Re: Re: Help finding the right kit. (Tim Egan)
27. 11:36 AM - Re: Re: Help finding the right kit (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
28. 12:00 PM - Re: Help finding the right kit (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
29. 12:12 PM - IFR vs IMC? (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
30. 01:01 PM - Re: Help finding the right kit (Kent Brown)
31. 01:04 PM - Gear Questions (george may)
32. 01:47 PM - Re: Fuel line protection needed? (Jon Croke)
33. 02:14 PM - Re: Fuel line protection needed? (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
34. 02:39 PM - Re: Re: Help finding the right kit (Monty Graves)
35. 07:42 PM - Re: Fuel line protection needed? (JERICKSON03E@aol.com)
36. 08:27 PM - Re: Fuel line protection needed? (Jon Croke)
37. 08:41 PM - Re: Fuel line protection needed? (Gary Gower)
38. 09:00 PM - Re: Fuel line protection needed? (Gary Gower)
39. 10:37 PM - Re: Fuel line protection needed? (Peter Dunning)
40. 11:28 PM - Unbelieveable ------crash (Fred Sanford)
41. 11:57 PM - Re: IFR vs IMC? (Rob Campbell)
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: full fuel indicator? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: ron dewees <rdewees@mindspring.com>
Thanks Randy,
There is a lot to digest on the website, but looks like a large choice
of probes and accesories. I will settle down to see if I cfind a
solution that won't take a frontend rebuild. Thanks so much. Wow= 5
gallon header! I sure see why you looked for a reliable solution. Just
goes to show that as soon as you complain you can find someone with a
lot more difficult problem to deal with :-)
Happy flying
Ron
do not archive
Randy Stout wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy Stout" <n282rs@earthlink.net>
>
>I do the same thing on mine. My header fuel gauge is a Cruz Pro with
>digital readout. You can program it to sound an alarm at a hi value and at
>a low value. It makes plenty of noise and can be heard over my engine
>without a muffler. Since my header is a 5 gallon tank, I have my hi value
>set to 4.6 gallons, and low value set to 1.7. I usually don't like to see
>less than 3 gallons in the header, so I add fuel long before alarm goes
>off.
>
>Cruz Pro has one that will automatically turn your transfer pump off and on
>for you, but I prefer to have control over that. It can also "learn" your
>particular tank, for those with odd shaped tanks. www.cruzpro.com
>
>Randy Stout
>n282rs"at"earthlink.net
>www.geocities.com/r5t0ut21
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Main Gear Change |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: N5SL <nfivesl@yahoo.com>
George:
I can't comment on the main gear, but the nosegear axle size change may be due
to the tapered bearings now being offered by Matco and included in the ZAC kit.
When I ordered my nose wheel, I had a discussion with the Matco folks and they
told me they couldn't find a tapered bearing with a 5/8" hole, so they went
to 3/4" axles. They told me they would ship mine and ZAC's first one at the
same time and that ZAC wanted to evaluate it before introducing it in the kit.
I guess that has happened.
Have a good day,
Scott Laughlin
wwww.cooknwithgas.com
DO NOT ARCHIVE
george may <gfmjr_20@hotmail.com> wrote:
Also my kit came with the 5/8 nose axle and wheel. What is the group
opinion of using that or purchasing new wheel, axle and bearings?
George May
601XL
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Help finding the right kit |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Larry McFarland <larrymc@qconline.com>
Rob,
If you reduce your need for speed by 20 mph, you can golf right into
your old age and comply with
the light sport aircraft standards. The 601LX meets most of the other
requirements with several
stowage areas. If you're careful in engine selection, (Corvair) you'd
be able to load the aft portion
of your plane better and go faster. There are no better aircraft for
the first time builder and your
specifications than the 601XL.
My opinion, of course
Larry McFarland - 601HDS
Do not archive
Rob Campbell wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
>
>Hello All,
>Well, I'd like to build an airplane sometime soon and would like one
>that will go minimum 150 mph can carry 2 adults along with 2 sets of
>golf clubs (50" long each) with maybe 2 duffle bags as well. I'd
>also like it to burn no more than 6 GPH and be capable of being flown
>IFR and can be built relatively quickly (under 1500 hours). I'd also
>like it to be under $40K. Oh, it must be metal construction and
>suitable for the first time builder. Is such a beast out there?
>Rob
>
>
>
>
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: | Main Gear Change |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hunt Malcolm" <Malcolm.HUNT@networkrail.co.uk>
George
I have previously spoken with Matco as in England we have to build from the CZAW
plans which show a .75" axle.
Matco advised that with the .625" axle this required wheels with ball bearings
but the .75" is available tapered roller bearings and is much more robust. Static
loads being 660lb and 1185lb respectively. For the WHLW51CC.75 wheel now
specified in the new plan updates, Matco recommend their Axle 20 which is available
from them or Aircraft Spruce complete with spacers, nuts and fittings.
I assume that the developments for the E-LSA certification have made this change
desirable.
Hope this is of help.
Kind regards
Malcolm Hunt
CH601XL plans builder in England
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of N5SL
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Main Gear Change
--> Zenith-List message posted by: N5SL <nfivesl@yahoo.com>
George:
I can't comment on the main gear, but the nosegear axle size change may be due
to the tapered bearings now being offered by Matco and included in the ZAC kit.
When I ordered my nose wheel, I had a discussion with the Matco folks and they
told me they couldn't find a tapered bearing with a 5/8" hole, so they went
to 3/4" axles. They told me they would ship mine and ZAC's first one at the
same time and that ZAC wanted to evaluate it before introducing it in the kit.
I guess that has happened.
Have a good day,
Scott Laughlin
wwww.cooknwithgas.com
DO NOT ARCHIVE
george may <gfmjr_20@hotmail.com> wrote:
Also my kit came with the 5/8 nose axle and wheel. What is the group
opinion of using that or purchasing new wheel, axle and bearings?
George May
601XL
Your attention is drawn to the fact that this email originated from a source external
to Network Rail.
************************************************************************************************
The content of this email (and any attachment) is confidential. It may also be
legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.
This email should not be used by anyone who is not an original intended recipient,
nor may it be copied or disclosed to anyone who is not an original intended
recipient. If you have received this email by mistake please notify us by emailing
the sender, and then delete the email and any copies from your system.
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the senders
own and not made on behalf of Network Rail.
************************************************************************************************
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: full fuel indicator? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: David Barth <davids601xl@yahoo.com>
Hey Ron. That switch also has a timed mode that will pump for 5 minutes. I believe
you mentioned 2 minutes per gallon in your system. So any time you sensed
you could use another 2.5 gallons in your header tank you could use the 5
minute timed mode. Just a thought.
David
do not archive
ron dewees <rdewees@mindspring.com> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: ron dewees
Hi Craig,
Thanks for the link. The main reason for filling full is that the
header tank is only 8 gallons, and my reserve is 2 gallons when the
gauge reads empty. 6 gallons operating fuel isn't a whole big safety
margin. If I ignore the top 1 gallon it's 5 gallons and I have a #3
pucker factor from takeoff.
I will take another look at the smart pump. It says it tells me when
the aux is empty, rather than when the header is full. I know when the
aux is empty as the Facet pump will start sounding like a jack hammer
when it's dry.
David Barth
601 XL Plansbuilder 15% done?
Working on Wings
www.ch601.org
---------------------------------
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing & more. Check it out!
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: Help finding the right kit |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jake Reyna" <jake@lockhart-tx.com>
Rob,
I'll have to agree with Larry and add that the wing locker option will hold
your duffle bags. You could easily build a Corvair (built by William Wynne)
powered XL for $37,000, I have the spreadsheet and receipts to prove it.
This would include the Grove Spring gear, Dynon EFIS, Grand Rapids EIS, Nav
lights .... upholstery, paint (DIY).
Using the Jabiru will add $7,000 to the cost bringing the total to $44,000.
If the Australian Dollar were to drop to 2001 levels the additional cost
would be $4,000.
If you're interested in the spreadsheet, send me an email offline.
Jake
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: | RE: Help finding the right kit |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Garrou, Douglas" <dgarrou@hunton.com>
Rob: that's a very tall set of specifications. My guess is you'll have to give
somewhere - load, fuel consumption, speed, or (more likely) cost.
Note that decent IFR gear alone can eat a *very* substantial hole in $40,000.
But to start from the beginning: With two people and baggage of that size and
weight, I think you're really talking about a four person airplane. To get a
four person airplane moving at that kind of speed means, in the certified world,
that you're roughly in the Mooney/Tiger/182 range. And at that point you're
in an area that's well north of $40,000, and at least a little north of 6 gph
(far more in the 182).
