Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:06 AM - Re: Re:Take-off roll reality check... (Jean-Paul Roy)
2. 06:46 AM - Re: Fuel tank sending units for 701 (Bill Bartlett)
3. 08:22 AM - Reality check (Brett Hanley)
4. 10:00 AM - Re: Rotax 912 Alternator Inciator. (george may)
5. 01:08 PM - Re: KitPlanes Magazine - Feb 06 IssueKitPlanes Magazine - Feb 06 Issue (David X)
6. 01:25 PM - 601/Corvair flight impressions, new list member (Doug Eatman)
7. 01:34 PM - 601 and Corvair flight impressions, new list member (Doug Eatman)
8. 02:19 PM - Re: Re:Take-off roll reality check... (Randy)
9. 03:20 PM - Re: 601/Corvair flight impressions, new list (Paul Mulwitz)
10. 03:50 PM - Re: Rotax 912 Alternator Inciator. (David X)
11. 04:07 PM - Re: Rotax 912 Alternator Inciator. (Craig Payne)
12. 05:25 PM - Re: Re:Take-off roll reality check... (Larry McFarland)
13. 05:28 PM - 601 HDS for sale (Fred Kirkland)
14. 08:07 PM - Re: Take-off roll reality check... (David X)
15. 09:34 PM - Re: Take-off roll reality check... (Dave (theCoverts))
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:Take-off roll reality check... |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jean-Paul Roy" <jean-paul.roy4@tlb.sympatico.ca>
Doug, just don't believe a guy that says a 701 will easily take off and land
on a 2000 ft strip.
Take a demo flight in a 701 and see by yourself you will be amazed to find
the short distances it operates.
I was anyway.
Jean-Paul
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "doug kandle" <d_kandle@velocitus.net>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re:Take-off roll reality check...
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: doug kandle <d_kandle@velocitus.net>
>
> You guys have me worried now.
>
> I bought my 701 kit so I could get into places I won't take my Cessna
> 206 into. I will land that plane on 800' level strips where a go
> around is possible and 800' uphill with no path for a go around. (I
> like 1500' if it is no go around, one-way strip and doesn't have a
> good uphill grade).
> I was planning on using my 701 for strips (or roads) that are too
> short or narrow for my Cessna. But you guys are saying that there is
> a good chance I won't feel any safer on these types of strips in the
> 701 than my plane that I now use which 3 times larger and takes at
> least twice the runway to take off on as the 701.
>
> I am (was?) planning on using this plane where I would only have 500'
> or less (I like to have twice the required space for a
> landing/takeoff. From the specs I took this to be about 300 to 400
> feet for the 701 which, unlike many planes, seems to use more runway
> for landing than takeoff.
>
>
> At 02:47 PM 1/7/2006, you wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Larry McFarland <larrymc@qconline.com>
>
> Dave,
> The 701 is a great machine, will easily takeoff and land in 2000 feet.
>
> do not archive
>
> Doug Kandle
> CH701
> Boise ID
> Rudder & Horiz. Stab. done Working on 2nd Wing
> Jabiru 2200
> From complete kit
>
>
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: | Fuel tank sending units for 701 |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bill Bartlett" <bbartlett5@satx.rr.com>
Here are the pix...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
NYTerminat@aol.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Fuel tank sending units for 701
--> Zenith-List message posted by: NYTerminat@aol.com
Could you please contact me or give me a number that I can call you. My
phone number is 607-849-4941
thank you very much
Robert Spudis
In a message dated 1/7/2006 9:14:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,
bbartlett5@satx.rr.com writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bill Bartlett"
--> <bbartlett5@satx.rr.com>
Bob,
I have four unused fuel senders furnished with my 601XL, VDO P/N
226-002D. I used capacitive type fuel senders and these are leftovers.
I'll let them go for $5.00 each plus shipping.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Bill Bartlett
San Antonio, TX
bbartlett5@satx.rr.com
-----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: Fuel tank sending units for 701
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Randy Stout <n282rs@earthlink.net>
Bob
I would be suprised if you could find one at your local AutoZone. I
would suggest, calling VW parts stores, Marine Supply stores, and
performance shops.
