Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:48 AM - Re: XL VNE, again (Tommy Walker)
2. 04:54 AM - Re: XL Headroom questions again T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 SUBJ_HAS_SPACES,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 (Bill Denton)
3. 04:57 AM - Re: BSR considerations (ron dewees)
4. 05:15 AM - Re: Parachutes kill. (Ron Crook)
5. 05:28 AM - Re: BSR considerations (Robert Eli)
6. 06:18 AM - Re:XL Main gear change, again (Gig Giacona)
7. 06:23 AM - Re: In-Flight Ivo Prop Results (Gig Giacona)
8. 07:17 AM - BRS (Brad Cohen)
9. 07:25 AM - Re: Parachutes kill. (peter.barthold@t-online.de)
10. 08:20 AM - ea-81/ram ()
11. 08:20 AM - Re: XL Headroom questions again (Rusty)
12. 08:20 AM - Re: BRS (Paul Mulwitz)
13. 09:03 AM - Re: In-Flight Ivo Prop Results (Leo Gates)
14. 09:04 AM - Re: ea-81/ram (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
15. 09:15 AM - Fuel level (Tim Perkins)
16. 10:14 AM - Re: Fuel level (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
17. 10:17 AM - Re: In-Flight Ivo Prop Results (Dan Ribb)
18. 10:18 AM - Re: XL VNE, again (Leo Corbalis)
19. 10:21 AM - Re: XL Headroom questions again T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 (Leo Corbalis)
20. 10:35 AM - Re: Fuel level (Dan Ribb)
21. 10:42 AM - Re: In-Flight Ivo Prop Results (Tim Egan)
22. 10:50 AM - Re: ea-81/ram (Larry McFarland)
23. 10:50 AM - Re: In-Flight Ivo Prop Results (Tim Egan)
24. 11:00 AM - Re: Fuel level (Leo Corbalis)
25. 11:01 AM - Canopy (Scott Thatcher)
26. 11:43 AM - Re: Re: Parachutes kill. (kevinbonds)
27. 11:45 AM - Re: ea-81/ram (Ramperf@aol.com)
28. 12:00 PM - Re: ea-81/ram ()
29. 12:16 PM - Re: Re: Parachutes kill. (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
30. 12:45 PM - Re: powder coating (Tommy Walker)
31. 01:13 PM - Re: ea-81/ram ()
32. 01:22 PM - Re: ea-81/ram ()
33. 01:45 PM - Re: ea-81/ram (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
34. 02:27 PM - Re: Canopy (Bryan Martin)
35. 02:40 PM - Re: Parachutes kill. (Flydog1966@aol.com)
36. 03:11 PM - Re: Re: powder coating (ron dewees)
37. 04:25 PM - Spooning (William J. Naumuk)
38. 04:32 PM - Re: Re: In-Flight Ivo Prop Results (Leo Gates)
39. 04:52 PM - Re: Re: In-Flight Ivo Prop Results (n801bh@netzero.com)
40. 04:56 PM - Re: Fuel level (george may)
41. 05:13 PM - Re: Parachutes kill. (Kelly Meiste)
42. 05:24 PM - Re: BRS (chrisoz@bmail.com.au)
43. 05:41 PM - Re: Re: Parachutes kill. (Kevin Thorp)
44. 05:53 PM - Re: Re: BRS (Craig Payne)
45. 06:02 PM - Re: Parachutes kill. (ron wehba)
46. 07:03 PM - Re: Re: BRS (Paul Mulwitz)
47. 07:22 PM - Re: Re: BRS (Craig Payne)
48. 07:39 PM - Re: Re: BRS (Carlos Sa)
49. 08:29 PM - Re: Re: BRS T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG (Paul Mulwitz)
50. 08:32 PM - Re: Parachutes kill. (Zodie Rocket)
51. 08:41 PM - Re: BRS (Mike Sinclair)
52. 09:09 PM - Re: Re: BRS T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 (Craig Payne)
53. 09:45 PM - Re: BRS (Kevin Thorp)
54. 10:27 PM - Re: Re: BRS T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled (Mike Sinclair)
55. 10:37 PM - Re: BRS (kevinbonds)
56. 10:41 PM - Re: BRS (Randy Stout)
57. 10:45 PM - Re: BRS (kevinbonds)
58. 10:50 PM - Re: Re: BRS T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled (Mike Sinclair)
59. 10:52 PM - Re: Re: BRS T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 (kevinbonds)
60. 11:01 PM - Re: BRS (kevinbonds)
61. 11:14 PM - Re: BRS (Mike Sinclair)
62. 11:34 PM - Re: Re: BRS T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled (Mike Sinclair)
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: XL VNE, again |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Tommy Walker" <twalker@cableone.net>
There was a lot of talk about flutter testing in October of 2004. You might
enjoy reading or re-reading the comments about flutter. If I'm not
mistaken, (and I often am) I think the gentleman who started the discussion
is no longer contributing to the list.
Tommy Walker in Alabama
Do Not Archive
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | XL Headroom questions again T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG |
autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 SUBJ_HAS_SPACES,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG
autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
Have you seen this page? http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/cabin-xl.html
It shows 42" from the lowest point of yer arse to the top of the bubble.
One thing I quickly learned about ZAC's web site: if you see something good,
bookmark it, 'cause you'll never find it again...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rusty
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: XL Headroom questions again
T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
SUBJ_HAS_SPACES,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Rusty" <13brv3c@bellsouth.net>
Hi Craig,
I've been through the builders list, and Sebastian sent it to me last week
as well. So far, no joy on local builders who A- have email addresses that
don't bounce, and B- have enough completed to do me any good. With any
luck, someone will come through with the measurement I'm looking for, and
that will be enough to go on. Otherwise, I'll buy some RV-7 gas, and fly
somewhere.
Thanks,
Rusty
PS- thanks also to Paul. Hopefully, I can find someone closer than Sebring,
and I really need it to be way sooner than that as well.
Do not archive
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
--> <craig@craigandjean.com>
Don't forget the builders database on the Zenith site. I don't think
non-builders can access it but any builder can pull-up a set of entries by
state (but only those who have added an entry and kept it up to date). I
just did some searches and got these numbers for Zodiac 601's of *any* type
(HD, HDS, XL):
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: BSR considerations |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: ron dewees <rdewees@mindspring.com>
I heard a radio talk show/pilot/lawyer discuss the BSR issue yesterday
on the radio and it brought up a point I had not considered. He says
that the insurance industry is very leary of them for certificated
planes. Their reasoning is that the pilot will use the BSR as a first
way out of a dicey situation that may have been avoidable. The plane is
essentially a writeoff in the event of the deplolyed BSR and the pilot
lives to put the claim in. We used to say fly the plane, fly the plane,
fly the plane,-- he says we now say-- fly the plane, fly the plane- pull
the BSR!
It's all a non-issue if you have structural failure and have to save
your buns, but OTOH you may not be up there at all if you can't afford
the insurance for your expensive plane of choice.
Ron
kevinbonds wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "kevinbonds" <kevinbonds@comcast.net>
>
>I too have given this some thought, and reasoned that I would only feel
>comfortable pulling that lever when I had no other option. But there in lies
>the problem, if you have the altitude you need to pull the chute you also
>should have other options. Also, how would I know that I had no other option
>until after it is too late (sometimes to early as on takeoff) to pull the
>chute (low altitude). And the what if factor. What if I set off this
>dynamite and it rips off the tail of my plane along with some attachment
>points. Now I'm really screwed. I know I would try my best to sit my baby
>down somewhere safe before I would elect to tear her apart with dynamite. It
>may sound silly but if an in-flight emergency ever happens to me (fair
>chance of that) I don't want more decisions to make. I just want to do what
>I've been trained to do without hesitation. Not saying BRS units are not a
>good idea in some cases. I suspect these installations are not easy to do.
>And, how do you know you have done it correctly? I would be afraid of
>testing the quality of my particular installation whenever I had other
>options. Short of building myself a test plane, in addition to the one I'm
>already building, I don't think I would ever feel confident. What it boils
>down to for me is, would I be able to pull the lever as long as I had
>altitude? NO, and any other time it would be useless.
>
>Kevin Bonds
>
>Nashville TN
>
>601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.
>
>Empennage done; working on wings and engine.
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Parachutes kill. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Ron Crook" <ronflys701@hotmail.com>
I have been reading with interest but I have yet to hear anyone speak of a
dead man switch to turn off the engine either before or with the deployment
of the chute...I know of a fellow who is now deceased after the nylon rope
attachments were cut off by the prop when a wing folded ...just thought you
should be thinking of this as well....not to mention that depending on the
position of the aircraft (maybe inverted and the prop still spinning there
could be problems) I have not heard of the testing on chute deployment while
inverted etc .........JUST A THOUGHT! But I bet there has been a few guys in
those last moments wished they had another alternative?..........Regards Ron
>From: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Parachutes kill.
>Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:06:45 -0800
>
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz
><p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
>
>Hi Kevin,
>
>I agree with you completely.
>
>I suppose a BRS system is capable of giving some hope to people who
>fly themselves into situations they can't handle. I have heard
>several people say they would use one to recover from inadvertent
>flight into IMC. Personally, I think it would be a lot better
>solution to take the training needed to handle that with pilot skills
>rather than explosive equipment. Of course a minimal instrument
>panel is required for this recovery as well as sufficient pilot
>skills. Still the cost is way less than a BRS and you might even
>have a nicer ride with all that additional pilot skill
>
>In the remote case where the wings come off at reasonable altitude, I
>suppose a parachute or BRS gives you the only chance of survival. On
>the other hand, I can't think of a better way to go . . .
>
>As to the likelihood of a catastrophic structure failure in cruise
>flight -- I suspect that is a lot more unlikely than winning the big
>powerball lottery. Every other case I can imagine where a parachute
>might do some good seems to show that good pilot skills have a much
>better chance of success.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Paul
>XL wings
>do not archive
>
>At 09:21 PM 11/1/2005, you wrote:
> >--> Zenith-List message posted by: "kevinbonds" <kevinbonds@comcast.net>
> >
> >BTW I only responded to this to see what others have to say about my
> >particular train of thought. I may be wrong about it. Voicing my opinion
>is
> >one way of finding out if there is information I am missing.
> >
> >Kevin Bonds
> >
> >Nashville TN
> >
> >601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.
> >
> >Empennage done; working on wings and engine.
> >
> >http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
> >
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Paul Mulwitz
>32013 NE Dial Road
>Camas, WA 98607
>---------------------------------------------
>
>
Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new
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: | BSR considerations |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Robert Eli" <robert.eli@adelphia.net>
During Air Venture, I talked to BRS about the installation for the CH701.
They now have the installation drawings available on request. I have a copy
and it does not appear that it will be difficult to install it in my CH701.
I do plan to install the BRS. My take on this whole issue is that my "buns"
are of high value, and in the event of an emergency I would rather have more
options of saving my "buns", rather than less. I think the key to the
pilot's proper use of the BRS is to do some planning. I plan to generate a
list of possible emergency situations that might warrant use of the BRS, and
have a "game plan" with regard to when to use it and when not to use it
(proper altitude?, lack of emergency landing sites?, structural failure?,
attitude control system failure?, etc.). Here in West Virginia, there are
few suitable spots to set down safely, and I think the BRS will provide an
additional safety factor.