For example, one thing that could accomplish your mission, except for fuel burn,
would be a 1/3 or 1/4 interest in a used 182. Unless you're really, really
set on building your own plane, you might think about going that route. You would
probably find that fuel burn would be a relatively minor consideration in
the overall cost of owning such an airplane.
A four-seat 150 mph bird is not an area that's particularly well covered by existing
aluminum kit aircraft. Thoughts:
1. Zenith 640. Don't know about speed or load, and it will be north of 6 gph.
I'd have to check the baggage situation to see how suitable it is for golf clubs.
2. RV-10.
3. Bearhawk (a homebuilt Cessna 180, basically). Not all aluminum, though.
However, each of these, set up with decent IFR avionics, will set you back well
over $40K.
Best of luck,
Doug G.
Project 801
www.garrou.com
-----Original Message-----
Time: 09:17:47 PM PST US
From: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
Subject: Zenith-List: Help finding the right kit
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
Hello All,
Well, I'd like to build an airplane sometime soon and would like one
that will go minimum 150 mph can carry 2 adults along with 2 sets of
golf clubs (50" long each) with maybe 2 duffle bags as well. I'd
also like it to burn no more than 6 GPH and be capable of being flown
IFR and can be built relatively quickly (under 1500 hours). I'd also
like it to be under $40K. Oh, it must be metal construction and
suitable for the first time builder. Is such a beast out there?
Rob
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: | Help finding the right kit |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
An IFR airplane for under $40k...That would be tough to do.
As Larry said if you can go slower then the 601XL might well suit your
needs. Alternatively a VAN's RV-9 will do the speed and with a fuel
injected Lycoming might well do 150 at around 6GPH (The RV-7 will do
about 180mph at around 7.5 GPH assuming you know how to run it lean of
Peak...and not many pilots do!)
A Quick build RV-9 can be built in less than 1000hours but doing it on
40k will be a tall order.
Frank
601 HDS (For sale!)
RV-7A airframe almost complete
Rob,
If you reduce your need for speed by 20 mph, you can golf right into
your old age and comply with the light sport aircraft standards. The
601LX meets most of the other requirements with several stowage areas.
If you're careful in engine selection, (Corvair) you'd be able to load
the aft portion of your plane better and go faster. There are no better
aircraft for the first time builder and your specifications than the
601XL.
My opinion, of course
Larry McFarland - 601HDS
Do not archive
Rob Campbell wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
>
>Hello All,
>Well, I'd like to build an airplane sometime soon and would like one
>that will go minimum 150 mph can carry 2 adults along with 2 sets of
>golf clubs (50" long each) with maybe 2 duffle bags as well. I'd also
>like it to burn no more than 6 GPH and be capable of being flown IFR
>and can be built relatively quickly (under 1500 hours). I'd also like
>it to be under $40K. Oh, it must be metal construction and suitable
>for the first time builder. Is such a beast out there?
>Rob
>
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Help finding the right kit |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
As an example, my RV 7a with "light IFR", new Lycoming IO360 clone and
quickbuild kit is going to run $85k...Gulp!
Two sets of 50" golf clubs...Yeah maybe, havent measured it but I think
they would fit.
Frank
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Garrou,
Douglas
Subject: Zenith-List: RE: Help finding the right kit
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Garrou, Douglas"
--> <dgarrou@hunton.com>
Rob: that's a very tall set of specifications. My guess is you'll have
to give somewhere - load, fuel consumption, speed, or (more likely)
cost.
Note that decent IFR gear alone can eat a *very* substantial hole in
$40,000.
But to start from the beginning: With two people and baggage of that
size and weight, I think you're really talking about a four person
airplane. To get a four person airplane moving at that kind of speed
means, in the certified world, that you're roughly in the
Mooney/Tiger/182 range. And at that point you're in an area that's well
north of $40,000, and at least a little north of 6 gph (far more in the
182).
For example, one thing that could accomplish your mission, except for
fuel burn, would be a 1/3 or 1/4 interest in a used 182. Unless you're
really, really set on building your own plane, you might think about
going that route. You would probably find that fuel burn would be a
relatively minor consideration in the overall cost of owning such an
airplane.
A four-seat 150 mph bird is not an area that's particularly well covered
by existing aluminum kit aircraft. Thoughts:
1. Zenith 640. Don't know about speed or load, and it will be north of
6 gph. I'd have to check the baggage situation to see how suitable it
is for golf clubs.
2. RV-10.
3. Bearhawk (a homebuilt Cessna 180, basically). Not all aluminum,
though.
However, each of these, set up with decent IFR avionics, will set you
back well over $40K.
Best of luck,
Doug G.
Project 801
www.garrou.com
-----Original Message-----
Time: 09:17:47 PM PST US
From: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
Subject: Zenith-List: Help finding the right kit
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
Hello All,
Well, I'd like to build an airplane sometime soon and would like one
that will go minimum 150 mph can carry 2 adults along with 2 sets of
golf clubs (50" long each) with maybe 2 duffle bags as well. I'd also
like it to burn no more than 6 GPH and be capable of being flown IFR and
can be built relatively quickly (under 1500 hours). I'd also like it to
be under $40K. Oh, it must be metal construction and suitable for the
first time builder. Is such a beast out there?
Rob
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: Help finding the right kit |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
Hello All,
Can you make the baggage compartment in the 601 50 inches
long? I saw a 601 a few days ago down at Camarillo airport EAA for
final assembly. I noticed the baggage about 36 inches deep and I was
wondering if it could be lengthened. This guy did a beautiful job
building as was not even a pilot yet! He said a friend is going to
do the fly-off. He used a Suzuki engine and said he only had $2600
firewall forward! Very cool. I like the Corvair idea after seeing
their site and reading about what they do. Is there a prop that
gives a higher cruise but gives up some takeoff and climb capability?
What does complying with light aircraft standards do for me?
I also noticed the panel was very small. Is there a solution
to make it legal IFR with a flat panel? I saw one in a magazine for
around $2000 that does quite a lot in one package. I also like the
idea of a small flat panel engine monitoring system with a built in
electronic checklist. Does one need standby vacuum instruments to be
legal IFR?
Rob
On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:50 AM, Larry McFarland wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Larry McFarland
> <larrymc@qconline.com>
>
> Rob,
> If you reduce your need for speed by 20 mph, you can golf right into
> your old age and comply with
> the light sport aircraft standards. The 601LX meets most of the other
> requirements with several
> stowage areas. If you're careful in engine selection, (Corvair) you'd
> be able to load the aft portion
> of your plane better and go faster. There are no better aircraft for
> the first time builder and your
> specifications than the 601XL.
> My opinion, of course
>
> Larry McFarland - 601HDS
> Do not archive
>
> Rob Campbell wrote:
>
>
>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell
>> <1global@adelphia.net>
>>
>> Hello All,
>> Well, I'd like to build an airplane sometime soon and would like one
>> that will go minimum 150 mph can carry 2 adults along with 2 sets of
>> golf clubs (50" long each) with maybe 2 duffle bags as well. I'd
>> also like it to burn no more than 6 GPH and be capable of being flown
>> IFR and can be built relatively quickly (under 1500 hours). I'd also
>> like it to be under $40K. Oh, it must be metal construction and
>> suitable for the first time builder. Is such a beast out there?
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: RE: Help finding the right kit |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
Frank,
Are you talking about the baggage compartment in the RV7A or the Zenith?
On Jun 7, 2005, at 7:40 AM, Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
> (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> As an example, my RV 7a with "light IFR", new Lycoming IO360 clone and
> quickbuild kit is going to run $85k...Gulp!
>
> Two sets of 50" golf clubs...Yeah maybe, havent measured it but I
> think
> they would fit.
>
> Frank
>
> Do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Garrou,
> Douglas
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: RE: Help finding the right kit
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Garrou, Douglas"
> --> <dgarrou@hunton.com>
>
> Rob: that's a very tall set of specifications. My guess is you'll
> have
> to give somewhere - load, fuel consumption, speed, or (more likely)
> cost.
>
> Note that decent IFR gear alone can eat a *very* substantial hole in
> $40,000.
>
> But to start from the beginning: With two people and baggage of that
> size and weight, I think you're really talking about a four person
> airplane. To get a four person airplane moving at that kind of speed
> means, in the certified world, that you're roughly in the
> Mooney/Tiger/182 range. And at that point you're in an area that's
> well
> north of $40,000, and at least a little north of 6 gph (far more in
> the
> 182).
>
> For example, one thing that could accomplish your mission, except for
> fuel burn, would be a 1/3 or 1/4 interest in a used 182. Unless
> you're
> really, really set on building your own plane, you might think about
> going that route. You would probably find that fuel burn would be a
> relatively minor consideration in the overall cost of owning such an
> airplane.