Randy Stout
San Antonio TX
www.geocities.com/r5t0ut21
>List
>
>Does anyone know where to get a replacement fuel tank sending unit for
>a 701?
>
>I can't wait for Zenith, if possible a source at auto parts store. I
>seem to
>remember someone saying they are from VW tanks. The VDO part Number is
221-012.
>
>I have a DAR inspection Weds and need to resolve before then.
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Bob Spudis
>
>N701ZX
>
>
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Brett Hanley <bretttdc@yahoo.com>
I completely agree with Mike. I have seen the STOL
701 operating from extremely short strips. Five
hundred feet can be enough but you will need some
additional STOL training. If you want to continue to
touch down at 50mph you will need a longer strip. The
all terrain gear with disk brakes would be a big plus
in this type of operation as well.
My first STOL ride was in Costa Rica. The plane was
flown by a Colombian that had been flying a different
701 as a crop duster. During the flight he turned to
a short final on a strip that could not have been an
inch over 400'. I was almost in shock as the plane
came to rest with a considerable bit of the strip left
in front of us. I have seen videos of this same
person landing the 701 in the length of a long city
bus!! Granted, he had a gentle headwind and a uphill
grade on the strip. Even with those factors
considered I was impressed.
I do not think that there are very many pilots out
there that have mastered the short field capabilities
of the 701. Check the builders section on the Zenith
website. There you will find an article on learning
to do short take offs and landings. Please be sure to
practice and refine your technique where you have
plenty of room until you have it mastered. You will
know when you are ready to take on the the shorter
strip with confidence.
Brett
Time: 08:24:03 PM PST US
From: Mike Sinclair <mike.sinclair@ATT.NET>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re:Take-off roll reality
check...
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair
<mike.sinclair@att.net>
Doug
I can pretty much guarantee you can get the 701 into
and out of places
you
won't get the 206. With just an 80 hp engine, about a
10 degree uphill
slope,
and 15 degrees of flaps, I'm still off in under 200
feet. Full flaps, a
15
kt. headwind, and I was off the ground in about 30-50
feet. The
shortest
strip I have landed on so far, a friend of mine has a
strip about 700
feet
long and landing from the north you have to clear some
30 foot oil
field
power lines that are about 70 yards north of the
barbed wire fence at
the end
of the strip. Still can get it on the ground and
stopped by about the
halfway
point. Looking forward to the takeoff (and climb)
performance
--- Zenith-List Digest Server
<zenith-list-digest@matronics.com> wrote:
> *
>
> ==================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> ==================================================
>
> Today's complete Zenith-List Digest can also be
> found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes
> the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features
> Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the
> plain ASCII version
> of the Zenith-List Digest and can be viewed with a
> generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list/Digest.Zenith-List.2006-01-07.html
>
> Text Version:
>
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list/Digest.Zenith-List.2006-01-07.txt
>
>
> ================================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ================================================
>
>
>
>
> Zenith-List Digest
> Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Sat
> 01/07/06: 31
>
>
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 02:05 AM - Fuel tank sending units for 701
> (NYTerminat@aol.com)
> 2. 03:21 AM - Re: Fuel tank sending units for
> 701 (Randy Stout)
> 3. 03:29 AM - Re: Fuel tank sending units for
> 701 (Robin Bellach)
> 4. 03:54 AM - Re: 601 XL Autopilot? (Jean-Paul
> Roy)
> 5. 04:29 AM - Re: Fuel Tank & Wing Spar
> Problems Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 08:30:36 +0100
> (\214rodkowoeuropejs... (BIANCO Tadeusz Forgacz)
> 6. 05:37 AM - Re: Fuel tank sending units for
> 701 (Bob Unternaehrer)
> 7. 06:03 AM - Re: 601 XL Autopilot? (lynn
> dingfelder)
> 8. 06:06 AM - Re: Fuel tank sending units for
> 701 (lynn dingfelder)
> 9. 06:12 AM - Re: Fuel tank sending units for
> 701 (Bill Bartlett)
> 10. 06:51 AM - KitPlanes Magazine - Feb 06 Issue
> (Jim Pellien)
> 11. 08:55 AM - Re: KitPlanes Magazine - Feb 06
> Issue (Paul Mulwitz)
> 12. 09:38 AM - Re: Fuel tank sending units for
> 701 (NYTerminat@aol.com)
> 13. 10:48 AM - Take-off roll reality check...