Bob Eli
CH701 - working on the elevator.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ron dewees
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: BSR considerations
--> Zenith-List message posted by: ron dewees <rdewees@mindspring.com>
I heard a radio talk show/pilot/lawyer discuss the BSR issue yesterday
on the radio and it brought up a point I had not considered. He says
that the insurance industry is very leary of them for certificated
planes. Their reasoning is that the pilot will use the BSR as a first
way out of a dicey situation that may have been avoidable. The plane is
essentially a writeoff in the event of the deplolyed BSR and the pilot
lives to put the claim in. We used to say fly the plane, fly the plane,
fly the plane,-- he says we now say-- fly the plane, fly the plane- pull
the BSR!
It's all a non-issue if you have structural failure and have to save
your buns, but OTOH you may not be up there at all if you can't afford
the insurance for your expensive plane of choice.
Ron
kevinbonds wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "kevinbonds" <kevinbonds@comcast.net>
>
>I too have given this some thought, and reasoned that I would only feel
>comfortable pulling that lever when I had no other option. But there in
lies
>the problem, if you have the altitude you need to pull the chute you also
>should have other options. Also, how would I know that I had no other
option
>until after it is too late (sometimes to early as on takeoff) to pull the
>chute (low altitude). And the what if factor. What if I set off this
>dynamite and it rips off the tail of my plane along with some attachment
>points. Now I'm really screwed. I know I would try my best to sit my baby
>down somewhere safe before I would elect to tear her apart with dynamite.
It
>may sound silly but if an in-flight emergency ever happens to me (fair
>chance of that) I don't want more decisions to make. I just want to do what
>I've been trained to do without hesitation. Not saying BRS units are not a
>good idea in some cases. I suspect these installations are not easy to do.
>And, how do you know you have done it correctly? I would be afraid of
>testing the quality of my particular installation whenever I had other
>options. Short of building myself a test plane, in addition to the one I'm
>already building, I don't think I would ever feel confident. What it boils
>down to for me is, would I be able to pull the lever as long as I had
>altitude? NO, and any other time it would be useless.
>
>Kevin Bonds
>
>Nashville TN
>
>601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.
>
>Empennage done; working on wings and engine.
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
>
>
>
>
>
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:XL Main gear change, again |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" <wr.giacona@cox.net>
With just you and fuel the C/G should be close to the front of the envelope.
IF it isn't if you fully load the seats and the rear cargo area you would be
pusing the rear edge of the envelope.
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Lance Gingell"
<lgingell@matrix-logic.com>
Rico,
My XL is flying, and I have the original XL main gear orientation, not
the new. When I fly solo with full fuel, I'm right in the forward CG
range, and it takes quite a bit of stick to pick the nose off the runway
(which you then need to let go of quickly to get to the correct pitch
attitude). Also, on landing, holding the nosewheel off for any
significant length of time is next to impossible in this configuration
With more weight/further aft CG, things get a little better, but it is
still noticeable. I think the newer orientation sounds like a good idea.
If I could just swap mine around, I'd try it (wheels/brakes etc. make it
a bit more involved now!)
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: In-Flight Ivo Prop Results |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" <wr.giacona@cox.net>
Tim, I very interested in the IVO inflight adjustable prop. Have you
considered using only two blades?
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Tim Egan" <eedetailing@qwest.net>
Folks,
Just got to complete my first test flight after conversion
from a ground adjustable to an inflight adjustable Ivo
Prop. Plane is a 2001 HD with an 80 hp Rotax 912UL.
Old setup was an IVO Ultralight model, 3 blades, pitched
at about 11 deg measured at the tips.
Cruise speed at 5000 rpm was 103 mph, climb rate about
800 fpm solo.
New hub, same blades, and a brush kit from sportplanell.com
which moves the brushes to behind the gearbox. Claims that
brushes will last 5 times longer. The brushes ride on rings that
are about 1" in diameter, instead of the 5" prop hub that Ivo
supplies.
Todays flight was at 6500', 6C and 30.26"
Max rpm I was able to get on climb-out is now 5200, higher
than before, but I think I can adjust the IVO stop washer to get
more rpm. Climbout is 1200 fpm measured on a variometer.
Dialed prop up at cruise and took three readings in three directions,
three separate times. Ran thru the true airspeed calculator at:
http://homepages.together.net/~billvt/True%20Air%20Speed/true_airspeed_calculator.htm
Got cruise speeds of 106, 107 and 114.
I was hoping for a cruise of 110 mph, and I think I might have
come really close to achieving it.
Obviously, more data will need to be collected. Winds aloft
were at about 30 mph, I'd like to take data on a calm day.
Thats it for now.
TimEgan
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Brad Cohen" <bradfnp@msn.com>
I have been reading the postings regarding the installation of a BRS. I have to
admit that I am still undecided about installing the canopy but I think I have
decided to go ahead and install the hard points. It should only take a couple
of hours' work and who knows, if I ever decide to sell my plane, the person
who buys it might want to install the canopy.
All of the postings, however, reminds me of stories I have read about the introduction
of personal parachutes to the WW1 pilots. A lot of the same arguments
were voiced then as well...."the pilot will opt to use the chute instead of staying
with the machine....", etc.
Not an opinion, just an observation.....
Brad Cohen
601Xl, working on the wings
Do Not Archieve
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: Parachutes kill. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "peter.barthold@t-online.de" <peter.barthold@t-online.de>
Hello Paul and Kevin,
respecting your route of argumentation I just wanted to add some
thoughts that are different:
Here in Germany BRS systems are mandatory for Ultralights. Since almost
every Zodiac here flies under UL regulations, they all have a BRS
installed. So it is a well known, proven industry standard.
BTW: Most modern BRS Systems do not work with explosive cartridges but
with rocket motors. These rockets draw the chute completely out of its
container in less than one second. We were told in our ultralight theory
class, that the minimum altitude to shoot the BRS is less than 300ft.
Some years ago there was a "Ikarus C42" ultralight taking off from a
former military airfield in southern Germany. While still in the pattern
they encountered a near miss with a F-4 Phantom fighter jet. Its Crew
used the airport as a navigation point. However, there was no actual mid
air collision but the wake turbulence of the military aircraft tore the
tube and fabric wing to shreds. Pilot and passenger survived with minor
injuries due to their BRS System.
And as I remember, there was a sad incident discussed in this list some
months ago, when a experienced, professional test pilot took a Zodiac
for its first flight testing and was killed when it crashed into a
building short after take off. I don't want to speculate about anything,
but a BRS would certainly give one additional option in a situation
similar to this.
I think it is a tough decision to purposely shred an airplane to save
your live especially when you have built the darn thing with all your
love. The important point for me is: If I survive, I can build a new
one.
When it is time to decide in my project (HDS/TDO), I will seriously
consider a BRS even though I don't have to have one in my experimental
category plane.
As I mentioned earlier, no offense intended to anyone. Just adding
points to discuss.
Peter Barthold
HDS/TDO Tail complete, waiting for the wing kit
www.petersprojekt42.de (sorry, mostly German)
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <momanpop@marshallnet.com>
It was recommended to have the heads done by Ram because of heating problems. Any
one know the Ram email
address?
Thanks
Bob Tichy.
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: | XL Headroom questions again |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Rusty" <13brv3c@bellsouth.net>
Thanks very much for all the comments on this. I think I'm convinced that
headroom either won't be an issue, or at will as least be manageable with
some minor modifications to the canopy height, or seat pan.
BTW, extra credit points go to Bill for the link to the dimension page. I
saw this page a couple weeks ago, but I was looking at all sorts of planes
at the time. Recently, I tried to find it on the Zenith page, but couldn't.
Eventually, I became convinced that it must have been for some other plane.
Nice to find out I didn't imagine the page :-)
I've also located an 85% complete XL in Pensacola. I haven't talked to the
builder yet, but found out about it from a local Sonex builder who I visited
recently. I'll be trying to get by to see the local XL project in the near
future, then I guess I can make a real decision.
Thanks again,
Rusty (fighting the temptation to build another RV-8)
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
This is a very interesting point.
However, I believe the situation for military pilots engaged in
combat is a very different one from a family outing in a docile
plane. The only situation that I think justifies the use of a
parachute is when there is a significant structural failure that
renders the pilot a useless passenger in a falling pile of
ex-airplane parts. Since this is the object of opposing military
pilots I think parachutes and ejection seats are justified in combat.
I just don't see a similarity between getting shot down and any of
the even remotely likely events that can happen on a Sunday afternoon flight.
I don't have a problem with people who feel safer with an explosive
device mounted behind their seat that promises to save them from
their own lack of skill as a pilot. For me, though, a solid plane
sounds like a much better bet than an untested parachute.
Paul
XL wings
do not archive
At 07:16 AM 11/2/2005, you wrote:
>All of the postings, however, reminds me of stories I have read
>about the introduction of personal parachutes to the WW1 pilots. A
>lot of the same arguments were voiced then as well...."the pilot
>will opt to use the chute instead of staying with the machine....",
---------------------------------------------
Paul Mulwitz
32013 NE Dial Road
Camas, WA 98607
---------------------------------------------
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: In-Flight Ivo Prop Results |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Leo Gates" <leogates@allvantage.com>
Tim,
I am interested in the brush kit, but sportplanell.com is not a good URL.
Leo Gates
N601Z, 2 Blade, Magnum, Ivoprop, Rotax 912UL
-------Original Message-------
From: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: Zenith-List: In-Flight Ivo Prop Results
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Tim Egan" <eedetailing@qwest.net>
Folks,
Just got to complete my first test flight after conversion
from a ground adjustable to an inflight adjustable Ivo
Prop. Plane is a 2001 HD with an 80 hp Rotax 912UL.
Old setup was an IVO Ultralight model, 3 blades, pitched
at about 11 deg measured at the tips.
Cruise speed at 5000 rpm was 103 mph, climb rate about
800 fpm solo.
New hub, same blades, and a brush kit from sportplanell.com
which moves the brushes to behind the gearbox. Claims that
brushes will last 5 times longer. The brushes ride on rings that
are about 1" in diameter, instead of the 5" prop hub that Ivo
supplies.
Todays flight was at 6500', 6C and 30.26"
Max rpm I was able to get on climb-out is now 5200, higher
than before, but I think I can adjust the IVO stop washer to get
more rpm. Climbout is 1200 fpm measured on a variometer.
Dialed prop up at cruise and took three readings in three directions,
three separate times. Ran thru the true airspeed calculator at:
http://homepages.together
net/~billvt/True%20Air%20Speed/true_airspeed_calculator.htm
Got cruise speeds of 106, 107 and 114.
I was hoping for a cruise of 110 mph, and I think I might have
come really close to achieving it.
Obviously, more data will need to be collected. Winds aloft
were at about 30 mph, I'd like to take data on a calm day.
Thats it for now.
TimEgan
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Sort of.....But not quite.
Firstly we are talking about a Stratus motor. Stratus has been plagued
somewhat by valve guides falling into the combustion chamber until they
meet the tapered section of the valve where chunks of guide get broken
off and it destroys the top half of your engine.
Stratus came up with a totally inadequate solution (IM not so HO) which
simply did not work.
Stratus put this down in my case to overheating....Overheating or not
there is no way no how a valve guide should come out of a head not
matter what you do with the motor as long as it was put in right in the
first place.