>
> A four-seat 150 mph bird is not an area that's particularly well
> covered
> by existing aluminum kit aircraft. Thoughts:
>
> 1. Zenith 640. Don't know about speed or load, and it will be
> north of
> 6 gph. I'd have to check the baggage situation to see how suitable it
> is for golf clubs.
>
> 2. RV-10.
>
> 3. Bearhawk (a homebuilt Cessna 180, basically). Not all aluminum,
> though.
>
> However, each of these, set up with decent IFR avionics, will set you
> back well over $40K.
>
> Best of luck,
> Doug G.
> Project 801
> www.garrou.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Time: 09:17:47 PM PST US
> From: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
> Subject: Zenith-List: Help finding the right kit
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
>
> Hello All,
> Well, I'd like to build an airplane sometime soon and would like one
> that will go minimum 150 mph can carry 2 adults along with 2 sets of
> golf clubs (50" long each) with maybe 2 duffle bags as well. I'd also
> like it to burn no more than 6 GPH and be capable of being flown
> IFR and
> can be built relatively quickly (under 1500 hours). I'd also like
> it to
> be under $40K. Oh, it must be metal construction and suitable for the
> first time builder. Is such a beast out there?
> Rob
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Help finding the right kit |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
As an automotive fan I would say you want a THOROUGH shake down of the
motor before you even considered going IFR with it.
These prices are keen but you still need a Nav/com (3.2k) Indicator head
(1.2k) IFR GPS ...Not a legal requirement but you'd be nuts no to (3.5k
min with a $250 yearly subscription for the database updates)...Oh and a
transponder if the prices below don't include for that (2k???), Heated
pitot( 1k....I know I can't believe it either)
That's an extra $11k right there!
IFR adds up fast!
Frank
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jake Reyna
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Help finding the right kit
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jake Reyna" <jake@lockhart-tx.com>
Rob,
I'll have to agree with Larry and add that the wing locker option will
hold your duffle bags. You could easily build a Corvair (built by
William Wynne) powered XL for $37,000, I have the spreadsheet and
receipts to prove it.
This would include the Grove Spring gear, Dynon EFIS, Grand Rapids EIS,
Nav lights .... upholstery, paint (DIY).
Using the Jabiru will add $7,000 to the cost bringing the total to
$44,000.
If the Australian Dollar were to drop to 2001 levels the additional cost
would be $4,000.
If you're interested in the spreadsheet, send me an email offline.
Jake
do not archive
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: Help finding the right kit |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
The RV 7 or 9 have the same baggage compartment that goes from the floor
up to the canopy behind the seats so I was primarily talking about the
RV.
I think the RV has more baggage space just by looking at it. The ZAC
might have the length I really can't remember.
Frank
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob
Campbell
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: RE: Help finding the right kit
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
Frank,
Are you talking about the baggage compartment in the RV7A or the Zenith?
On Jun 7, 2005, at 7:40 AM, Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
> (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> As an example, my RV 7a with "light IFR", new Lycoming IO360 clone and
> quickbuild kit is going to run $85k...Gulp!
>
> Two sets of 50" golf clubs...Yeah maybe, havent measured it but I
> think
> they would fit.
>
> Frank
>
> Do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Garrou,
> Douglas
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: RE: Help finding the right kit
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Garrou, Douglas"
> --> <dgarrou@hunton.com>
>
> Rob: that's a very tall set of specifications. My guess is you'll
> have
> to give somewhere - load, fuel consumption, speed, or (more likely)
> cost.
>
> Note that decent IFR gear alone can eat a *very* substantial hole in
> $40,000.
>
> But to start from the beginning: With two people and baggage of that
> size and weight, I think you're really talking about a four person
> airplane. To get a four person airplane moving at that kind of speed
> means, in the certified world, that you're roughly in the
> Mooney/Tiger/182 range. And at that point you're in an area that's
> well
> north of $40,000, and at least a little north of 6 gph (far more in
> the
> 182).
>
> For example, one thing that could accomplish your mission, except for
> fuel burn, would be a 1/3 or 1/4 interest in a used 182. Unless
> you're
> really, really set on building your own plane, you might think about
> going that route. You would probably find that fuel burn would be a
> relatively minor consideration in the overall cost of owning such an
> airplane.
>
> A four-seat 150 mph bird is not an area that's particularly well
> covered
> by existing aluminum kit aircraft. Thoughts:
>
> 1. Zenith 640. Don't know about speed or load, and it will be
> north of
> 6 gph. I'd have to check the baggage situation to see how suitable it
> is for golf clubs.
>
> 2. RV-10.
>
> 3. Bearhawk (a homebuilt Cessna 180, basically). Not all aluminum,
> though.
>
> However, each of these, set up with decent IFR avionics, will set you
> back well over $40K.
>
> Best of luck,
> Doug G.
> Project 801
> www.garrou.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Time: 09:17:47 PM PST US
> From: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
> Subject: Zenith-List: Help finding the right kit
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
>
> Hello All,
> Well, I'd like to build an airplane sometime soon and would like one
> that will go minimum 150 mph can carry 2 adults along with 2 sets of
> golf clubs (50" long each) with maybe 2 duffle bags as well. I'd also
> like it to burn no more than 6 GPH and be capable of being flown
> IFR and
> can be built relatively quickly (under 1500 hours). I'd also like
> it to
> be under $40K. Oh, it must be metal construction and suitable for the
> first time builder. Is such a beast out there?
> Rob
>
>
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: | Help finding the right kit |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
You do not need vacuum (in fact I would not have it as a gift!) for IFR
but you do need all the functionality that the vacuum offers and that
will cost you around 16k minimum for all the instruments.
And believe me that is about as low as you want to go flying IFR.
As to engines, flying IFR is a whole different kettle of fish, I have
had three engine failurs on a highly regarded auto conversion...All of
them ended without incident but if it had been IMC conditions the pucker
factor would have gone up by about 10X...
IMC flying is a very serious and very expensive business.
Of course light aircraft and IFR are completely different animals...Not
the same airplane or pilot...:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob
Campbell
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Help finding the right kit
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
Hello All,
Can you make the baggage compartment in the 601 50 inches long? I
saw a 601 a few days ago down at Camarillo airport EAA for final
assembly. I noticed the baggage about 36 inches deep and I was
wondering if it could be lengthened. This guy did a beautiful job
building as was not even a pilot yet! He said a friend is going to
do the fly-off. He used a Suzuki engine and said he only had $2600
firewall forward! Very cool. I like the Corvair idea after seeing
their site and reading about what they do. Is there a prop that
gives a higher cruise but gives up some takeoff and climb capability?
What does complying with light aircraft standards do for me?
I also noticed the panel was very small. Is there a solution to
make it legal IFR with a flat panel? I saw one in a magazine for around
$2000 that does quite a lot in one package. I also like the idea of a
small flat panel engine monitoring system with a built in electronic
checklist. Does one need standby vacuum instruments to be legal IFR?
Rob
On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:50 AM, Larry McFarland wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Larry McFarland
> <larrymc@qconline.com>
>
> Rob,
> If you reduce your need for speed by 20 mph, you can golf right into
> your old age and comply with
> the light sport aircraft standards. The 601LX meets most of the other
> requirements with several
> stowage areas. If you're careful in engine selection, (Corvair) you'd
> be able to load the aft portion
> of your plane better and go faster. There are no better aircraft for
> the first time builder and your
> specifications than the 601XL.
> My opinion, of course
>
> Larry McFarland - 601HDS
> Do not archive
>
> Rob Campbell wrote:
>
>
>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell
>> <1global@adelphia.net>
>>
>> Hello All,
>> Well, I'd like to build an airplane sometime soon and would like one
>> that will go minimum 150 mph can carry 2 adults along with 2 sets of
>> golf clubs (50" long each) with maybe 2 duffle bags as well. I'd
>> also like it to burn no more than 6 GPH and be capable of being flown
>> IFR and can be built relatively quickly (under 1500 hours). I'd also
>> like it to be under $40K. Oh, it must be metal construction and
>> suitable for the first time builder. Is such a beast out there?
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel line protection needed? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Rick" <zodie@adelphia.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: <MElrod3732@aol.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Fuel line protection needed?
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: MElrod3732@aol.com
>
> I am installing the fuel lines in the firewall forward section for the
> Rotax
> 912S in my 701 and was wondering if I needed to protect these rubber fuel
> lines from heat to prevent vapor lock?