> (Dave Covert)
> 14. 11:03 AM - Re: KitPlanes Magazine - Feb 06
> Issue (Jim Pellien)
> 15. 11:12 AM - Re: Take-off roll reality
> check... (Jon Croke)
> 16. 12:50 PM - Drill stop (neitzel)
> 17. 01:17 PM - Rotax 912 Alternator Inciator.
> (george may)
> 18. 01:47 PM - Re: Takeoff roll..... (Zed
> Smith)
> 19. 01:48 PM - Re: Take-off roll reality
> check... (Larry McFarland)
> 20. 01:54 PM - Re: Fuel tank sending units for
> 701 (Zodie Rocket)
> 21. 02:38 PM - Re: Fuel tank sending units for
> 701 (Bryan Martin)
> 22. 03:04 PM - Re: Rotax 912 Alternator
> Inciator. (Thilo Kind)
> 23. 03:35 PM - Re: Fuel tank sending units for
> 701 (Rick R)
> 24. 04:13 PM - Re:Take-off roll reality check...
> (doug kandle)
> 25. 05:17 PM - Re: Re:Take-off roll reality
> check... (Ron Crook)
> 26. 07:02 PM - Re: Re: Takeoff roll..... (Dave
> (theCoverts))
> 27. 07:02 PM - Re: Rotax 912 Alternator
> Inciator. (Mike Fothergill)
> 28. 07:44 PM - Re: Fuel tank sending units for
> 701 (Bill Bartlett)
> 29. 07:49 PM - Re: Fuel tank sending units for
> 701 (Bill Bartlett)
> 30. 08:08 PM - Re: Fuel tank sending units for
> 701 (Bill Bartlett)
> 31. 08:24 PM - Re: Re:Take-off roll reality
> check... (Mike Sinclair)
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 02:05:41 AM PST US
> From: NYTerminat@aol.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Fuel tank sending units for
> 701
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by:
> NYTerminat@aol.com
>
> List
>
> Does anyone know where to get a replacement fuel
> tank sending unit for a 701?
>
> I can't wait for Zenith, if possible a source at
> auto parts store. I seem to
> remember someone saying they are from VW tanks. The
> VDO part Number is 221-012.
>
> I have a DAR inspection Weds and need to resolve
> before then.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Bob Spudis
>
> N701ZX
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 03:21:11 AM PST US
> From: Randy Stout <n282rs@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Fuel tank sending units
> for 701
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Randy Stout
> <n282rs@earthlink.net>
>
> Bob
> I would be suprised if you could find one at your
> local AutoZone. I would suggest,
> calling VW parts stores, Marine Supply stores, and
> performance shops.
>
> Randy Stout
> San Antonio TX
> www.geocities.com/r5t0ut21
>
> >List
> >
> >Does anyone know where to get a replacement fuel
> tank sending unit for a 701?
> >
> >I can't wait for Zenith, if possible a source at
> auto parts store. I seem to
> >remember someone saying they are from VW tanks. The
> VDO part Number is 221-012.
> >
> >I have a DAR inspection Weds and need to resolve
> before then.
> >
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Bob Spudis
> >
> >N701ZX
> >
> >
>
=== message truncated ===
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912 Alternator Inciator. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "george may" <gfmjr_20@hotmail.com>
"Forget the lamp. Install an ammeter and a voltmeter"
Mike--
I will have a voltmeter also, but there is nothing like lights and
buzzers to get your
attention.