This means the guide is made 1 to 2 thou bigger than the hole in the
head, the head heated, the guide chilled and the two put together.
It will never come out.
Ram performance gose one step further and (In addition to heat
shrinking) make guides with a step on the outside so it is a "belt and
braces approach". This requires a CNC lathe to do economically and Ram
was the only shop to understand the issue and decided to offer such
guides.
Ron Carr's workmanship is superb and even though it is expensive it
pales into insignificance compared to the first time you feel the
sickening torque reversal thru the airframe when your engine eats a
guide...Of course it always happens over densely populated areas, trees
or water!
Do not accept "fixes" that involve Locktite, knurling the outside of the
guide (to bring it up to size) or circlips...These are have all failed
in my engine.
I would avise you take the opportunity to check your jetting in the
carbs. Mine required upsizing quite a bit. This may have been due to
the porting job that Ron did for me as part of the head work. As I did
not check the jetting before Ron worked my heads I can't be sure if they
were set right from Stratus to begin with or not...Too small jetting
will cause hot runnig on the rich side of peak EGT which May have
contributed to the signs of overheating that Stratus say they say in my
heads.
Either way...still not an excuse to loose valve guides.
Ram Performance...You know it makes sense as does the 10% kickback they
gave me.....NOT!...:)
http://www.ramengines.com/index.html
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
momanpop@marshallnet.com
Subject: Zenith-List: ea-81/ram
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <momanpop@marshallnet.com>
It was recommended to have the heads done by Ram because of heating
problems. Any one know the Ram email address?
Thanks
Bob Tichy.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Tim Perkins" <Timothy.Perkins@uvm.edu>
Hi All,
Am thinking about adding a fuel gauge to my 601HD to allow reading below
where the sight-tube ends, but don't really want to have to cut a hole in
the header tank to mount a sender, so was wondering about using another
approach.
Most fuel gauges accept some type of standard analog signal. What would be
the problem in putting a t-fitting at the header tank outlet and putting a
pressure transducer (to measure fuel level via the pressure head) on the
horizontal arm of the t-fitting, and having the fuel flow out the vertical
arm (as it usually does, a rough diagram is below)? Finding a transducer
that spit out a 0-5V signal would be simple, as would finding a gauge that
would accept a 0-5V signal. This would eliminate a lot of work, and
eliminate cutting another hole in the tank (think leaks). The "sender" might
be a bit more costly, but the installation would be a MUCH easier retrofit.
My main concern is that it doesn't seem to be a "typical" solution one sees,
and I wonder why that is (although searching for "fuel pressure" is useless
as it is a different thing altogether). At least one fuel gauge supplier has
said it should work.
Any comments?
Tim Perkins, VT
N1170Q 601HD/Rotax 912UL
| |
| Header |
| tank |
------------------
|
Pressr |
transd --|
|
v
fuel flow
to engine
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Very small pressure head means a very sensitive guage.
Add to that the slopping around of the fuel and I think it would be
close to being useless. Yopu'll need to check the calibration often.
I use this method at work to measure the level of sulfuric acid down to
a couple of inches head and it works ok but sulfuric is about 3.5 times
heavier than gasoline and its not slopping around either.
Why not simply extend your sight tube using the tee in the supply line
as you described for the bottom of the sight tube?
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Perkins
Subject: Zenith-List: Fuel level
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Tim Perkins"
--> <Timothy.Perkins@uvm.edu>
Hi All,
Am thinking about adding a fuel gauge to my 601HD to allow reading below
where the sight-tube ends, but don't really want to have to cut a hole
in the header tank to mount a sender, so was wondering about using
another approach.
Most fuel gauges accept some type of standard analog signal. What would
be the problem in putting a t-fitting at the header tank outlet and
putting a pressure transducer (to measure fuel level via the pressure
head) on the horizontal arm of the t-fitting, and having the fuel flow
out the vertical arm (as it usually does, a rough diagram is below)?
Finding a transducer that spit out a 0-5V signal would be simple, as
would finding a gauge that would accept a 0-5V signal. This would
eliminate a lot of work, and eliminate cutting another hole in the tank
(think leaks). The "sender" might be a bit more costly, but the
installation would be a MUCH easier retrofit.
My main concern is that it doesn't seem to be a "typical" solution one
sees, and I wonder why that is (although searching for "fuel pressure"
is useless as it is a different thing altogether). At least one fuel
gauge supplier has said it should work.
Any comments?
Tim Perkins, VT
N1170Q 601HD/Rotax 912UL
| |
| Header |
| tank |
------------------
|
Pressr |
transd --|
|
v
fuel flow
to engine
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: In-Flight Ivo Prop Results |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dan Ribb" <dan@danribb.com>
Try http://sportplanellc.com/Products.htm
Look for IVO Prop Control.
Dan Ribb
Fresno, CA
601XL kit shipped and waiting!
>
> Tim,
> I am interested in the brush kit, but sportplanell.com is not a good URL.
>
> Leo Gates
> N601Z, 2 Blade, Magnum, Ivoprop, Rotax 912UL
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: XL VNE, again |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Leo Corbalis" <leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
My HDS is a pussycat in spins. I did 1,2and 3 turn spins both ways. I could
come out right on heading with no special effort. I used a 30 deg. dive and
power for the VNE tests. Use a moderate angle dive so power off and moderate
back stick will get you out of any flutter speed. Rent a paachute. Die in
bed.
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: XL VNE, again
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> I agree...But what do you mean "planes won't get there" with respect to
> spins. My HDS spins very well and quite rapidly...or did you mean
> something else?
>
>
> Frank
>
> Do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Zodie
> Rocket
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: XL VNE, again
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Zodie Rocket" <zodierocket@hsfx.ca>
>
> Chris tests every one of his designs before he releases the plans, He
> does most of the tests without a parachute but in the final stages he
> don's a chute , does a flutter test, tries to do a spin test ( planes
> won't get there) and exceeds the Vne by a healthy margin. This is the
> only reason why he puts on a chute. For me, I would forget the chute and
> install diapers for what he puts the plane through!!!
>
> Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
> Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started
> www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / www.Osprey2.com
>
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XL Headroom questions again T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG |
autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Leo Corbalis" <leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
CONTACT ZENAIR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DO NOT ARCHIVE
do not archive
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: XL Headroom questions again T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG
autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
>
> Looking at http://www.frappr.com/zenith601 I don't see any 601's really
> close to you. But if you are planning a road trip in almost any direction
> it
> seems like you will pass by some builder's home. Also I believe there are
> things you can do to the seat "pan" to lower it a little.
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rusty
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: XL Headroom questions again
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Rusty" <13brv3c@bellsouth.net>
>
> Greetings,
>
> Thanks for all the on, and off list comments on the XL performance
> numbers.
> I'm now convinced that it will do what they say it will do, as long as you
> give it a reasonable power plant.
>
> The next problem is headroom. I'm tall from the waist up, and often have
> headroom issues. If someone could do a test measurement for me, I'd be
> one
> step closer to ordering an XL kit.
>
> Can someone sit in a completed plane, and measure the minimum clearance
> between your head, and the canopy? To make the measurement useful, I'll
> also need to know how thick the cushion is (or do the test without the
> cushion), and how tall you are sitting down. For example, my seated
> height
> is 38.5", which I get from sitting on the floor, with my back against a
> wall.
>
> If someone can point me to a completed XL near Pensacola FL, I could try
> it
> myself, but otherwise, this will have to do for now.
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty (almost future XL builder)
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dan Ribb" <dan@danribb.com>
Remember too, that the pressure inside the tank is fluctuating all over due
to the venting of the tank, airspeed, angle-of-attack, etc. It is not
unusual for a tank to be slightly pressurized by the vent line during
flight.
Dan Ribb
Fresno, CA
601XL kit ordered and waiting!
> Very small pressure head means a very sensitive guage.
>
> Add to that the slopping around of the fuel and I think it would be
> close to being useless. Yopu'll need to check the calibration often.
>
> I use this method at work to measure the level of sulfuric acid down to
> a couple of inches head and it works ok but sulfuric is about 3.5 times
> heavier than gasoline and its not slopping around either.
>
> Why not simply extend your sight tube using the tee in the supply line
> as you described for the bottom of the sight tube?
>
> Frank
> Hi All,
>
> Am thinking about adding a fuel gauge to my 601HD to allow reading below
> where the sight-tube ends, but don't really want to have to cut a hole
> in the header tank to mount a sender, so was wondering about using
> another approach.
>
> Most fuel gauges accept some type of standard analog signal. What would
> be the problem in putting a t-fitting at the header tank outlet and
> putting a pressure transducer (to measure fuel level via the pressure
> head) on the horizontal arm of the t-fitting, and having the fuel flow
> out the vertical arm (as it usually does, a rough diagram is below)?
> Finding a transducer that spit out a 0-5V signal would be simple, as
> would finding a gauge that would accept a 0-5V signal. This would
> eliminate a lot of work, and eliminate cutting another hole in the tank
> (think leaks). The "sender" might be a bit more costly, but the
> installation would be a MUCH easier retrofit.
>
> My main concern is that it doesn't seem to be a "typical" solution one
> sees, and I wonder why that is (although searching for "fuel pressure"
> is useless as it is a different thing altogether). At least one fuel
> gauge supplier has said it should work.
>
> Any comments?
>
> Tim Perkins, VT
> N1170Q 601HD/Rotax 912UL
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: | Re: In-Flight Ivo Prop Results |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Tim Egan" <eedetailing@qwest.net>
Leo,
Sorry, fat fingered it:
www.sportplanellc.com
Look under products, under the IVO prop.
Good people, they were kitfox dealers on the other side of my state.
Trying to get them interested in the zenair line.
What numbers are you getting for cruise and climb with your magnum prop?
Tim Egan
-> Zenith-List message posted by: "Leo Gates" <leogates@allvantage.com>
Tim,
I am interested in the brush kit, but sportplanell.com is not a good URL.
Leo Gates
N601Z, 2 Blade, Magnum, Ivoprop, Rotax 912UL
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Larry McFarland <larrymc@qconline.com>
Bob,
Try this address and then call or email. Ron is very good with these
engines.
http://ramengines.com/
Larry McFarland at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
momanpop@marshallnet.com wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: <momanpop@marshallnet.com>
>
>It was recommended to have the heads done by Ram because of heating problems.
Any one know the Ram email
>address?
>
>Thanks
>
>Bob Tichy.
>
>
>
>
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: In-Flight Ivo Prop Results |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Tim Egan" <eedetailing@qwest.net>
Gig,
Yeah, I've been told that two blades should give better cruise than
three. I think I'll make another data run with the prop setup for
three blades, take five or six different runs and average them.
Then, I'll remove one blade and put the filler blocks in and take
several data runs with two blades, and report them back here.
Folks, there has been a lot of bad writing about IVO props in the past,
and they were not without problems. I have one on a challenger II,
and did have an adjustment cam break off, which caused one blade
to have a different pitch than the other. It is extremely important to
correctly torque the IVO prop, and to re-check the torque often.
Make it a part of your preflight check to inspect the required
tell-tale tape across the blades. However, the challenger prop
has over 600 hours on it, and the zodiac prop around 100 hours.
I'll keep running them for a while.
Tim Egan
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" <wr.giacona@cox.net>
Tim, I very interested in the IVO inflight adjustable prop. Have you
considered using only two blades?