> If I do, please recommend the type of protection and where I can obtain
> this
> material.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Mike Elrod
Firesleeve should be used on fuel and oil lines in the engine bay. It's
there to reduce the possibility of a fire burning through the hoses and
igniting the fuel or oil. Your local FBO will probably be willing to sell
you some, I like to spend a few bucks at my local airport instead of
ordering everything from out of town. The suppliers like Wickes and Aircraft
Spruce will have it too if your local FBO doesn't deal in that sort of
thing.
I don't think it'll do much to prevent vaporlock, just fires.
Rick Pitcher
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: Help finding the right kit |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
Frank,
Am I safe to assume that you are not a fan of automotive conversions
anymore? Three engine failures? Wow. that's way beyond my pucker
factor. That's more than a lifetimes worth. What were those failures
caused from and what type of engines were they? Flying IFR and
flying IMC are 2 different animals as well. For me, single engine
IMC must be done only by necessity for very short periods of time, if
ever. Single engine IFR is smart in and out of congested areas such
as flying from Southern California (where I live) to Vegas, Phoenix,
or the Bay Area, for example.
On Jun 7, 2005, at 8:19 AM, Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
> (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> You do not need vacuum (in fact I would not have it as a gift!) for
> IFR
> but you do need all the functionality that the vacuum offers and that
> will cost you around 16k minimum for all the instruments.
>
> And believe me that is about as low as you want to go flying IFR.
>
> As to engines, flying IFR is a whole different kettle of fish, I have
> had three engine failurs on a highly regarded auto conversion...All of
> them ended without incident but if it had been IMC conditions the
> pucker
> factor would have gone up by about 10X...
>
> IMC flying is a very serious and very expensive business.
>
> Of course light aircraft and IFR are completely different
> animals...Not
> the same airplane or pilot...:)
>
> Frank
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob
> Campbell
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Help finding the right kit
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
>
> Hello All,
> Can you make the baggage compartment in the 601 50 inches
> long? I
> saw a 601 a few days ago down at Camarillo airport EAA for final
> assembly. I noticed the baggage about 36 inches deep and I was
> wondering if it could be lengthened. This guy did a beautiful job
> building as was not even a pilot yet! He said a friend is going to
> do the fly-off. He used a Suzuki engine and said he only had $2600
> firewall forward! Very cool. I like the Corvair idea after seeing
> their site and reading about what they do. Is there a prop that
> gives a higher cruise but gives up some takeoff and climb capability?
> What does complying with light aircraft standards do for me?
> I also noticed the panel was very small. Is there a solution to
> make it legal IFR with a flat panel? I saw one in a magazine for
> around
> $2000 that does quite a lot in one package. I also like the idea of a
> small flat panel engine monitoring system with a built in electronic
> checklist. Does one need standby vacuum instruments to be legal IFR?
> Rob
>
> On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:50 AM, Larry McFarland wrote:
>
>
>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Larry McFarland
>> <larrymc@qconline.com>
>>
>> Rob,
>> If you reduce your need for speed by 20 mph, you can golf right into
>> your old age and comply with
>> the light sport aircraft standards. The 601LX meets most of the
>> other
>> requirements with several
>> stowage areas. If you're careful in engine selection, (Corvair)
>> you'd
>> be able to load the aft portion
>> of your plane better and go faster. There are no better aircraft for
>> the first time builder and your
>> specifications than the 601XL.
>> My opinion, of course
>>
>> Larry McFarland - 601HDS
>> Do not archive
>>
>> Rob Campbell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell
>>> <1global@adelphia.net>
>>>
>>> Hello All,
>>> Well, I'd like to build an airplane sometime soon and would like one
>>> that will go minimum 150 mph can carry 2 adults along with 2 sets of
>>> golf clubs (50" long each) with maybe 2 duffle bags as well. I'd
>>> also like it to burn no more than 6 GPH and be capable of being
>>> flown
>>> IFR and can be built relatively quickly (under 1500 hours). I'd
>>> also
>>> like it to be under $40K. Oh, it must be metal construction and
>>> suitable for the first time builder. Is such a beast out there?
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Correct Tire Pressures? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Leo Corbalis" <leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
I run 25 psi. on my 601HDS TD. I just replaced both tires after 400 hrs. The
tread wear was very even across the tire face. They were 2 ply from Zenair.
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: <jeffglass@starband.net>
Subject: Zenith-List: Correct Tire Pressures?
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: <jeffglass@starband.net>
>
> I've just had to replace both main gear tires on my 601 HDS due to center
> tread wear.
> The new tires I got from Matco are the same size as the old, 4.80X8, but
> are now 6 ply. The stated tire pressure ON THE TIRE is 90 psi, tubeless.
>
> I just got off the phone with Matco and they gave me the following info:
> 4.80X8 2 Ply pressure 35 psi
> 4.80X8 4 Ply pressure 60 psi
> 4.80X8 6 Ply pressure 90 psi at gross weight of 725lbs on tire....
> However, even Matco thinks this pressure is to high. By my W&B chart I
> noted that each main carries about 225 lbs. empty. Any suggestions on
> what the correct tire pressure should be? Sebastian says 40 lbs...
>
> Also, I was told the correct torque values for the 3 wheel bolts is 90
> inch pounds. Matco specifies two different values on their technical
> sheet that comes with the wheel. One is for Aluminum at 80 inch pounds
> and the other is for steel at 90 inch pounds. THESE VALUES ARE FOR THE
> 1/4X20 BOLTS WHICH ARE STEEL GOING INTO STEEL BOLTS!
>
> As always, can't wait to see the replies!
> Jeff Glasserow
> CH601 HDS
> N6384E
>
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel line protection needed? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jon Croke" <jon@joncroke.com>
> I don't think it'll do much to prevent vaporlock, just fires.
> Rick Pitcher
>
I concur about the firesleeve..
If one were concerned about vapor lock from heat, the classic solution is to
build a recirculating fuel system from the engine back to the fuel tank.
This forces the fuel to move fast thru the lines. Instead of using a "T" to
distribute the fuel to the 2 carbs, add another fitting with a small jet
that sends fuel thru another hose back to the gas tank.
That's IF one was concerned about vaporlock....
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel line protection needed? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: JERICKSON03E@aol.com
In a message dated 6/7/2005 11:39:41 AM Central Daylight Time,
jon@joncroke.com writes:
If one were concerned about vapor lock from heat, the classic solution is to
build a recirculating fuel system from the engine back to the fuel tank
Does the ROTAX installation manual still recommend running the fuel line
inside of a larger tube, with cool air flowing through the tube? An anti vapor
lock approach?
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: Help finding the right kit |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on hestia
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <jeffglass@starband.net>
Jake, I'd certainly like to see your spreadsheet!
Jeff Glasserow
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jake Reyna" <jake@lockhart-tx.com>
>
> Rob,
>
> I'll have to agree with Larry and add that the wing locker option will
> hold your duffle bags. You could easily build a Corvair (built by
> William Wynne) powered XL for $37,000, I have the spreadsheet and
> receipts to prove it. This would include the Grove Spring gear, Dynon
> EFIS, Grand Rapids EIS, Nav lights .... upholstery, paint (DIY).
>
> Using the Jabiru will add $7,000 to the cost bringing the total to
> $44,000. If the Australian Dollar were to drop to 2001 levels the
> additional cost would be $4,000.
>
> If you're interested in the spreadsheet, send me an email offline.
>
> Jake
> do not archive
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Fuel line protection needed? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Yes but it didn't stop the Eggenfelner RV from crashing due to
vapourlock did it?
Recirculating fuel is a band aid...The proper way to do it is have the
fuel pumps at the low point of the system and in a cool location...Note
where many folks put their fuel pump...high up on a hot firwall sucking
from low wing tanks.
And we wonder why the biggest cause of homebuilts crashing is due to
"fuel problems"
But please don't get me started....:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jon Croke
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Fuel line protection needed?
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jon Croke" <jon@joncroke.com>
> I don't think it'll do much to prevent vaporlock, just fires.
> Rick Pitcher
>
I concur about the firesleeve..
If one were concerned about vapor lock from heat, the classic solution
is to build a recirculating fuel system from the engine back to the fuel
tank.
This forces the fuel to move fast thru the lines. Instead of using a
"T" to distribute the fuel to the 2 carbs, add another fitting with a
small jet that sends fuel thru another hose back to the gas tank.
That's IF one was concerned about vaporlock....
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: | Fuel line protection needed? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Oh...You mean a mechanical pump bolted to a hot engine,,,Even
better...For crashing due to Vapour lock that is.
But you won't get me started...Nope, not going to bite.
Frank
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
JERICKSON03E@aol.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Fuel line protection needed?