George
Do not archive
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: KitPlanes Magazine - Feb 06 IssueKitPlanes Magazine - |
Feb 06 Issue
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "David X" <dxj@comcast.net>
I tend to agree that "the issue of specsmanship is totally bogus". Did every
plane in a comparison have the same equipment, same engine, same density
altitude/temperature/humidity, same pitch setting on the prop, same amount
of fuel, same pilot weight etc?
Are specs comparisons really what people look at when buying or building an
aircraft? I've been to enough air shows to observe that the primary
considerations of serious buyers/builders are reputation first, then costs
and time.
But on the other hand, opinions are like bung holes ... everyone has one.
Jim Pellien Wrote:
>Paul,
>
>At least the ones on my website are real....based upon actual W&B numbers
>for N601VA and actual performance of N601VA in the air.
>
>KitPlanes's numbers are way out to lunch for my aircraft. The 912 (80 hp)
>engine weighs almost the same as the 912ULS (100 hp) so that cannot account
>for a 64 lb difference in empty weight. It may account for the 120 mph and
>with 130 mph cruise differential. Kitplanes says that the climb
>performance a 912 80 hp exceeds the climb performance of my aircraft with a
>100 hp engine by 200 feet per minute?????
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: | 601/Corvair flight impressions, new list member |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Doug Eatman" <pilotdna@hotmail.com>
Hello friends,
I'm a Corvair/601XL builder in St. Augustine, FL that has been reading the
list for a while now and felt like introducing myself and sharing a very
positive experience that I had last week.
I recieved my first flight in a 601XL with Gus Warren in William Wynne's
corvair powered airplane, and was thoroughly convinced that I have made the
right choice for both airframe and engine. Any builders that havn't flown
one yet should find a way at all costs, the 601 is truly a sweet flying
airplane.
My impressions? With me (140 lbs), Gus, and about half fuel, the 601
accelerated considerably better that the C-152's I usually rent, climbed
slightly better that 1000 fpm (!) and was indicating about 120 mph a few
moments after we leveled off the climb. It was the first aircraft with a
control stick (rather than a yoke) that I have flown so I have no real basis
for comparison, but I found the controls to be lighter than those of any
typical GA airplane. When the stick was released it was hands off stable,
and would return to trim attitude after a couple shallow oscillations.
Interior noise level was a bit louder than a C-152. Excellent performance
for an aircraft of its category and mission.
William's hangar gang was toiling away, with Dave staying very busy
threading cranks for safety shafts on the lathe, and Kevin assembling an
engine. As always, William was very generous with his time and expertise,
and I left with a motivated and optimistic attitude.
I can't wait until spring break now, while my UF college peers are drinking
in Daytona I'll be back in dad's garage hammering out ribs for my horizontal
stabilizer!
Douglas Eatman
"Separation is good until the point of impact"
do not archive
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 601 and Corvair flight impressions, new list member |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Doug Eatman" <pilotdna@hotmail.com>
Hello friends,
I'm a Corvair/601XL builder in St. Augustine, FL that has been reading the
list for a while now and felt like introducing myself and sharing a very
positive experience that I had last week.
I recieved my first flight in a 601XL with Gus Warren in William Wynne's
corvair powered airplane, and was thoroughly convinced that I have made the
right choice for both airframe and engine. Any builders that havn't flown
one yet should find a way at all costs, the 601 is truly a sweet flying
airplane.
My impressions? With me (140 lbs), Gus, and about half fuel, the 601
accelerated considerably better that the C-152's I usually rent, climbed
slightly better that 1000 fpm (!) and was indicating about 120 mph a few
moments after we leveled off the climb. It was the first aircraft with a
control stick (rather than a yoke) that I have flown so I have no real basis
for comparison, but I found the controls to be lighter than those of any
typical GA airplane. When the stick was released it was hands off stable,
and would return to trim attitude after a couple shallow oscillations.
Interior noise level was a bit louder than a C-152. Excellent performance
for an aircraft of its category and mission.
William's hangar gang was toiling away, with Dave staying very busy
threading cranks for safety shafts on the lathe, and Kevin assembling an
engine. As always, William was very generous with his time and expertise,
and I left with a motivated and optimistic attitude.