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Leo Corbalis" <leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
I suspect that you will run into temperature shifts screwing up the
readings. I have a sight gage and when the gas disappears as the gas goes
below 8 gal. it's time to think about landing in no more than an hour. I
quit that get thereitis after a couple of stupid self imposed close calls
when I was a 2 Lt.
Leo Corbalis
archive this and have it tatooed on the inside of your eyelids !!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Perkins" <Timothy.Perkins@uvm.edu>
Subject: Zenith-List: Fuel level
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Tim Perkins" <Timothy.Perkins@uvm.edu>
>
> Hi All,
>
> Am thinking about adding a fuel gauge to my 601HD to allow reading below
> where the sight-tube ends, but don't really want to have to cut a hole in
> the header tank to mount a sender, so was wondering about using another
> approach.
>
> Most fuel gauges accept some type of standard analog signal. What would be
> the problem in putting a t-fitting at the header tank outlet and putting a
> pressure transducer (to measure fuel level via the pressure head) on the
> horizontal arm of the t-fitting, and having the fuel flow out the vertical
> arm (as it usually does, a rough diagram is below)? Finding a transducer
> that spit out a 0-5V signal would be simple, as would finding a gauge that
> would accept a 0-5V signal. This would eliminate a lot of work, and
> eliminate cutting another hole in the tank (think leaks). The "sender"
> might
> be a bit more costly, but the installation would be a MUCH easier
> retrofit.
>
> My main concern is that it doesn't seem to be a "typical" solution one
> sees,
> and I wonder why that is (although searching for "fuel pressure" is
> useless
> as it is a different thing altogether). At least one fuel gauge supplier
> has
> said it should work.
>
> Any comments?
>
> Tim Perkins, VT
> N1170Q 601HD/Rotax 912UL
>
> ------------------
> |
> Pressr |
> transd --|
> |
> v
> fuel flow
> to engine
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Scott Thatcher" <s_thatcher@bellsouth.net>
Just a general comment regarding the forward tilt of the 601XL canopy. My
concern was that in the event of a roll-over or flip (for whatever reason),
it would be virtually impossible to get out of the aircraft. I spoke to
William about this and he stated that they had designed a roll-bar system
for the XL that incorporated one or two fairly strong stress points at the
top and rear of the cockpit that would impact the canopy and convincingly
shatter it while still holding the airframe off your head!
His only concern was that he needed another 8 weeks this year to be able to
work on it!
He also stated that a small axe or sharp pointed hammer could be used to
shatter the plexiglass (presumably also in flight), thus providing an escape
route or cooler air in the event the fresh air system failed.
So, I'm going to carry a sharp hammer with me when I do my testing... mostly
because I'm paranoid about things happening when not prepared. And I intend
to get one of his roll-bar kits when he finishes his design.
Scott Thatcher
601XL with WW Corvair
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: Parachutes kill. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "kevinbonds" <kevinbonds@comcast.net>
Good points Peter. I wonder how realistic the 300ft thing is though. There
was an article some time back about a guy pulling the handle in his SR22
(from considerable altitude) He became disoriented due to a brain tumor. The
description of the deployment sounded less than soft. It brought up a lot of
issues for me. No way to control once deployed; still considerable velocity
as he impacted the water; etc. . . I know what everyone is thinking "but he
did survive". Yes but would he have survived had he just taken the thing
down to a field and landed it. We will never know. (Sorry for the can of
worms)
Another point for me is I can take the limited budget I have and invest in
training and better instruments (engine monitoring, IFR gear, even autopilot
etc) to help me fly safer in all conditions. Or I can skip some of that and
get a chute. Not an easy decision but still for me I like the former plan.
However where I live and fly it's not hard to find a landing area. Heck, my
home field has an 8,000 foot runway (there is talk of extending it to
10,000). I'll need oxygen before I reach the end of the runway! :)
BTW I must admit I am not yet a pilot (I technically only have 5 hours in
the book-I fly often with friends who are not CFIs) so this is all
unqualified speculation on my part. I'm assuming I'll have what it takes to
fly safely once my training is complete.
BTW The incident, you referred to, of apparent loss of control on test
flight was a sad deal, but I'm not sure he ever reached 300 feet. He
impacted the second story of a building very close to the end of the runway
(if I remember correctly). Don't think a chute would have helped.
Kevin Bonds
Nashville TN
601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.
Empennage done; working on wings and engine.
http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Ramperf@aol.com
Bob
engineinfo@aol.com
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <momanpop@marshallnet.com>
Thanks for the info Larry.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry McFarland
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: ea-81/ram
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Larry McFarland <larrymc@qconline.com>
Bob,
Try this address and then call or email. Ron is very good with these
engines.
http://ramengines.com/
Larry McFarland at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
momanpop@marshallnet.com wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: <momanpop@marshallnet.com>
>
>It was recommended to have the heads done by Ram because of heating problems.
Any one know the Ram email
>address?
>
>Thanks
>
>Bob Tichy.
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | RE: Parachutes kill. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Parachutes opening shock depends mostly on how fast you are going (and
how it is packed) when you deploy...I Still remember pulling my reserve
handle when pulling up out of a head down dive and reserve canopies are
packed to open FAST...Yes us skydivers can do almost anything a plane
can...except go upwards...:)...Anyway there was blood everywhere 'cus
the altimter (mounted on chest strap) hit me in the head...oooof!
So anyway, the deployment speed will be highly dependant on how fast the
plane was going when deployed. The tragic case of the zodiac killing the
test pilot MAY have been helped by a BRS because the canopy would most
likely have opened like a drogue chute, i.e slowing the airplane to a
stall under a fully open canopy.
This is highly conjecturish though and if there was not enough room for
the HDS to "swing down" under the canopy before it hit the ground the
result might have been the same.
Sounds to me your first case would have been more survivable with the
BRS, simply because it sounds like the pilot may not have been together
enough to dead stick the plane anyway.
As for me having spent considerable time under parachutes I can't
justify a BRS either...Could'nt imagine dumping one in IFR as one of us
suggested...A Colt 45 to the temple would be cheaper!...And besides a
Truetrack Autopilot is less than $2000 now...Hit the button its wings
level...Turn the knob and the plane makes a standard rate turn.
I'll stick to what I know and if I'm doing aerobatics and the wing falls
off I'm bailing under my own canopy...:)
Frank
HDS 380 hours
RV7A in construction
Skydiving rig under the bed...:)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kevinbonds
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: RE: Parachutes kill.
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "kevinbonds" <kevinbonds@comcast.net>
Good points Peter. I wonder how realistic the 300ft thing is though.
There was an article some time back about a guy pulling the handle in
his SR22 (from considerable altitude) He became disoriented due to a
brain tumor. The description of the deployment sounded less than soft.
It brought up a lot of issues for me. No way to control once deployed;
still considerable velocity as he impacted the water; etc. . . I know
what everyone is thinking "but he did survive". Yes but would he have
survived had he just taken the thing down to a field and landed it. We
will never know. (Sorry for the can of
worms)
Another point for me is I can take the limited budget I have and invest
in training and better instruments (engine monitoring, IFR gear, even
autopilot
etc) to help me fly safer in all conditions. Or I can skip some of that
and get a chute. Not an easy decision but still for me I like the former
plan.
However where I live and fly it's not hard to find a landing area. Heck,
my home field has an 8,000 foot runway (there is talk of extending it to
10,000). I'll need oxygen before I reach the end of the runway! :)
BTW I must admit I am not yet a pilot (I technically only have 5 hours
in the book-I fly often with friends who are not CFIs) so this is all
unqualified speculation on my part. I'm assuming I'll have what it takes
to fly safely once my training is complete.
BTW The incident, you referred to, of apparent loss of control on test
flight was a sad deal, but I'm not sure he ever reached 300 feet. He
impacted the second story of a building very close to the end of the
runway (if I remember correctly). Don't think a chute would have helped.
Kevin Bonds
Nashville TN
601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.
Empennage done; working on wings and engine.
http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
do not archive 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: | re: powder coating |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Tommy Walker" <twalker@cableone.net>
That's another page to add to my list of dumb ideas.
Thanks.
Do Not Archive
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
Hello Tommy,
Here I am again...
Definitly NO please. I do powder coating in my factory as a daily basis.
I
had the same idea, (was free for me:-) BUT Since years ago, the advise
from
the aviation comunity has been always not to use it.
The reason they gave me is good for me: The powder coating is thick and
make a
shell by itself. and has some kind of elasticity.... This will cover any
early
crack in the metal or welds before you can see it in preflight. a very
dangerous
situation if it happens.
I was advised from the "olders" to use only white or clear color "normal"
paint
inside the engine comparment, this to see any cracks in preflight or any
trace
of oil from the engine. Keep the area as clean as possible always, is a
good
way to have it checked also.
Cleaning (or washing?) the airplane is a way of preflight.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
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: <momanpop@marshallnet.com>
Thanks
Bob.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ramperf@aol.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: ea-81/ram
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Ramperf@aol.com
Bob
engineinfo@aol.com
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <momanpop@marshallnet.com>
Hi Frank:
I have talked to Ron at ram and he is going to do the heads and add locator bushings
to the case halves.
Thanks for the info
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: ea-81/ram
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Sort of.....But not quite.
Firstly we are talking about a Stratus motor. Stratus has been plagued
somewhat by valve guides falling into the combustion chamber until they
meet the tapered section of the valve where chunks of guide get broken
off and it destroys the top half of your engine.
Stratus came up with a totally inadequate solution (IM not so HO) which
simply did not work.
Stratus put this down in my case to overheating....Overheating or not
there is no way no how a valve guide should come out of a head not
matter what you do with the motor as long as it was put in right in the
first place.
This means the guide is made 1 to 2 thou bigger than the hole in the
head, the head heated, the guide chilled and the two put together.
It will never come out.
Ram performance gose one step further and (In addition to heat
shrinking) make guides with a step on the outside so it is a "belt and
braces approach". This requires a CNC lathe to do economically and Ram
was the only shop to understand the issue and decided to offer such
guides.
Ron Carr's workmanship is superb and even though it is expensive it
pales into insignificance compared to the first time you feel the
sickening torque reversal thru the airframe when your engine eats a
guide...Of course it always happens over densely populated areas, trees
or water!
Do not accept "fixes" that involve Locktite, knurling the outside of the
guide (to bring it up to size) or circlips...These are have all failed
in my engine.
I would avise you take the opportunity to check your jetting in the
carbs. Mine required upsizing quite a bit. This may have been due to
the porting job that Ron did for me as part of the head work. As I did
not check the jetting before Ron worked my heads I can't be sure if they
were set right from Stratus to begin with or not...Too small jetting
will cause hot runnig on the rich side of peak EGT which May have
contributed to the signs of overheating that Stratus say they say in my
heads.
Either way...still not an excuse to loose valve guides.
Ram Performance...You know it makes sense as does the 10% kickback they
gave me.....NOT!...:)
http://www.ramengines.com/index.html
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
momanpop@marshallnet.com
Subject: Zenith-List: ea-81/ram
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <momanpop@marshallnet.com>
It was recommended to have the heads done by Ram because of heating
problems. Any one know the Ram email address?
Thanks
Bob Tichy.
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Good move on the locator bushings...Cheap insurance!
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
momanpop@marshallnet.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: ea-81/ram
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <momanpop@marshallnet.com>
Hi Frank:
I have talked to Ron at ram and he is going to do the heads and add
locator bushings to the case halves.