--> Zenith-List message posted by: JERICKSON03E@aol.com
In a message dated 6/7/2005 11:39:41 AM Central Daylight Time,
jon@joncroke.com writes:
If one were concerned about vapor lock from heat, the classic solution
is to build a recirculating fuel system from the engine back to the fuel
tank
Does the ROTAX installation manual still recommend running the fuel line
inside of a larger tube, with cool air flowing through the tube? An anti
vapor lock approach?
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: Help finding the right kit. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
One thing not to left aside is that there is no "free lunch" in aviation:
To have a plane with more than 150 mph cruise, you will have ALSO a faster landing
airplane.
This means also in experimental airplanes "eficient"; this is: More "tricky" to
land.
The ZAC line of airplanes are designed to be very forgiving and honest in landing.
Is important to enjoy the flight AND the LANDING. Beware: Not all the fast
airplanes can handle grass strips.
With a fast landing airplane, (any one) maybe you wont fly it safetly enough,
once you get "good and old" playing golf :-) Remember, week end pilots fly
about 35 hrs a year... We all need a forgiving airplane as first option.
Important Note: This comments are not about ANY of the fast planes in specific.
Also, I have no experience in RV planes, cant compare.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Guadalajara, Mexico.
The fun of flying beguins when you take off, not how fast you get there... Where?
"Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
As an example, my RV 7a with "light IFR", new Lycoming IO360 clone and
quickbuild kit is going to run $85k...Gulp!
Two sets of 50" golf clubs...Yeah maybe, havent measured it but I think
they would fit.
Frank
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Garrou,
Douglas
Subject: Zenith-List: RE: Help finding the right kit
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Garrou, Douglas"
-->
Rob: that's a very tall set of specifications. My guess is you'll have
to give somewhere - load, fuel consumption, speed, or (more likely)
cost.
Note that decent IFR gear alone can eat a *very* substantial hole in
$40,000.
But to start from the beginning: With two people and baggage of that
size and weight, I think you're really talking about a four person
airplane. To get a four person airplane moving at that kind of speed
means, in the certified world, that you're roughly in the
Mooney/Tiger/182 range. And at that point you're in an area that's well
north of $40,000, and at least a little north of 6 gph (far more in the
182).
For example, one thing that could accomplish your mission, except for
fuel burn, would be a 1/3 or 1/4 interest in a used 182. Unless you're
really, really set on building your own plane, you might think about
going that route. You would probably find that fuel burn would be a
relatively minor consideration in the overall cost of owning such an
airplane.
A four-seat 150 mph bird is not an area that's particularly well covered
by existing aluminum kit aircraft. Thoughts:
1. Zenith 640. Don't know about speed or load, and it will be north of
6 gph. I'd have to check the baggage situation to see how suitable it
is for golf clubs.
2. RV-10.
3. Bearhawk (a homebuilt Cessna 180, basically). Not all aluminum,
though.
However, each of these, set up with decent IFR avionics, will set you
back well over $40K.
Best of luck,
Doug G.
Project 801
www.garrou.com
-----Original Message-----
Time: 09:17:47 PM PST US
From: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
Subject: Zenith-List: Help finding the right kit
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
Hello All,
Well, I'd like to build an airplane sometime soon and would like one
that will go minimum 150 mph can carry 2 adults along with 2 sets of
golf clubs (50" long each) with maybe 2 duffle bags as well. I'd also
like it to burn no more than 6 GPH and be capable of being flown IFR and
can be built relatively quickly (under 1500 hours). I'd also like it to
be under $40K. Oh, it must be metal construction and suitable for the
first time builder. Is such a beast out there?
Rob
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: Help finding the right kit |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: David Barth <davids601xl@yahoo.com>
Yep. For that price you would be better off to slow down, get a 601XL and buy
a new set of clubs everywhere you went and them donate them to the local caddy.
Just kidding.
do not archive
David
"Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
As an example, my RV 7a with "light IFR", new Lycoming IO360 clone and
quickbuild kit is going to run $85k...Gulp!
Two sets of 50" golf clubs...Yeah maybe, havent measured it but I think
they would fit.
Frank
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Garrou,
Douglas
Subject: Zenith-List: RE: Help finding the right kit
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Garrou, Douglas"
-->
Rob: that's a very tall set of specifications. My guess is you'll have
to give somewhere - load, fuel consumption, speed, or (more likely)
cost.
Note that decent IFR gear alone can eat a *very* substantial hole in
$40,000.
But to start from the beginning: With two people and baggage of that
size and weight, I think you're really talking about a four person
airplane. To get a four person airplane moving at that kind of speed
means, in the certified world, that you're roughly in the
Mooney/Tiger/182 range. And at that point you're in an area that's well
north of $40,000, and at least a little north of 6 gph (far more in the
182).
For example, one thing that could accomplish your mission, except for
fuel burn, would be a 1/3 or 1/4 interest in a used 182. Unless you're
really, really set on building your own plane, you might think about
going that route. You would probably find that fuel burn would be a
relatively minor consideration in the overall cost of owning such an
airplane.
A four-seat 150 mph bird is not an area that's particularly well covered
by existing aluminum kit aircraft. Thoughts:
1. Zenith 640. Don't know about speed or load, and it will be north of
6 gph. I'd have to check the baggage situation to see how suitable it
is for golf clubs.
2. RV-10.
3. Bearhawk (a homebuilt Cessna 180, basically). Not all aluminum,
though.
However, each of these, set up with decent IFR avionics, will set you
back well over $40K.
Best of luck,
Doug G.
Project 801
www.garrou.com
-----Original Message-----
Time: 09:17:47 PM PST US
From: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
Subject: Zenith-List: Help finding the right kit
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
Hello All,
Well, I'd like to build an airplane sometime soon and would like one
that will go minimum 150 mph can carry 2 adults along with 2 sets of
golf clubs (50" long each) with maybe 2 duffle bags as well. I'd also
like it to burn no more than 6 GPH and be capable of being flown IFR and
can be built relatively quickly (under 1500 hours). I'd also like it to
be under $40K. Oh, it must be metal construction and suitable for the
first time builder. Is such a beast out there?
Rob
David Barth
601 XL Plansbuilder 15% done?
Working on Wings
www.ch601.org
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Help finding the right kit |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Larry McFarland <larrymc@qconline.com>
Rob,
The engine problems mentioned are all valve guide failures that were the
result
of an overheated Subaru. The attention taken in seating the valve guides
during
engine remanufacture was the result of knurling and reinstalling the
guides.
Not a unique problem for the Subaru, but this has occured in several
aircraft
because the attention to cooling was not considered.
I fly a Subaru because I like water cooled engines and I've made the
effort to not
have any problems. There are several thousand Subarus flying in Gyros,
Kitfoxes and Zenith 601s. They are inexpensive to a fault and are a
great engine
for aircraft that need only 120 mph cruise or less. I fly for 3.2
gallons per hour
at 100 mph and 5 gallons per hour at 120 mph. There are few aircraft
that can claim
economy like that, and when gas prices invert to $6/gal one day soon,
I'll still be flying
at less than $20/hr. At prices for aircraft fuel, some will be
rethinking those 20K
Lycs and Continentals that don't burn less than 7 gph.
Larry McFarland - 601HDS
Rob Campbell wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
>
>Frank,
>Am I safe to assume that you are not a fan of automotive conversions
>anymore? Three engine failures? Wow. that's way beyond my pucker
>factor. That's more than a lifetimes worth. What were those failures
>caused from and what type of engines were they? Flying IFR and
>flying IMC are 2 different animals as well. For me, single engine
>IMC must be done only by necessity for very short periods of time, if
>ever. Single engine IFR is smart in and out of congested areas such
>as flying from Southern California (where I live) to Vegas, Phoenix,
>or the Bay Area, for example.
>
>On Jun 7, 2005, at 8:19 AM, Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
>>(Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>>
>>You do not need vacuum (in fact I would not have it as a gift!) for
>>IFR
>>but you do need all the functionality that the vacuum offers and that
>>will cost you around 16k minimum for all the instruments.
>>
>>And believe me that is about as low as you want to go flying IFR.
>>
>>As to engines, flying IFR is a whole different kettle of fish, I have
>>had three engine failurs on a highly regarded auto conversion...All of
>>them ended without incident but if it had been IMC conditions the
>>pucker
>>factor would have gone up by about 10X...
>>
>>IMC flying is a very serious and very expensive business.
>>
>>Of course light aircraft and IFR are completely different
>>animals...Not
>>the same airplane or pilot...:)
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob
>>Campbell
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Help finding the right kit
>>
>>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
>>
>>Hello All,
>> Can you make the baggage compartment in the 601 50 inches
>>long? I
>>saw a 601 a few days ago down at Camarillo airport EAA for final
>>assembly. I noticed the baggage about 36 inches deep and I was
>>wondering if it could be lengthened. This guy did a beautiful job
>>building as was not even a pilot yet! He said a friend is going to
>>do the fly-off. He used a Suzuki engine and said he only had $2600
>>firewall forward! Very cool. I like the Corvair idea after seeing
>>their site and reading about what they do. Is there a prop that
>>gives a higher cruise but gives up some takeoff and climb capability?