I can't wait until spring break now, while my UF college peers are drinking
in Daytona I'll be back in dad's garage hammering out ribs for my horizontal
stabilizer!
Douglas Eatman
"Separation is good until the point of impact"
do not archive
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re:Take-off roll reality check... |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy" <rpf@wi.rr.com>
I wouldn't worry Doug. Like someone already stated, practice on longer
strips until you feel confident with your abilities. I regularly flew a
Skyranger (which has good STOL capabilities but not as good as a 701) into a
600ft strip with trees at one end and a barn at the other.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "doug kandle" <d_kandle@velocitus.net>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re:Take-off roll reality check...
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: doug kandle <d_kandle@velocitus.net>
>
> You guys have me worried now.
>
> I bought my 701 kit so I could get into places I won't take my Cessna
> 206 into. I will land that plane on 800' level strips where a go
> around is possible and 800' uphill with no path for a go around. (I
> like 1500' if it is no go around, one-way strip and doesn't have a
> good uphill grade).
> I was planning on using my 701 for strips (or roads) that are too
> short or narrow for my Cessna. But you guys are saying that there is
> a good chance I won't feel any safer on these types of strips in the
> 701 than my plane that I now use which 3 times larger and takes at
> least twice the runway to take off on as the 701.
>
> I am (was?) planning on using this plane where I would only have 500'
> or less (I like to have twice the required space for a
> landing/takeoff. From the specs I took this to be about 300 to 400
> feet for the 701 which, unlike many planes, seems to use more runway
> for landing than takeoff.
>
>
> At 02:47 PM 1/7/2006, you wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Larry McFarland <larrymc@qconline.com>
>
> Dave,
> The 701 is a great machine, will easily takeoff and land in 2000 feet.
>
> do not archive
>
> Doug Kandle
> CH701
> Boise ID
> Rudder & Horiz. Stab. done Working on 2nd Wing
> Jabiru 2200
> From complete kit
>
>
>
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: 601/Corvair flight impressions, new list |
member
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net> member
Hi Douglas,
Thanks for the nice demo report. It is great that you are happy with
the XL/Corvair combination.
Perhaps you would like the full powered version of the XL even
better. You might try to get a demo in the Zenith factory
demonstrator before finalizing your plans for a Corvair engine. The
Jabiru powered version flies the same but has better climb and cruise speeds.
Good luck with your building project.
Paul
XL wings
>I'm a Corvair/601XL builder in St. Augustine, FL that has been reading the
>list for a while now and felt like introducing myself and sharing a very
>positive experience that I had last week.
>
>I recieved my first flight in a 601XL with Gus Warren in William Wynne's
>corvair powered airplane, and was thoroughly convinced that I have made the
>right choice for both airframe and engine. Any builders that havn't flown
>one yet should find a way at all costs, the 601 is truly a sweet flying
>airplane.
>
>My impressions? With me (140 lbs), Gus, and about half fuel, the 601
>accelerated considerably better that the C-152's I usually rent, climbed
>slightly better that 1000 fpm (!) and was indicating about 120 mph a few
>moments after we leveled off the climb. It was the first aircraft with a
>control stick (rather than a yoke) that I have flown so I have no real basis
>for comparison, but I found the controls to be lighter than those of any
>typical GA airplane. When the stick was released it was hands off stable,
>and would return to trim attitude after a couple shallow oscillations.
>Interior noise level was a bit louder than a C-152. Excellent performance
>for an aircraft of its category and mission.
>
>William's hangar gang was toiling away, with Dave staying very busy
>threading cranks for safety shafts on the lathe, and Kevin assembling an
>engine. As always, William was very generous with his time and expertise,
>and I left with a motivated and optimistic attitude.
---
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912 Alternator Inciator. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "David X" <dxj@comcast.net>
I have both a volt meter and a Light Emitting Diode (LED) warning lamp on my
Zodiac. It's useful to have a low voltage light as a way of drawing your
attention to an in-flight problem, but I don't think it's a substitute for a
volt meter.