Thanks for the info
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: ea-81/ram
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
--> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Sort of.....But not quite.
Firstly we are talking about a Stratus motor. Stratus has been plagued
somewhat by valve guides falling into the combustion chamber until they
meet the tapered section of the valve where chunks of guide get broken
off and it destroys the top half of your engine.
Stratus came up with a totally inadequate solution (IM not so HO) which
simply did not work.
Stratus put this down in my case to overheating....Overheating or not
there is no way no how a valve guide should come out of a head not
matter what you do with the motor as long as it was put in right in the
first place.
This means the guide is made 1 to 2 thou bigger than the hole in the
head, the head heated, the guide chilled and the two put together.
It will never come out.
Ram performance gose one step further and (In addition to heat
shrinking) make guides with a step on the outside so it is a "belt and
braces approach". This requires a CNC lathe to do economically and Ram
was the only shop to understand the issue and decided to offer such
guides.
Ron Carr's workmanship is superb and even though it is expensive it
pales into insignificance compared to the first time you feel the
sickening torque reversal thru the airframe when your engine eats a
guide...Of course it always happens over densely populated areas, trees
or water!
Do not accept "fixes" that involve Locktite, knurling the outside of the
guide (to bring it up to size) or circlips...These are have all failed
in my engine.
I would avise you take the opportunity to check your jetting in the
carbs. Mine required upsizing quite a bit. This may have been due to
the porting job that Ron did for me as part of the head work. As I did
not check the jetting before Ron worked my heads I can't be sure if they
were set right from Stratus to begin with or not...Too small jetting
will cause hot runnig on the rich side of peak EGT which May have
contributed to the signs of overheating that Stratus say they say in my
heads.
Either way...still not an excuse to loose valve guides.
Ram Performance...You know it makes sense as does the 10% kickback they
gave me.....NOT!...:)
http://www.ramengines.com/index.html
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
momanpop@marshallnet.com
Subject: Zenith-List: ea-81/ram
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <momanpop@marshallnet.com>
It was recommended to have the heads done by Ram because of heating
problems. Any one know the Ram email address?
Thanks
Bob Tichy.
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
I have a little tool that I bought from Harbor Freight for about $10 as I
recall. It has a hatchet blade on one side, a hammer face on the other side
and a nail puller on the end. I intended to use the hatchet it as a canopy
breaker in case of a flip-over. It has come in handy for driving tent stakes
and tie down stakes at a couple of fly-ins and the nail puller has served as
a make-shift shovel to dig the accumulated crud from the tie-down padeyes at
a little airport in Georgia where I tied it down for the night. I've thought
about sharpening the area behind the hammer head to use as a seat belt
cutter but I haven't got around to it yet. I think the hatchet blade is
probably sharp enough to saw through the seat belts if I can't get them
loose.
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL, Stratus Subaru.
do not archive.
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Scott Thatcher" <s_thatcher@bellsouth.net>
>
> Just a general comment regarding the forward tilt of the 601XL canopy. My
> concern was that in the event of a roll-over or flip (for whatever reason),
> it would be virtually impossible to get out of the aircraft. ...
>
> He also stated that a small axe or sharp pointed hammer could be used to
> shatter the plexiglass (presumably also in flight), thus providing an escape
> route or cooler air in the event the fresh air system failed.
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: Parachutes kill. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Flydog1966@aol.com
If I was in the 801 that disintegrated over California, I would want one.
do not archive
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: re: powder coating |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: ron dewees <rdewees@mindspring.com>
Isn't there a clear colored powder coat? If so doesn't it eliminate the
visibility issue?
Ron
Tommy Walker wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Tommy Walker" <twalker@cableone.net>
>
>That's another page to add to my list of dumb ideas.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Do Not Archive
>
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
>
>Hello Tommy,
>
>Here I am again...
>
>Definitly NO please. I do powder coating in my factory as a daily basis.
>I
>had the same idea, (was free for me:-) BUT Since years ago, the advise
>from
>the aviation comunity has been always not to use it.
>
>The reason they gave me is good for me: The powder coating is thick and
>make a
>shell by itself. and has some kind of elasticity.... This will cover any
>early
>crack in the metal or welds before you can see it in preflight. a very
>dangerous
>situation if it happens.
>
>I was advised from the "olders" to use only white or clear color "normal"
>paint
>inside the engine comparment, this to see any cracks in preflight or any
>trace
>of oil from the engine. Keep the area as clean as possible always, is a
>good
>way to have it checked also.
>Cleaning (or washing?) the airplane is a way of preflight.
>
>Saludos
>Gary Gower.
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "William J. Naumuk" <billn@velocity.net>
All-
A few months ago someone asked a question about how to "Spoon" out a crease
in a nose skin. My posting was to forget about spooning and use a body dolly.
I still recommend this- for big creases.
On the other hand, I just encountered a little crease, maybe 3/4" long, right
in a large radius area. You just couldn't get a dolly in without hacking things
up. So, I went back to the archives and looked up a posting on spooning.
It worked well enough to where I think you won't see anything after priming,
but the whole time I was doing it, I was thinking "There's got to be something
better to use than a spoon".
Any pedal steel players out there? I thought maybe a bar would work. Drill
and tap or weld on a handle of some sort to help induce down pressure. You'd have
a nice, smooth contact area, much larger than that of a spoon.
Just a thought.
Bill
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: | Re: In-Flight Ivo Prop Results |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Leo Gates" <leogates@allvantage.com>
Tim,
Thanks, I will order one.
Leo
Do not archive
-------Original Message-------
From: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: In-Flight Ivo Prop Results
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Tim Egan" <eedetailing@qwest.net>
Leo,
Sorry, fat fingered it:
www.sportplanellc.com
Look under products, under the IVO prop.
Good people, they were kitfox dealers on the other side of my state.
Trying to get them interested in the zenair line.
What numbers are you getting for cruise and climb with your magnum prop?
Tim Egan
-> Zenith-List message posted by: "Leo Gates" <leogates@allvantage.com>
Tim,
I am interested in the brush kit, but sportplanell.com is not a good URL.
Leo Gates
N601Z, 2 Blade, Magnum, Ivoprop, Rotax 912UL
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: In-Flight Ivo Prop Results |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com>
I am running the Ivo in flight adjustable. I tried the two blade config but the
three blade is soooo much smoother. My real problem is the two blade let the
revs build up and the motor made too much power for my 801. It is almost scary
now with three blades... The guys at Ivo worked with me and I am impressed with
their business savy.
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
I am running the Ivo in flight adjustable. I tried the two blade config but the
three blade is soooo much smoother. My real problem is the two blade let the
revs build up andthe motor made too much power for my 801. It is almost scary
now with three blades... The guys at Ivo worked with me and I am impressed with
their business savy.
do not archive
BenHaas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "george may" <gfmjr_20@hotmail.com>
Tim--
You might try using a fuel flow meter. I've been using one on a Kitfox
for a year and once calibrated it is very accurate for current burn rate and
total fuel usage.
Check out http://www.anchorexpress.com/aa004551r.html
The Navman is the unit I'm using
George May
601XL 912--on the gear
>From: "Tim Perkins" <Timothy.Perkins@uvm.edu>
>Reply-To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Zenith-List: Fuel level
>Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 12:11:05 -0500
>
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Tim Perkins" <Timothy.Perkins@uvm.edu>
>
>Hi All,
>
>Am thinking about adding a fuel gauge to my 601HD to allow reading below
>where the sight-tube ends, but don't really want to have to cut a hole in
>the header tank to mount a sender, so was wondering about using another
>approach.
>
>Most fuel gauges accept some type of standard analog signal. What would be
>the problem in putting a t-fitting at the header tank outlet and putting a
>pressure transducer (to measure fuel level via the pressure head) on the
>horizontal arm of the t-fitting, and having the fuel flow out the vertical
>arm (as it usually does, a rough diagram is below)? Finding a transducer
>that spit out a 0-5V signal would be simple, as would finding a gauge that
>would accept a 0-5V signal. This would eliminate a lot of work, and
>eliminate cutting another hole in the tank (think leaks). The "sender"
>might
>be a bit more costly, but the installation would be a MUCH easier retrofit.
>
>My main concern is that it doesn't seem to be a "typical" solution one
>sees,
>and I wonder why that is (although searching for "fuel pressure" is useless
>as it is a different thing altogether). At least one fuel gauge supplier
>has
>said it should work.
>
>Any comments?
>
>Tim Perkins, VT
>N1170Q 601HD/Rotax 912UL
>
>| |
>| Header |
>| tank |
>------------------
> |
>Pressr |
>transd --|
> |
> v
> fuel flow
> to engine
>
>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Parachutes kill. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Kelly Meiste" <kellymeiste@jcwifi.com>
> If I was in the 801 that disintegrated over California, I would want one.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I guess it's time for me to add my 2 cents on this subject line.
During my crazed UL days of past I flew with a ballistic chute in my plane
at all times. But I opted not to install one in my 601 for several reasons.
For slow & light planes (UL's) there just fine, but as speed and weight
increases there are a major problems with these chutes. With the speed and
weight of our Zenith aircrafts one would have to turn off the engine and put
the plane into a stall before pulling the trigger (even in an UL aircraft
the instructions call for this procedure).
Another thing that bothers me is the rocket must be armed (pin pulled and
ready to fire) at all times in flight. These chutes have on occasions
unintentionally fired during flight and have killed people. Care to guess
why the "Second Chance" chute manufacture went out of business? I was always
VERY nervous flying with that rocket next to me armed and ready to fire. I
can't confirm this but I've been told that chutes have accidentally fired by
just bumping them, and even during hard landings! Those rockets pack a
powerful punch and can do some major damage to anything it may strike.
Also you need the chute repacked by a certified rigger on a certain time
schedule, and if in humid or wet conditions even more so. And like the chute
the ballistic rocket also needs routine maintenance by the original
manufacture (ever try sending an armed rocket via UPS)!
No thanks, I'll do without this time around.
Kelly
601HD
do not archive
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: chrisoz@bmail.com.au
Hi Listers,
BRS are mandatory for ultralight planes in Germany, and the Ultralight
Federation there has nice statistics.
Reasons for BRS depoyment are amongst other things: in flight collision with
other aircraft, birdstrike, structural failure after being vortext by a
fighter jet, in flight fire, engine failure over unlandable terrain
(mountains, fog covered ground, cities) and so forth.
The average time to loose control in cloud with aritficial horizon fitted and
basic PPL training is under a minute.
At $4000 for for a BRS you will not get any cheaper insurance. Being a well
trained pilot with a full panel amounts to exactly zip if somebody chops your
tail off in a crowded circuit...
My five cents worth,
paranoid Chris from Oz
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Parachutes kill. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Kevin Thorp <kevin@medamation.com>
The 601 that went down a year ago with 1 fatality did have a BRS system,
but it wasn't deployed:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20041108X01780&key=1
>
>>BTW The incident, you referred to, of apparent loss of control on test
>>flight was a sad deal, but I'm not sure he ever reached 300 feet. He
>>impacted the second story of a building very close to the end of the runway
>>(if I remember correctly). Don't think a chute would have helped.
>
>
>Kevin Bonds
>
>
>Nashville TN
>
>
>601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.
>
>
>Empennage done; working on wings and engine.