>> What does complying with light aircraft standards do for me?
>> I also noticed the panel was very small. Is there a solution to
>>make it legal IFR with a flat panel? I saw one in a magazine for
>>around
>>$2000 that does quite a lot in one package. I also like the idea of a
>>small flat panel engine monitoring system with a built in electronic
>>checklist. Does one need standby vacuum instruments to be legal IFR?
>>Rob
>>
>>On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:50 AM, Larry McFarland wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Larry McFarland
>>><larrymc@qconline.com>
>>>
>>>Rob,
>>>If you reduce your need for speed by 20 mph, you can golf right into
>>>your old age and comply with
>>>the light sport aircraft standards. The 601LX meets most of the
>>>other
>>>requirements with several
>>>stowage areas. If you're careful in engine selection, (Corvair)
>>>you'd
>>>be able to load the aft portion
>>>of your plane better and go faster. There are no better aircraft for
>>>the first time builder and your
>>>specifications than the 601XL.
>>>My opinion, of course
>>>
>>>Larry McFarland - 601HDS
>>>Do not archive
>>>
>>>Rob Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell
>>>><1global@adelphia.net>
>>>>
>>>>Hello All,
>>>>Well, I'd like to build an airplane sometime soon and would like one
>>>>that will go minimum 150 mph can carry 2 adults along with 2 sets of
>>>>golf clubs (50" long each) with maybe 2 duffle bags as well. I'd
>>>>also like it to burn no more than 6 GPH and be capable of being
>>>>flown
>>>>IFR and can be built relatively quickly (under 1500 hours). I'd
>>>>also
>>>>like it to be under $40K. Oh, it must be metal construction and
>>>>suitable for the first time builder. Is such a beast out there?
>>>>Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Help finding the right kit. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Tim Egan" <eedetailing@qwest.net>
Rob,
I thought I wanted a 150 mph airplane too. Best choice I found
was the Pulsar. I took a ride in one, and it did go 150. Way cool.
But... Im 6'2 and fairly broad in the shoulders. I had to have my
left arm/shoulder in front of the pilot. On a long trip I would have
to put my arm over him boyfriend/girlfriend style. Also was slightly
too tall for it.
The pilot showed
me a piece of his wing where he had a bird strike with a seagull.
Nice hole in it, thru the 1/4 foam core with composite on top.
He told me that I would not want to land it at a grass strip and
especially not gravel. Skis on it in the winter? no way. Usefull
load of 420 pounds was pretty low too.
His plane is for sale, $33K by the way.
So, I bought a 601HD back east, and flew it back to Idaho
where I live. Got to know the plane pretty well, 17 hours of
cross country time will do that. Way fun plane.
A little slower, but at 110 mph you can really go places that
a 75 mph plane doesnt take you very well. Cargo space is
good to, two suitcases fit in there well. Golf clubs might not fit but
they might. I'll have to try that.
Still trying to make better landings, it seems like I am on the left side
every time, and pointing the nose to the right. Must be me,
as it is every time. Previous experience is an a challengerII,
which is tandem seating and hi wing. But as they say,
every landing that you walk away from is a good one.
TimE
>
> Hello All,
> Well, I'd like to build an airplane sometime soon and would like one
> that will go minimum 150 mph can carry 2 adults along with 2 sets of
> golf clubs (50" long each) with maybe 2 duffle bags as well. I'd also
> like it to burn no more than 6 GPH and be capable of being flown IFR and
> can be built relatively quickly (under 1500 hours). I'd also like it to
> be under $40K. Oh, it must be metal construction and suitable for the
> first time builder. Is such a beast out there?
> Rob
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 |
|
| Subject: | RE: Help finding the right kit |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Better off?
It really depends on what you mean by that. Yes you can go flying for
less money in the XL and if cost is really the driver then the ZAC has
it down.
Remember however the resale value. I know I won't get out of my HDS what
I put in, but I regularly see RV owners at least getting back their
investment.
I would argue the RV-9 is a good first airplane and is quite a bit more
capable that the ZAC models...I think it might even land around the same
speed and is probably a more viable IFR platform.
It is certainly not a Sport pilot airplane and it I will either take
longer to build due to the solid rivets or and/or will cost more if you
go with the quick build option.
AI think bottom line if cost is the real factor then go with ZAC, but
not sure about using auto motors in IFR, and I reallly don't know how
good an IFR platform the XL will be....forget it in the HDS, too
twitchy...INHO.
Now if you want to do aerobatics and go really fast then just build an
RV 7 and tell yourself how its worth 85 grand....I do...on a daily
basis....:)
Frank
Anyone want to buy a good HDS?
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Barth
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: RE: Help finding the right kit
--> Zenith-List message posted by: David Barth <davids601xl@yahoo.com>
Yep. For that price you would be better off to slow down, get a 601XL
and buy a new set of clubs everywhere you went and them donate them to
the local caddy. Just kidding.
do not archive
David
"Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
As an example, my RV 7a with "light IFR", new Lycoming IO360 clone and
quickbuild kit is going to run $85k...Gulp!
Two sets of 50" golf clubs...Yeah maybe, havent measured it but I think
they would fit.
Frank
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Garrou,
Douglas
Subject: Zenith-List: RE: Help finding the right kit
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Garrou, Douglas"
-->
Rob: that's a very tall set of specifications. My guess is you'll have
to give somewhere - load, fuel consumption, speed, or (more likely)
cost.
Note that decent IFR gear alone can eat a *very* substantial hole in
$40,000.
But to start from the beginning: With two people and baggage of that
size and weight, I think you're really talking about a four person
airplane. To get a four person airplane moving at that kind of speed
means, in the certified world, that you're roughly in the
Mooney/Tiger/182 range. And at that point you're in an area that's well
north of $40,000, and at least a little north of 6 gph (far more in the
182).
For example, one thing that could accomplish your mission, except for
fuel burn, would be a 1/3 or 1/4 interest in a used 182. Unless you're
really, really set on building your own plane, you might think about
going that route. You would probably find that fuel burn would be a
relatively minor consideration in the overall cost of owning such an
airplane.
A four-seat 150 mph bird is not an area that's particularly well covered
by existing aluminum kit aircraft. Thoughts:
1. Zenith 640. Don't know about speed or load, and it will be north of
6 gph. I'd have to check the baggage situation to see how suitable it is
for golf clubs.
2. RV-10.
3. Bearhawk (a homebuilt Cessna 180, basically). Not all aluminum,
though.
However, each of these, set up with decent IFR avionics, will set you
back well over $40K.
Best of luck,
Doug G.
Project 801
www.garrou.com
-----Original Message-----
Time: 09:17:47 PM PST US
From: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
Subject: Zenith-List: Help finding the right kit
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
Hello All,
Well, I'd like to build an airplane sometime soon and would like one
that will go minimum 150 mph can carry 2 adults along with 2 sets of
golf clubs (50" long each) with maybe 2 duffle bags as well. I'd also
like it to burn no more than 6 GPH and be capable of being flown IFR and
can be built relatively quickly (under 1500 hours). I'd also like it to
be under $40K. Oh, it must be metal construction and suitable for the
first time builder. Is such a beast out there?
Rob
David Barth
601 XL Plansbuilder 15% done?
Working on Wings
www.ch601.org
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 |
|
| Subject: | Help finding the right kit |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Actually the root cause was not overheating...That was the engine
converter's claim...But it is not the truth...Knurling guides is a botch
job pure and simple. I don't care how badly engines are overheated valve
guides will never come out if they are installed correctly.
Also note my engine never overheated in flight...It did briefly before
the first flight...The second TWO failures were nothing to do with over
heating.
In any case if the guide is made two thou oversize and heat shrunk into
the head it will never come out.
So actually now I love my little engine, as Larry pointed out it is a
good fit for 120mph flying...and now it has been properly sorted with
guides that have been made with a step on the outside and propely fitted
it has been perfectly reliable.
Thankyou Ram Performance for understanding and fixing the problem oce
and for all when no one else could.
Okay now to the other point.....Lycomings and Continentals will run just
fine on autofuel....A lot of nervousness about doing so but more and
more evidence points to these engines being perfectly happy on premium
mogas...will also run on 87 octane if you order the engine with a
reduced compression ratio.