As best I understand, the C terminal is positive and the L terminal is
grounded (negative) only in a low voltage situation. Therefore the anode
(longer pin) of the LED should connect to the C terminal and the cathode
(shorter pin) should connect to the L terminal. If you are not sure, use a
hand held volt meter to determine the polarity between the two leads when
the master switch is on.
Never connect an LED directly to a battery or power supply! It will be
destroyed almost instantly because too much current will pass through and
burn it out. Most 5mm diameter round LED are designed to operate nominally
at 30 mA and 2 volts (except blue and high intensity which can be as high as
4.5 volts). You need to add a current limiting resister in series with the
LED to ensure that it won't burn out.
What size resistor? Electrical resistance (R) is equal to the voltage drop
(V) across the resistor divided by the current (I) that is flowing through
the resistor - thus R=V/I. Therefore, if you want a 10 volt drop (12 minus
2) with 30 mA of current ... 10/0.03 = a 333 Ohm resistor should do the job
for most LED. Check the LED specs to be sure of the resistor size using the
above formula.
Another attractive option is to purchase a flashing LED to grab your
attention. These are typically designed to connect directly to currents
between 9 and 12 V (resistor is built in) and they will flash about 3 times
per second.
Hope this helps.
George wrote:
>A question for those flying behind the Rotax 912. The documentation
>Suggests the use of a 3 watt 12 volt indicator lamp to be tied across the
>L & C terminals of the regulator to indicate whether or not the charging
>circuit is working.
>
> 1) Can an LED be substituted for the suggested lamp? And if yes, what
>terminal does the plus lead of the LED get tie to.
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: | Rotax 912 Alternator Inciator. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
An LED without a current limiting resistor is referred to as an NED (Noise
Emitting Diode) especially with higher voltages ;0}
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David X
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Rotax 912 Alternator Inciator.
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "David X" <dxj@comcast.net>
I have both a volt meter and a Light Emitting Diode (LED) warning lamp on my
Zodiac. It's useful to have a low voltage light as a way of drawing your
attention to an in-flight problem, but I don't think it's a substitute for a
volt meter.
As best I understand, the C terminal is positive and the L terminal is
grounded (negative) only in a low voltage situation. Therefore the anode
(longer pin) of the LED should connect to the C terminal and the cathode
(shorter pin) should connect to the L terminal. If you are not sure, use a
hand held volt meter to determine the polarity between the two leads when
the master switch is on.
Never connect an LED directly to a battery or power supply! It will be
destroyed almost instantly because too much current will pass through and
burn it out. Most 5mm diameter round LED are designed to operate nominally
at 30 mA and 2 volts (except blue and high intensity which can be as high as
4.5 volts). You need to add a current limiting resister in series with the
LED to ensure that it won't burn out.
What size resistor? Electrical resistance (R) is equal to the voltage drop
(V) across the resistor divided by the current (I) that is flowing through
the resistor - thus R=V/I. Therefore, if you want a 10 volt drop (12 minus
2) with 30 mA of current ... 10/0.03 = a 333 Ohm resistor should do the job
for most LED. Check the LED specs to be sure of the resistor size using the
above formula.
Another attractive option is to purchase a flashing LED to grab your
attention. These are typically designed to connect directly to currents
between 9 and 12 V (resistor is built in) and they will flash about 3 times
per second.
Hope this helps.
George wrote:
>A question for those flying behind the Rotax 912. The documentation
>Suggests the use of a 3 watt 12 volt indicator lamp to be tied across
>the L & C terminals of the regulator to indicate whether or not the
>charging circuit is working.
>
> 1) Can an LED be substituted for the suggested lamp? And if yes,
>what terminal does the plus lead of the LED get tie to.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re:Take-off roll reality check... |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Larry McFarland <larrymc@qconline.com>
Doug,
That's precisely the point. It's a practice period, and even for a 701,
I'd try to put it on
a runway that allows you to collect your thoughts while learning. On my
second flight,
I over-ran an intersecton and blew a Hold Short instruction where there
was 3200 ft
of a 10,000 runway in my 601HDS. Today I could get it stopped in less
than 1000 ft,
but on the first flight, one of my ignitions had failed and I was tense and
just trying to read the gages during rollout. Never had that problem
again. I did get
a safety violation from the tower, but was never penalized once the NASA
form was sent.