>
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
>
>
>do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
>
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Received-SPF: none (mgr1.xmission.com: 68.143.118.202 is neither permitted nor
denied by domain of craigandjean.com) client-ip=68.143.118.202; envelope-from=craig@craigandjean.com;
helo=TheTCCraig;
T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
And don't forget: most of us have an explosive device embedded in the
steering wheel of our car :-)
But I'm still not installing a BRS in my XL. (1) The weight (75-85 lb) will
use up much of the useful payload and (2) on a metal plane duct-taping the
cables to the outside of the fuselage is ugly.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
chrisoz@bmail.com.au
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: BRS
--> Zenith-List message posted by: chrisoz@bmail.com.au
Hi Listers,
BRS are mandatory for ultralight planes in Germany, and the Ultralight
Federation there has nice statistics.
Reasons for BRS depoyment are amongst other things: in flight collision with
other aircraft, birdstrike, structural failure after being vortext by a
fighter jet, in flight fire, engine failure over unlandable terrain
(mountains, fog covered ground, cities) and so forth.
The average time to loose control in cloud with aritficial horizon fitted
and basic PPL training is under a minute.
At $4000 for for a BRS you will not get any cheaper insurance. Being a well
trained pilot with a full panel amounts to exactly zip if somebody chops
your tail off in a crowded circuit...
My five cents worth,
paranoid Chris from Oz
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Parachutes kill. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "ron wehba" <rwehba@pegasusbb.com>
what happened to it
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Meiste" <kellymeiste@jcwifi.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Parachutes kill.
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Kelly Meiste" <kellymeiste@jcwifi.com>
>
>> If I was in the 801 that disintegrated over California, I would want
>> one.
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I guess it's time for me to add my 2 cents on this subject line.
> During my crazed UL days of past I flew with a ballistic chute in my plane
> at all times. But I opted not to install one in my 601 for several
> reasons.
> For slow & light planes (UL's) there just fine, but as speed and weight
> increases there are a major problems with these chutes. With the speed and
> weight of our Zenith aircrafts one would have to turn off the engine and
> put
> the plane into a stall before pulling the trigger (even in an UL aircraft
> the instructions call for this procedure).
> Another thing that bothers me is the rocket must be armed (pin pulled and
> ready to fire) at all times in flight. These chutes have on occasions
> unintentionally fired during flight and have killed people. Care to guess
> why the "Second Chance" chute manufacture went out of business? I was
> always
> VERY nervous flying with that rocket next to me armed and ready to fire. I
> can't confirm this but I've been told that chutes have accidentally fired
> by
> just bumping them, and even during hard landings! Those rockets pack a
> powerful punch and can do some major damage to anything it may strike.
> Also you need the chute repacked by a certified rigger on a certain time
> schedule, and if in humid or wet conditions even more so. And like the
> chute
> the ballistic rocket also needs routine maintenance by the original
> manufacture (ever try sending an armed rocket via UPS)!
> No thanks, I'll do without this time around.
>
> Kelly
> 601HD
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
I wonder how many planes have had their tails chopped off in the
pattern in the last three weeks?
Paul
do not archive
At 05:23 PM 11/2/2005, you wrote:
>Being a well
>trained pilot with a full panel amounts to exactly zip if somebody chops your
>tail off in a crowded circuit...
---------------------------------------------
Paul Mulwitz
32013 NE Dial Road
Camas, WA 98607
---------------------------------------------
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Received-SPF: none (mgr1.xmission.com: 68.143.118.202 is neither permitted nor
denied by domain of craigandjean.com) client-ip=68.143.118.202; envelope-from=craig@craigandjean.com;
helo=TheTCCraig;
T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Here is a list of things that can go wrong. Since none of them have ever
happened to me or (to my knowledge) to anyone in the last three weeks I
guess they can't happen. And certainly none of these would ever happen to a
competent pilot:
http://brsparachutes.com/lifesave.html
I am now going to remove the safety belts from my car because I might get
stuck in the car in a crash. And the hydraulic brakes might leak so I'll be
switching my car over to cable brake linkages.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: BRS
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz
--> <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
I wonder how many planes have had their tails chopped off in the pattern in
the last three weeks?
Paul
do not archive
At 05:23 PM 11/2/2005, you wrote:
>Being a well
>trained pilot with a full panel amounts to exactly zip if somebody
>chops your tail off in a crowded circuit...
---------------------------------------------
Paul Mulwitz
32013 NE Dial Road
Camas, WA 98607
---------------------------------------------
Message 48
| 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: Carlos Sa <carlosfsa@yahoo.com>
I don't know, but if *my* tail was involved, I'd be pretty annoyed...
Sorry, Paul, couldn't resist
Carlos
do not archive
--- Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
>
> I wonder how many planes have had their tails chopped off in the
> pattern in the last three weeks?
>
> Paul
Message 49
| 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: BRS T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG |
autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net> autolearn=disabled
version=3.0.3
Thanks for a very entertaining list. Alas, in the entire history of
BRS listed on this manufacturer's web page I didn't see even one
incident of a tail getting chopped off by a midair collision in the
traffic pattern.
It also seems very one sided. It doesn't show anything but successes
for the company's products. This is clearly a piece of sales literature.
I wonder how many people have been killed by similar devices. I also
wonder if there were any "Real" airplanes in the list. I noticed a
Cirrus listed a couple of times - once with a structural failure
(loss of aileron). This tells me several things about the
Cirrus: 1: I'd rather fly in a helicopter than a Cirrus (and I have
never dared to even sit in a helicopter on the ground); 2. Funny that
the only part 23 certified plane with a BRS has had to use it to make
up for parts falling off in flight. 3. I don't think I want to be in
the same sky with a Cirrus.
Most of the planes listed in this document were not even close to
airworthy craft. They were poorly designed ultralights with
presumably untrained and unqualified pilots. Certainly none of them
were even close to the strength and safety record of anything
designed by Chris Heintz. The ones I recognized all fell into the
category of "Flying lawn chairs".
Even with all of that said, I am glad some of the people brave enough
to go flying in lawn chairs were able to survive catastrophes in
those same vehicles. I still don't see what this has to do with
qualified pilots flying well designed sturdy planes.
Oh well, this is starting to be more of a "Religious" discussion than
a practical one. I guess I will try to stop making comments. That
is, of course, unless someone comes up with something really new and
interesting in this line of discussion.
One more small comment on the notion that you can fly a plane by
using an artificial horizon as proposed in an earlier message. That
is certainly NOT the way my instrument instructor trained me. From
my training, the only legitimate use an artificial horizon has in
instrument flying is to figure how much to rotate the pitch on a
zero/zero takeoff. For most of my training the artificial horizon
was covered up along with a random selection of around half of the
other instruments at any given time. Indeed needle-ball and airspeed
are quite sufficient to do a 180 and exit from surprise IMC.
I hope someone gained from all this discussion. If even one lister
changed his mind and decided to take 5 or 10 hours of instrument
flying instruction instead of installing a BRS or autopilot to make
up for lack of his skill then I feel it was all worth it.
Paul
XL wings
do not archive
At 07:21 PM 11/2/2005, you wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
>
>Here is a list of things that can go wrong. Since none of them have ever
>happened to me or (to my knowledge) to anyone in the last three weeks I
>guess they can't happen. And certainly none of these would ever happen to a
>competent pilot:
>
>http://brsparachutes.com/lifesave.html
>
>I am now going to remove the safety belts from my car because I might get
>stuck in the car in a crash. And the hydraulic brakes might leak so I'll be
>switching my car over to cable brake linkages.
>
>-- Craig
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: BRS
>
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz
>--> <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
>
>I wonder how many planes have had their tails chopped off in the pattern in
>the last three weeks?
>
>Paul
>do not archive
>
>At 05:23 PM 11/2/2005, you wrote:
> >Being a well
> >trained pilot with a full panel amounts to exactly zip if somebody
> >chops your tail off in a crowded circuit...
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Paul Mulwitz
>32013 NE Dial Road
>Camas, WA 98607
>---------------------------------------------
>
>
---------------------------------------------
Paul Mulwitz
32013 NE Dial Road
Camas, WA 98607
---------------------------------------------
Message 50
| 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: | Parachutes kill. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Zodie Rocket" <zodierocket@hsfx.ca>
We do not have the whole story on that one yet! Suffice it to say that
the plane was estimated to be at an altitude requiring oxygen and the
plane was not rated for the height it was estimated to be at , doing
aerobatics (this is a logical guess, by most people) and both the pilot
and passenger was found to have illegal drugs in there system! I had
flown in that plane several times and found it to be a joy to fly and
well mannered. I just wasn't partial to the long nose of the LOM engine.
However, it was smooth.
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started
www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / www.Osprey2.com
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ron wehba
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Parachutes kill.
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "ron wehba" <rwehba@pegasusbb.com>
what happened to it
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Meiste" <kellymeiste@jcwifi.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Parachutes kill.
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Kelly Meiste"
<kellymeiste@jcwifi.com>
>
>> If I was in the 801 that disintegrated over California, I would want
>> one.
>
>
--
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
11/2/2005
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair <mike.sinclair@att.net>
> So, if you have a BRS then you have no skill as a pilot? And if you don't have
> a "solid" plane? Then what?
>
>
>
> I don't have a problem with people who feel safer with an explosive
> device mounted behind their seat that promises to save them from
> their own lack of skill as a pilot. For me, though, a solid plane
> sounds like a much better bet than an untested parachute.
>
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Received-SPF: none (mgr1.xmission.com: 68.143.118.202 is neither permitted nor
denied by domain of craigandjean.com) client-ip=68.143.118.202; envelope-from=craig@craigandjean.com;
helo=TheTCCraig;
| Subject: | Re: BRS T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 |
T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Yup - we can conclude that:
- The FAA certification of the Cirrus was a mistake (and therefore all FAA
certified aircraft are potentially unsafe).
- The actual tests of deploying a BRS on a Cirrus were a fraud or inadequate
(and the test pilot was also a fool).
- All manufacture's web sites are just self-serving frauds.
- Anyone who walks near a BRS (or a helicopter) or owns a Cirrus is a fool.
So I've run the numbers and generated a list of everyone on the planet who
is not covered by any of the above. Here is the list:
1. Paul Mulwitz
<end of list>
-- Craig (has flown in a helicopter) Payne
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: BRS T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled
version=3.0.3
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz
--> <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net> autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
Thanks for a very entertaining list. Alas, in the entire history of BRS
listed on this manufacturer's web page I didn't see even one incident of a
tail getting chopped off by a midair collision in the traffic pattern.
It also seems very one sided. It doesn't show anything but successes for
the company's products. This is clearly a piece of sales literature.
I wonder how many people have been killed by similar devices. I also wonder
if there were any "Real" airplanes in the list. I noticed a Cirrus listed a
couple of times - once with a structural failure (loss of aileron). This
tells me several things about the
Cirrus: 1: I'd rather fly in a helicopter than a Cirrus (and I have never
dared to even sit in a helicopter on the ground); 2. Funny that the only
part 23 certified plane with a BRS has had to use it to make up for parts
falling off in flight. 3. I don't think I want to be in the same sky with a
Cirrus.
Most of the planes listed in this document were not even close to airworthy
craft. They were poorly designed ultralights with presumably untrained and
unqualified pilots. Certainly none of them were even close to the strength
and safety record of anything designed by Chris Heintz. The ones I
recognized all fell into the category of "Flying lawn chairs".