The second point..Continental motors at least can be made to run MORE
efficiently than a Subaru, unless the soob has a balanced FI system and
can manually adjust the mixture in flight....BSFC of 0.38 vs about 0.42
in the soob on a good day..(Bsfc is the lbs of fuel burned per horse
power-hour...I.e an efficiency measure)
The more I look into so called proper airplane engines, they are not
quite the dynosaurs we auto engined freaks tend to think they are as
long as they have a properly balanced FI system installed.
The biggest problem is them being aircooled...But this also means less
drag...Not a big deal at 100mph but at 200mph this becomes more
significant....Add this to a more efficient motor in the first place and
well...I think we'll be seeing them for a very long time.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
McFarland
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Help finding the right kit
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Larry McFarland
--> <larrymc@qconline.com>
Rob,
The engine problems mentioned are all valve guide failures that were the
result of an overheated Subaru. The attention taken in seating the valve
guides during engine remanufacture was the result of knurling and
reinstalling the guides.
Not a unique problem for the Subaru, but this has occured in several
aircraft because the attention to cooling was not considered.
I fly a Subaru because I like water cooled engines and I've made the
effort to not have any problems. There are several thousand Subarus
flying in Gyros, Kitfoxes and Zenith 601s. They are inexpensive to a
fault and are a great engine for aircraft that need only 120 mph cruise
or less. I fly for 3.2 gallons per hour at 100 mph and 5 gallons per
hour at 120 mph. There are few aircraft that can claim economy like
that, and when gas prices invert to $6/gal one day soon, I'll still be
flying at less than $20/hr. At prices for aircraft fuel, some will be
rethinking those 20K Lycs and Continentals that don't burn less than 7
gph.
Larry McFarland - 601HDS
Rob Campbell wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
>
>Frank,
>Am I safe to assume that you are not a fan of automotive conversions
>anymore? Three engine failures? Wow. that's way beyond my pucker
>factor. That's more than a lifetimes worth. What were those failures
>caused from and what type of engines were they? Flying IFR and flying
>IMC are 2 different animals as well. For me, single engine IMC must be
>done only by necessity for very short periods of time, if
>ever. Single engine IFR is smart in and out of congested areas such
>as flying from Southern California (where I live) to Vegas, Phoenix, or
>the Bay Area, for example.
>
>On Jun 7, 2005, at 8:19 AM, Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
>>(Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>>
>>You do not need vacuum (in fact I would not have it as a gift!) for
>>IFR but you do need all the functionality that the vacuum offers and
>>that will cost you around 16k minimum for all the instruments.
>>
>>And believe me that is about as low as you want to go flying IFR.
>>
>>As to engines, flying IFR is a whole different kettle of fish, I have
>>had three engine failurs on a highly regarded auto conversion...All of
>>them ended without incident but if it had been IMC conditions the
>>pucker factor would have gone up by about 10X...
>>
>>IMC flying is a very serious and very expensive business.
>>
>>Of course light aircraft and IFR are completely different
>>animals...Not the same airplane or pilot...:)
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob
>>Campbell
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Help finding the right kit
>>
>>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
>>
>>Hello All,
>> Can you make the baggage compartment in the 601 50 inches long?
>>I saw a 601 a few days ago down at Camarillo airport EAA for final
>>assembly. I noticed the baggage about 36 inches deep and I was
>>wondering if it could be lengthened. This guy did a beautiful job
>>building as was not even a pilot yet! He said a friend is going to
>>do the fly-off. He used a Suzuki engine and said he only had $2600
>>firewall forward! Very cool. I like the Corvair idea after seeing
>>their site and reading about what they do. Is there a prop that
>>gives a higher cruise but gives up some takeoff and climb capability?
>> What does complying with light aircraft standards do for me?
>> I also noticed the panel was very small. Is there a solution to
>>make it legal IFR with a flat panel? I saw one in a magazine for
>>around $2000 that does quite a lot in one package. I also like the
>>idea of a small flat panel engine monitoring system with a built in
>>electronic checklist. Does one need standby vacuum instruments to be
>>legal IFR?
>>Rob
>>
>>On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:50 AM, Larry McFarland wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Larry McFarland
>>><larrymc@qconline.com>
>>>
>>>Rob,
>>>If you reduce your need for speed by 20 mph, you can golf right into
>>>your old age and comply with the light sport aircraft standards. The
>>>601LX meets most of the other requirements with several stowage
>>>areas. If you're careful in engine selection, (Corvair) you'd be
>>>able to load the aft portion of your plane better and go faster.
>>>There are no better aircraft for the first time builder and your
>>>specifications than the 601XL.
>>>My opinion, of course
>>>
>>>Larry McFarland - 601HDS
>>>Do not archive
>>>
>>>Rob Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell
>>>><1global@adelphia.net>
>>>>
>>>>Hello All,
>>>>Well, I'd like to build an airplane sometime soon and would like one
>>>>that will go minimum 150 mph can carry 2 adults along with 2 sets of
>>>>golf clubs (50" long each) with maybe 2 duffle bags as well. I'd
>>>>also like it to burn no more than 6 GPH and be capable of being
>>>>flown IFR and can be built relatively quickly (under 1500 hours).
>>>>I'd also like it to be under $40K. Oh, it must be metal
>>>>construction and suitable for the first time builder. Is such a
>>>>beast out there?
>>>>Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
I was just about to respond to a message and suddenly can't find
it?...HUH.
Anyway it was about the difference between IFR and IMC...Guess I'm
struggling to see the difference...When does one fly IFR but NOT be in
IMC?....I think the only place you normally do that is above 18,000
feet?
Do you mean flying on an instrument flight plan through controlled
airspace?....You can certainly do this but I guess I fail to see the
point in buying an extra 10k's worth of instruments unless you were
going to use it in IMC?
Whenever I fly I'm either on VFR flight following or under the control
of ATC in controlled airspace and that just requires a radio and a
transponder....
Confused!
Frank
Do not archive
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: | Help finding the right kit |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Kent Brown" <kentbrown@verizon.net>
Just a small clarification: The 601 at Camarillo, CA is an HDS with a
Subaru. He rebuilt the engine with Stratus parts. From what I saw, he has
done a very nice job. Name is Tim Sullivan.
Kent Brown
Do not archive
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
>
> Hello All,
> Can you make the baggage compartment in the 601 50 inches
> long? I saw a 601 a few days ago down at Camarillo airport EAA for
> final assembly. I noticed the baggage about 36 inches deep and I was
> wondering if it could be lengthened. This guy did a beautiful job
> building as was not even a pilot yet! He said a friend is going to
> do the fly-off. He used a Suzuki engine and said he only had $2600
> firewall forward! Very cool. I like the Corvair idea after seeing
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "george may" <gfmjr_20@hotmail.com>
Scott, Malcolm,Larry--
Thanks for you responses on the gear and nose wheel questions. As I
thought
more about it, possibly the main gear was reversed to move more weight
forward
to compensate for the increased thickness of the tail feathers and rear
fuselarge.
George
Do not archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel line protection needed? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jon Croke" <jon@joncroke.com>
>
> Does the ROTAX installation manual still recommend running the fuel line
> inside of a larger tube, with cool air flowing through the tube? An anti
> vapor
> lock approach?
>
I have not seen that recommendation, but the installation manual does talk
about the recirculation method and even specifies the size of the opening
for the port that takes the fuel back to the tank. And the fuel pump IS
mounted on the gear box, right above 2 air cooled cylinders! Hows that for
thoughtful design!
But I believe there are many hundreds if not thousands of 912 aircraft
flying -- using nothing more than firesleeve, no gas recirculation at all,
and a mechanical fuel pump on the gear box alone, all with no adverse
problems.... So there might be argument to leave well enough alone.... but
dont get Frank started....;)
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: | Fuel line protection needed? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Until it bites you in a** it is.....This system is risky and poorly
designed from a hydraulic perspective...Gee even certified engines run a
safer method than this....
i.e They use 100LL which usually always has a lower vapour pressure than
mogas and the FI engines uses a backup pump mounted guess where...Low
and in the cockpit. (incidently 100LL usually always measures a vapour
pressure of 65KPa at standard temperature...good to 26,000ft. Mogas can
be as low as 44kpa...I.e good to 15,000feet as long as your not sucking
on it as well)
Vapour lock is a real issue in airplanes, it does happen and it always
happens with poorly designed systems
If you can Please put a low pressure Facet fuel pump in series with
mechanical pump mounted down low and a bypass round the electric pump
with a check valve. You high wing guys (or those of you using the header
tank) will probably get away with this but low wing tanks only and
sucking uphill really is asking for a VL incident.
Don't get me started Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jon Croke
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Fuel line protection needed?