Even with all of that said, I am glad some of the people brave enough to go
flying in lawn chairs were able to survive catastrophes in those same
vehicles. I still don't see what this has to do with qualified pilots
flying well designed sturdy planes.
Oh well, this is starting to be more of a "Religious" discussion than a
practical one. I guess I will try to stop making comments. That is, of
course, unless someone comes up with something really new and interesting in
this line of discussion.
One more small comment on the notion that you can fly a plane by using an
artificial horizon as proposed in an earlier message. That is certainly NOT
the way my instrument instructor trained me. From my training, the only
legitimate use an artificial horizon has in instrument flying is to figure
how much to rotate the pitch on a zero/zero takeoff. For most of my
training the artificial horizon was covered up along with a random selection
of around half of the other instruments at any given time. Indeed
needle-ball and airspeed are quite sufficient to do a 180 and exit from
surprise IMC.
I hope someone gained from all this discussion. If even one lister changed
his mind and decided to take 5 or 10 hours of instrument flying instruction
instead of installing a BRS or autopilot to make up for lack of his skill
then I feel it was all worth it.
Paul
XL wings
do not archive
At 07:21 PM 11/2/2005, you wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
>--> <craig@craigandjean.com>
>
>Here is a list of things that can go wrong. Since none of them have
>ever happened to me or (to my knowledge) to anyone in the last three
>weeks I guess they can't happen. And certainly none of these would ever
>happen to a competent pilot:
>
>http://brsparachutes.com/lifesave.html
>
>I am now going to remove the safety belts from my car because I might
>get stuck in the car in a crash. And the hydraulic brakes might leak so
>I'll be switching my car over to cable brake linkages.
>
>-- Craig
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
>Mulwitz
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: BRS
>
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz
>--> <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
>
>I wonder how many planes have had their tails chopped off in the
>pattern in the last three weeks?
>
>Paul
>do not archive
>
>At 05:23 PM 11/2/2005, you wrote:
> >Being a well
> >trained pilot with a full panel amounts to exactly zip if somebody
> >chops your tail off in a crowded circuit...
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Paul Mulwitz
>32013 NE Dial Road
>Camas, WA 98607
>---------------------------------------------
>
>
---------------------------------------------
Paul Mulwitz
32013 NE Dial Road
Camas, WA 98607
---------------------------------------------
Message 53
| 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: Kevin Thorp <kevin@medamation.com>
I guess with all things it's a cost vs. risk equation.
There's the dollar cost of a BRS (about $4000 for a 601) and the weight
cost (30 lbs + installation hardware, mounts & straps).
The risk is catastrophic structural failure or midair collisions. Maybe
engine failure over inhospitable terrain, but I think a pilot in a 601
(and definitely the 701) will survive just about any hard landing as
long as he's flying the plane all the way down.
It seems a lot of fatalities are the result of engine failures, followed
by a stall/spin. Would a BRS help in that situation? Would the
additional weight (towards the rear CG) make a stall/spin more likely?
Could the $4000 be better spent on a more reliable engine & fuel
system? Or more pilot training?
Interesting debate.
Message 54
| 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: BRS T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled |
version=3.0.3T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair <mike.sinclair@att.net>
This is most definitely a "do not archive", but I done a little searching of the
net, and found a couple of other posted opinions of Mr. Mulwitz. Sure is not shy
about giving his opinion. Also checked the FAA database, what I see for his name
is a PPL for ASEL issued 7/20/2004. No other ratings listed. I also take issue
with his condemnation of the Cirrus, as well as all the "flying lawn chairs",
and especially his opinion that 5-10 hours of intrument training will replace a
BRS and that if you don't have that you have "No" skill. Suspect he ought to do
a little more research before he states such a strong opinion on some subjects.
I have been taking a hiatus from this list for a few months after an engine out
accident and came back to read this kind of garbage? I see a lot of names I
respect and recognize from past discussions. I would like to continue taking
part on this list, but if it is going to get taken over by a know it all
attitude "if it's not my way, then it's no good", then I must respectfully
depart again. And will see the rest of the "real" pilots at the upcoming
airshows. By the way, after several hanger sessions, the best guess is that my
engine failure was due to a vapor lock. Can give details if anyone is
interested, but it's a fairly long story. Kinda wish I had used the BRS to slow
me down before I got intimate with that tree. Would have been a whole lot
cheaper. Must have been my poor "pilot skills"!
Mike Sinclair N701TD
Craig Payne wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
>
> Yup - we can conclude that:
>
> - The FAA certification of the Cirrus was a mistake (and therefore all FAA
> certified aircraft are potentially unsafe).
> - The actual tests of deploying a BRS on a Cirrus were a fraud or inadequate
> (and the test pilot was also a fool).
> - All manufacture's web sites are just self-serving frauds.
> - Anyone who walks near a BRS (or a helicopter) or owns a Cirrus is a fool.
>
> So I've run the numbers and generated a list of everyone on the planet who
> is not covered by any of the above. Here is the list:
>
> 1. Paul Mulwitz
> <end of list>
>
> -- Craig (has flown in a helicopter) Payne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
> autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: BRS T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled
> version=3.0.3
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz
> --> <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net> autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
>
> Thanks for a very entertaining list. Alas, in the entire history of BRS
> listed on this manufacturer's web page I didn't see even one incident of a
> tail getting chopped off by a midair collision in the traffic pattern.
>
> It also seems very one sided. It doesn't show anything but successes for
> the company's products. This is clearly a piece of sales literature.
>
> I wonder how many people have been killed by similar devices. I also wonder
> if there were any "Real" airplanes in the list. I noticed a Cirrus listed a
> couple of times - once with a structural failure (loss of aileron). This
> tells me several things about the
> Cirrus: 1: I'd rather fly in a helicopter than a Cirrus (and I have never
> dared to even sit in a helicopter on the ground); 2. Funny that the only
> part 23 certified plane with a BRS has had to use it to make up for parts
> falling off in flight. 3. I don't think I want to be in the same sky with a
> Cirrus.
>
> Most of the planes listed in this document were not even close to airworthy
> craft. They were poorly designed ultralights with presumably untrained and
> unqualified pilots. Certainly none of them were even close to the strength
> and safety record of anything designed by Chris Heintz. The ones I
> recognized all fell into the category of "Flying lawn chairs".
>
> Even with all of that said, I am glad some of the people brave enough to go
> flying in lawn chairs were able to survive catastrophes in those same
> vehicles. I still don't see what this has to do with qualified pilots
> flying well designed sturdy planes.
>
> Oh well, this is starting to be more of a "Religious" discussion than a
> practical one. I guess I will try to stop making comments. That is, of
> course, unless someone comes up with something really new and interesting in
> this line of discussion.
>
> One more small comment on the notion that you can fly a plane by using an
> artificial horizon as proposed in an earlier message. That is certainly NOT
> the way my instrument instructor trained me. From my training, the only
> legitimate use an artificial horizon has in instrument flying is to figure
> how much to rotate the pitch on a zero/zero takeoff. For most of my
> training the artificial horizon was covered up along with a random selection
> of around half of the other instruments at any given time. Indeed
> needle-ball and airspeed are quite sufficient to do a 180 and exit from
> surprise IMC.
>
> I hope someone gained from all this discussion. If even one lister changed
> his mind and decided to take 5 or 10 hours of instrument flying instruction
> instead of installing a BRS or autopilot to make up for lack of his skill
> then I feel it was all worth it.
>
> Paul
> XL wings
> do not archive
>
> At 07:21 PM 11/2/2005, you wrote:
> >--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> >--> <craig@craigandjean.com>
> >
> >Here is a list of things that can go wrong. Since none of them have
> >ever happened to me or (to my knowledge) to anyone in the last three
> >weeks I guess they can't happen. And certainly none of these would ever
> >happen to a competent pilot:
> >
> >http://brsparachutes.com/lifesave.html
> >
> >I am now going to remove the safety belts from my car because I might
> >get stuck in the car in a crash. And the hydraulic brakes might leak so
> >I'll be switching my car over to cable brake linkages.
> >
> >-- Craig
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> >[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> >Mulwitz
> >To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: BRS
> >
> >--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz
> >--> <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
> >
> >I wonder how many planes have had their tails chopped off in the
> >pattern in the last three weeks?
> >
> >Paul
> >do not archive
> >
> >At 05:23 PM 11/2/2005, you wrote:
> > >Being a well
> > >trained pilot with a full panel amounts to exactly zip if somebody
> > >chops your tail off in a crowded circuit...
> >
> >---------------------------------------------
> >Paul Mulwitz
> >32013 NE Dial Road
> >Camas, WA 98607
> >---------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Paul Mulwitz
> 32013 NE Dial Road
> Camas, WA 98607
> ---------------------------------------------
>
Message 55
| 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: "kevinbonds" <kevinbonds@comcast.net>
Mike,
I know your comment wasn't directed at me but, I'd like to respond. The
issue for me is if I installed a BRS I would have less money and weight to
install other instruments and or less money to obtain proper IFR training
etc ... So yes, for me a BRS would mean less training ("skill") or
instrumentation or both. Since, along with the training, you also need the
instruments which add more weight. It's a vicious cycle.
The more I think about this issue (and as others bring up good points) the
more I worry about it. It's only human nature to try and make up for the
loss of useful load from installing extra equipment such as a BRS. I worry
that some will try and make up for it in potentially hazardous ways like
carrying less fuel reserves or just plane old ignoring the numbers and
flying around in an overloaded planes etc . . . Also, presumably, the bulk
of the BRS installation would need to be installed behind the pilot i.e. not
exactly over the C of G (possibly requiring extra ballast in the front?).
With so much weight coupled with baggage mostly near the aft limit, as fuel
burns and the C of G shifts rearward . . .well you see were I'm going)
[note: if a plane were designed from the beginning with the weight of a BRS,
in mind this would be less of an issue--though I don't believe our planes
were intended to have that much extra weight (above the necessary weight of
baggage, charts, safety equipment, etc . .) in such a rearward position].
These are not small matters to be underestimated given the considerable
weight of a unit. It would seem that this kind of weight in such a
potentially sensitive location would absolutely need to be accounted for
during the design phase. At the least, it would seem that you would be
mucking up an efficient design--making the plane sensitive to C of G
problems and overloading issues requiring very careful operation and
planning.
But: if you have the money; the training; and opt to give up the useful
load, go for it. Just be sure to consult Chris H. on necessary strengthening
of attachment points and other issues regarding the installation.
Kevin Bonds
Nashville TN
601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.
Empennage done; working on wings and engine.
http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Sinclair
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: BRS
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair <mike.sinclair@att.net>
> So, if you have a BRS then you have no skill as a pilot? And if you don't
have
> a "solid" plane? Then what?
>
>
>
> I don't have a problem with people who feel safer with an explosive
> device mounted behind their seat that promises to save them from
> their own lack of skill as a pilot. For me, though, a solid plane
> sounds like a much better bet than an untested parachute.
>
Message 56
| 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: "Randy Stout" <n282rs@earthlink.net>
We had an incident locally a few weeks ago that would have benefited from a
BRS, provided that the passenger knew how to operate it. Unofficial reports
are an instructor and student on a first or second lesson when up and the
instructor became incapacitated. I don't think the student knew how to
operate the radio and only had minimal knowledge of how to fly the plane.
The student flew around awhile until she finally crashed. The plane caught
fire seriously burning her. I think her chances would have been better with
the BRS assuming she knew how to deploy it.
I don't have a BRS, but this discussion has me wondering if I should get
one. I fly with my disabled, non pilot wife. She has a hard time getting in
and out without assistance. Her left hand is mostly paralyzed, so teaching
her to fly from the right seat is not likely. I've always said I wouldn't
bail out or use a BRS unless there was a structural failure. I would take
my chances trying to land it regardless of the terrain. I guess everyone
needs to analyze their own needs.
Randy Stout
n282rs"at"earthlink.net
www.geocities.com/r5t0ut21
Message 57
| 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: "kevinbonds" <kevinbonds@comcast.net>
Thanks Mr Thorp,
I find the debate very interesting as well. Though I know some are a little
unnerved by it. I'm glad someone other than myself has gotten something
constructive out of it.
Kevin Bonds
Nashville TN
601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.
Empennage done; working on wings and engine.
http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Thorp
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: BRS
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Kevin Thorp <kevin@medamation.com>
I guess with all things it's a cost vs. risk equation.
There's the dollar cost of a BRS (about $4000 for a 601) and the weight
cost (30 lbs + installation hardware, mounts & straps).
The risk is catastrophic structural failure or midair collisions. Maybe
engine failure over inhospitable terrain, but I think a pilot in a 601
(and definitely the 701) will survive just about any hard landing as
long as he's flying the plane all the way down.
It seems a lot of fatalities are the result of engine failures, followed
by a stall/spin. Would a BRS help in that situation? Would the
additional weight (towards the rear CG) make a stall/spin more likely?
Could the $4000 be better spent on a more reliable engine & fuel
system? Or more pilot training?
Interesting debate.
Message 58
| 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: BRS T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled |
version=3.0.3T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair <mike.sinclair@att.net>
Again "Do Not Archive" But what the heck does he mean by "rotate the pitch on
a
zero/zero takeoff"? I guess that subject has never been covered in any of the
training I received. And I do know that I can keep the ball centered & airspeed
in the correct ranges, and be a long way from straight and level. Maybe if I get
myself a pair of XL wings then I won't have a "lack of skill"
Sorry, I couldn't let it go yet!
Mike
>
>
> One more small comment on the notion that you can fly a plane by using an
> artificial horizon as proposed in an earlier message. That is certainly NOT
> the way my instrument instructor trained me. From my training, the only
> legitimate use an artificial horizon has in instrument flying is to figure
> how much to rotate the pitch on a zero/zero takeoff. For most of my
> training the artificial horizon was covered up along with a random selection
> of around half of the other instruments at any given time. Indeed
> needle-ball and airspeed are quite sufficient to do a 180 and exit from
> surprise IMC.
>
> I hope someone gained from all this discussion. If even one lister changed
> his mind and decided to take 5 or 10 hours of instrument flying instruction
> instead of installing a BRS or autopilot to make up for lack of his skill
> then I feel it was all worth it.
>
> Paul
> XL wings
> do not archive
Message 59
| 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: BRS T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG |
autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "kevinbonds" <kevinbonds@comcast.net>
Mike
Glad you are OK. Sounds like you are the most qualified to enter this
debate. Did you have a BRS on board or did you mean that you wished you did
(you said "wish I had used" implying that you had it available)? I would be
interested to hear more. You may be the most qualified to change my mind
(I'm currently a NO to the BRS).
Kevin Bonds
Nashville TN
601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.
Empennage done; working on wings and engine.
http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Sinclair
To:
zenith-list@matronics.com.version=3.0.3T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG.autolearn=disab
led.version=3.0.3
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: BRS T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled
version=3.0.3T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair <mike.sinclair@att.net>
interested, but it's a fairly long story. Kinda wish I had used the BRS to
slow
me down before I got intimate with that tree. Would have been a whole lot
cheaper. Must have been my poor "pilot skills"!
Mike Sinclair N701TD
Message 60
| 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: "kevinbonds" <kevinbonds@comcast.net>
Randy
Sounds to me like good logic on your part. If I were in your shoes I would
be thinking the same things. The thought had occurred to me that a BRS could
be a tool to allow those who are more prone to becoming incapacitated (such
as diabetics, Epileptics, people with heart conditions, etc. . .) to fly
especially if non-pilot passengers are on board (small can of worms?). We do
have the whole sport pilot thing now. You know?
Kevin Bonds
Nashville TN
601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.
Empennage done; working on wings and engine.
http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Stout
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: BRS
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy Stout" <n282rs@earthlink.net>
We had an incident locally a few weeks ago that would have benefited from a
BRS, provided that the passenger knew how to operate it. Unofficial reports
are an instructor and student on a first or second lesson when up and the
instructor became incapacitated. I don't think the student knew how to
operate the radio and only had minimal knowledge of how to fly the plane.
The student flew around awhile until she finally crashed. The plane caught
fire seriously burning her. I think her chances would have been better with
the BRS assuming she knew how to deploy it.
I don't have a BRS, but this discussion has me wondering if I should get
one. I fly with my disabled, non pilot wife. She has a hard time getting in
and out without assistance. Her left hand is mostly paralyzed, so teaching
her to fly from the right seat is not likely. I've always said I wouldn't
bail out or use a BRS unless there was a structural failure. I would take
my chances trying to land it regardless of the terrain. I guess everyone
needs to analyze their own needs.
Randy Stout
n282rs"at"earthlink.net
www.geocities.com/r5t0ut21
Message 61
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair <mike.sinclair@att.net>
Kevin
I appreciate your reply. In my case, not installing a BRS was never an issue.
Part of the reason that I wanted to go the taildragger route on my 701 was for
the weight savings by eliminating the nosegear so that I could install a chute.
I also didn't install the battery until after the intial w&b so that I could use
it as the ballast. The final result is that my battery is installed on the
floorboard just ahead of the co-pilot seat. An added plus is that less battery
cable was used which also saved weight. The final result is that my plane came
in at 612 lbs empty. For me, adding the BRS is the warm fuzzy thing. Something
that I hope I never need, but if I should, it is there. I have several hundred
hours flying ultralights & hang gliders also, and always felt better when
equipped with a parachute, even if a hand deployed type. I agree that it should
be up the each individual as to what type of equipment should be in their
aircraft. Just hate to see ideas trashed by someone so obviously biased that
they don't even want to consider others opinions. And then try to pass off their
own opinions as the way it should be. I believe that is part of why we have the
label on our aircraft that says "Experimental". Good luck on your project.
Mike Sinclair
kevinbonds wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "kevinbonds" <kevinbonds@comcast.net>
>
> Mike,
>
> I know your comment wasn't directed at me but, I'd like to respond. The
> issue for me is if I installed a BRS I would have less money and weight to
> install other instruments and or less money to obtain proper IFR training
> etc ... So yes, for me a BRS would mean less training ("skill") or
> instrumentation or both. Since, along with the training, you also need the
> instruments which add more weight. It's a vicious cycle.
>
> The more I think about this issue (and as others bring up good points) the
> more I worry about it. It's only human nature to try and make up for the
> loss of useful load from installing extra equipment such as a BRS. I worry
> that some will try and make up for it in potentially hazardous ways like
> carrying less fuel reserves or just plane old ignoring the numbers and
> flying around in an overloaded planes etc . . . Also, presumably, the bulk
> of the BRS installation would need to be installed behind the pilot i.e. not
> exactly over the C of G (possibly requiring extra ballast in the front?).
> With so much weight coupled with baggage mostly near the aft limit, as fuel
> burns and the C of G shifts rearward . . .well you see were I'm going)
> [note: if a plane were designed from the beginning with the weight of a BRS,
> in mind this would be less of an issue--though I don't believe our planes
> were intended to have that much extra weight (above the necessary weight of
> baggage, charts, safety equipment, etc . .) in such a rearward position].
>
> These are not small matters to be underestimated given the considerable
> weight of a unit. It would seem that this kind of weight in such a
> potentially sensitive location would absolutely need to be accounted for
> during the design phase. At the least, it would seem that you would be
> mucking up an efficient design--making the plane sensitive to C of G
> problems and overloading issues requiring very careful operation and
> planning.
>
> But: if you have the money; the training; and opt to give up the useful
> load, go for it. Just be sure to consult Chris H. on necessary strengthening
> of attachment points and other issues regarding the installation.
>
> Kevin Bonds
>
> Nashville TN
>
> 601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.
>
> Empennage done; working on wings and engine.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
>
> do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Sinclair
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: BRS
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair <mike.sinclair@att.net>
>
> > So, if you have a BRS then you have no skill as a pilot? And if you don't
> have
> > a "solid" plane? Then what?
>
> >
>
> >
> >
> > I don't have a problem with people who feel safer with an explosive
> > device mounted behind their seat that promises to save them from
> > their own lack of skill as a pilot. For me, though, a solid plane
> > sounds like a much better bet than an untested parachute.
> >
>
Message 62
| 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: BRS T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled |
version=3.0.3T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair <mike.sinclair@att.net>
Kevin
Yup, I have a BRS. Just didn't use it. Had been to an airshow at Newton, Ks and
stopped in at a small airport I used to fly out of on the way home. Nothing
happening there so after about 10 minutes on the ground I fired it back up and
departed. Suspect that the stainless steel crossover tube for the fuel lines
bubbled out while sitting, and since I didn't have the auxilary fuel pump on,
what I took off with was fuel in the float bowls only. About 150-200 feet over
the end of the runway it all started to go sour. I ended up setting it down in
a
pasture past the end of the airport, heading for a barbed wire fence.In the last
few seconds the plane weathervaned and hit the only tree in the fencerow. Which
was probably a good thing as I only bent the motormount, busted the prop,
destroyed the cowl, and some minor damage to the left wing. If I had hit the
fence it probably would have gone on it's back and that would have been a lot
more damage. Now back to the BRS, I have ran through the scenario quite a few
times in my mind, and I really believe that if I had deployed the chute upon
touchdown, I would have stopped well short of that tree. The tear away fairings
would have had to been replaced, the two wing root skins whould have been
trashed also, and the chute would need a repack and a new rocket motor, but
still a lot cheaper than what this is costing now. Still going to be back in the
air by probably Jan. and ready for the 2006 fly-in & airshow happenings.
Mike
kevinbonds wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "kevinbonds" <kevinbonds@comcast.net>
>
> Mike
>
> Glad you are OK. Sounds like you are the most qualified to enter this
> debate. Did you have a BRS on board or did you mean that you wished you did
> (you said "wish I had used" implying that you had it available)? I would be
> interested to hear more. You may be the most qualified to change my mind
> (I'm currently a NO to the BRS).
>
> Kevin Bonds
>
> Nashville TN
>
> 601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.
>
> Empennage done; working on wings and engine.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
>
> do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Sinclair
> To:
> zenith-list@matronics.com.version=3.0.3T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG.autolearn=disab
> led.version=3.0.3
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: BRS T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled
> version=3.0.3T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair <mike.sinclair@att.net>
>
> interested, but it's a fairly long story. Kinda wish I had used the BRS to
> slow
>
> me down before I got intimate with that tree. Would have been a whole lot
>
> cheaper. Must have been my poor "pilot skills"!
>
> Mike Sinclair N701TD
>
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! --
|