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jon Croke" <jon@joncroke.com>
>
> Does the ROTAX installation manual still recommend running the fuel
> line inside of a larger tube, with cool air flowing through the tube?
> An anti vapor lock approach?
>
I have not seen that recommendation, but the installation manual does
talk about the recirculation method and even specifies the size of the
opening for the port that takes the fuel back to the tank. And the fuel
pump IS
mounted on the gear box, right above 2 air cooled cylinders! Hows that
for
thoughtful design!
But I believe there are many hundreds if not thousands of 912 aircraft
flying -- using nothing more than firesleeve, no gas recirculation at
all, and a mechanical fuel pump on the gear box alone, all with no
adverse problems.... So there might be argument to leave well enough
alone.... but dont get Frank started....;)
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 |
|
| Subject: | RE: Help finding the right kit |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Monty Graves <mgraves@usmo.com>
The BD-4 I thinks fits the objective pretty well depending on what engine
you put in it. I don't know about IFR. Build from either Kit or Plans built.
http://www.tvap.com/
Older design, with a lot of them flying and a large builder support group.
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: | Re: Fuel line protection needed? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: JERICKSON03E@aol.com
In a message dated 6/7/2005 3:50:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
jon@joncroke.com writes:
> Does the ROTAX installation manual still recommend running the fuel line
> inside of a larger tube, with cool air flowing through the tube? An anti
> vapor
> lock approach?
>
I have not seen that recommendation
Jon, it is found at 14.1 Rqts on the fuel system.
See PN 899376, Inst Manual for 912S. The Attention block has the info on fuel
line routing,, as well as the cold air flow,, through a hose over the fuel
line,, .
Regards.
Jerry
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: Fuel line protection needed? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jon Croke" <jon@joncroke.com>
Jerry,
Thanks, I found it now.
Here is the sentence from the Rotax manual:
"At very critical conditions e.g. with vapour formation the fuel lines could
be routed in a hose with cold air flow."
Not very clear how to accomplish this! That's for sure!
> I have not seen that recommendation
> Jon, it is found at 14.1 Rqts on the fuel system.
>
> See PN 899376, Inst Manual for 912S. The Attention block has the info on
> fuel
> line routing,, as well as the cold air flow,, through a hose over the fuel
> line,, .
>
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: | Fuel line protection needed? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
I know you can stay calm Frank, They wont make you bite :-)
New guys in the list:
Now talking very serious:
Saludos
Gary Gower.
do not archive.
"Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
Oh...You mean a mechanical pump bolted to a hot engine,,,Even
better...For crashing due to Vapour lock that is.
But you won't get me started...Nope, not going to bite.
Frank
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
JERICKSON03E@aol.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Fuel line protection needed?
--> Zenith-List message posted by: JERICKSON03E@aol.com
In a message dated 6/7/2005 11:39:41 AM Central Daylight Time,
jon@joncroke.com writes:
If one were concerned about vapor lock from heat, the classic solution
is to build a recirculating fuel system from the engine back to the fuel
tank
Does the ROTAX installation manual still recommend running the fuel line
inside of a larger tube, with cool air flowing through the tube? An anti
vapor lock approach?
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 |
|
| Subject: | Fuel line protection needed? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
Jon,
You almost did it :-)
Saludos
Gary Gower
Yes, vapor lock is serious and dangerous in aviation, we just like to joke a little
with Frank...,
A long discusion about it some time ago in the list...
Do not archive.
"Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
Until it bites you in a** it is.....This system is risky and poorly
designed from a hydraulic perspective...Gee even certified engines run a
safer method than this....
i.e They use 100LL which usually always has a lower vapour pressure than
mogas and the FI engines uses a backup pump mounted guess where...Low
and in the cockpit. (incidently 100LL usually always measures a vapour
pressure of 65KPa at standard temperature...good to 26,000ft. Mogas can
be as low as 44kpa...I.e good to 15,000feet as long as your not sucking
on it as well)
Vapour lock is a real issue in airplanes, it does happen and it always
happens with poorly designed systems
If you can Please put a low pressure Facet fuel pump in series with
mechanical pump mounted down low and a bypass round the electric pump
with a check valve. You high wing guys (or those of you using the header
tank) will probably get away with this but low wing tanks only and
sucking uphill really is asking for a VL incident.
Don't get me started Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jon Croke
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Fuel line protection needed?
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jon Croke"
>
> Does the ROTAX installation manual still recommend running the fuel
> line inside of a larger tube, with cool air flowing through the tube?
> An anti vapor lock approach?
>
I have not seen that recommendation, but the installation manual does
talk about the recirculation method and even specifies the size of the
opening for the port that takes the fuel back to the tank. And the fuel
pump IS
mounted on the gear box, right above 2 air cooled cylinders! Hows that
for
thoughtful design!
But I believe there are many hundreds if not thousands of 912 aircraft
flying -- using nothing more than firesleeve, no gas recirculation at
all, and a mechanical fuel pump on the gear box alone, all with no
adverse problems.... So there might be argument to leave well enough
alone.... but dont get Frank started....;)
---------------------------------
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM & more. Check it out!
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: Fuel line protection needed? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Peter Dunning <peterd@metec.co.nz>
Hi guys,
I am intrigued by the following comment:
>" If you can Please put a low pressure Facet fuel pump in series with
> mechanical pump mounted down low and a bypass round the electric pump
> with a check valve. "
As a mechanical diaphragm pump and its associated valves can fail and
potentially
block and/or obstruct fuel flow, why would you install an electric
supplementary
pump in series with it ? Surely a better option would be to have a check
valve in series
with the mechanical pump and then have an electric Facet pump in parallel
with the
mech.pump and check valve combination ?
Cheers
Peter Dunning
CH601HD/912S/ZK-SPD
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 |
|
| Subject: | Unbelieveable ------crash |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Fred Sanford <sonar1@cox.net>
There it was, my 701, minding it's own business - just sitting there on
the ramp at Santa Ynez, Ca. Waiting for the DAR in two weeks, so it
could get flying.
Some kid in a Cessna 172 tried taking off with a full load of people
and FULL FLAPS stalled, and crashed 10 feet in front of my 701 - hitting
my slats and wing on the way down. I believe the wing is beyond repair.
Another wing and slat to build!! I did enjoy the building, but was ready
to move on to the next phase.
Oh well.........Fred Sanford N9701 Santa Barbara, Ca.
Pictures:
http://members.cox.net/sonar1/wreck1.jpg
http://members.cox.net/sonar1/wreck2.jpg
http://members.cox.net/sonar1/wreck3.jpg
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Rob Campbell <1global@adelphia.net>
Hi Frank,
Maybe I was a little confusing when I wrote about the IFR and IMC but
here's what I meant:
If you are flying IFR you are not necessarily flying IMC. You may
need to be on an IFR flight plan because the departure, enroute, or
arrival weather may be IMC and require the IFR flight plan. Also, in
congested airspace for the situation I may feel more comfortable on
an IFR flight plan that's all. Every situation is different. If
it's close I'll be IFR (that's just me) always having the option to
cancel and proceed VFR when able. Also, I will have personal
minimums no matter what the chart says. For example, on an ILS if
the legal minimums are 1/2 mile that doesn't mean I'm flying it to
minimums. I'll probably be either not going, or proceeding to my
alternate anything below about 800 and 2 (single engine general
aviation). I have flown many, many approaches to minimums but I have
either been in a simulator, airliner, or C-130. In reality there are
not many circumstances where you get actual IMC to minimums. I would
never go looking for it either. I have not flown GA since 1987 when
I didn't even have an instrument rating, but I look forward to
building and flying my own airplane someday. I would like to build
in IFR capability for those times when I may need it...to my personal
minimums of course :) Those are just my thought on the subject for
now although they are subject to change as my comfort level changes.
The panel on the 601 seems a little small for more than basic
instruments but there are probably flat panel displays out there that
do quite a lot. ...I don't know, that's why I'd like some discussion
on the matter.
Thanks,
Rob
On Jun 7, 2005, at 12:13 PM, Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
> (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> I was just about to respond to a message and suddenly can't find
> it?...HUH.
>
> Anyway it was about the difference between IFR and IMC...Guess I'm
> struggling to see the difference...When does one fly IFR but NOT be in
> IMC?....I think the only place you normally do that is above 18,000
> feet?
>
> Do you mean flying on an instrument flight plan through controlled
> airspace?....You can certainly do this but I guess I fail to see the
> point in buying an extra 10k's worth of instruments unless you were
> going to use it in IMC?
>
> Whenever I fly I'm either on VFR flight following or under the control
> of ATC in controlled airspace and that just requires a radio and a
> transponder....
>
> Confused!
>
> Frank
>
> Do not archive
>
>
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! --
|