Knowing you can get off within 4 seconds in a 701 isn't the same as
doing it the first time.
Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
Randy wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy" <rpf@wi.rr.com>
>
>I wouldn't worry Doug. Like someone already stated, practice on longer
>strips until you feel confident with your abilities. I regularly flew a
>Skyranger (which has good STOL capabilities but not as good as a 701) into a
>600ft strip with trees at one end and a barn at the other.
>
>Randy
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "doug kandle" <d_kandle@velocitus.net>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re:Take-off roll reality check...
>
>
>
>
>>--> Zenith-List message posted by: doug kandle <d_kandle@velocitus.net>
>>
>>You guys have me worried now.
>>
>>I bought my 701 kit so I could get into places I won't take my Cessna
>>206 into. I will land that plane on 800' level strips where a go
>>around is possible and 800' uphill with no path for a go around. (I
>>like 1500' if it is no go around, one-way strip and doesn't have a
>>good uphill grade).
>>I was planning on using my 701 for strips (or roads) that are too
>>short or narrow for my Cessna. But you guys are saying that there is
>>a good chance I won't feel any safer on these types of strips in the
>>701 than my plane that I now use which 3 times larger and takes at
>>least twice the runway to take off on as the 701.
>>
>>I am (was?) planning on using this plane where I would only have 500'
>>or less (I like to have twice the required space for a
>>landing/takeoff. From the specs I took this to be about 300 to 400
>>feet for the 701 which, unlike many planes, seems to use more runway
>>for landing than takeoff.
>>
>>
>>At 02:47 PM 1/7/2006, you wrote:
>>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Larry McFarland <larrymc@qconline.com>
>>
>>Dave,
>>The 701 is a great machine, will easily takeoff and land in 2000 feet.
>>
>>do not archive
>>
>>Doug Kandle
>>CH701
>>Boise ID
>>Rudder & Horiz. Stab. done Working on 2nd Wing
>>Jabiru 2200
>>From complete kit
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | 601 HDS for sale |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Fred Kirkland" <fdk0154.tx@cox.net>
I've decided that I just don't have the interest to finish this project. I have a 601 HDS Kit and a Subaru motor and three blade CAP that I would like to sell or trade for something. I live in Phoenix, AZ. I would take $10,000 for the kit, engine, at prop or would consider a trade for something of equal value such as a motor home. I have a web site at http://www.members.cox.net/fdk0154.tx/zodiac1.htm but it has not been updated for about a year. Much more has been done since the web site pictures. It is on the gear and its ready for the turtle deck and instrument panels to go in. You may contact me if you are interested with a personal message at fdk0154.tx@cox.net
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Take-off roll reality check... |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "David X" <dxj@comcast.net>
This is an interesting problem, and I hope you don't mind the long answer
... but I would hate to see a fellow pilot get hurt or killed ... so read
on. Don't let your desires over-ride your common sense. That might get you
divorced in case of marriage, but it will kill you in the case of airplanes.
A quick look at the specs on Zenair's site for the CH701:
http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-perf.html
Assumptions:
============
Let's assume you're going to be attempting takeoff at maximum gross weight.
The web site quotes 38 as the stall speed with "dual" ... but it's not clear
if that's maximum gross or not. For the purposes of discussion, let's use 38
as Vso.
The best rate of climb (Vy) of 1000 FPM quoted on the site probably doesn't
account for the worst case density altitude and humidity either. Let's
assume Vy is 1.5 times Vso - or 57 MPH at 900 FPM. That's 84 feet per second
(FPS) horizontally for every 15 FPS vertically.
The best rate of climb (Vy) is also not the same as best angle of climb
(Vx). On a short runway, you'll definitely want to use Vx; which means the
rate of climb is going to be less than Vy! Lets assume Vx is 1.4 times Vso -
or 54 MPH at 850 FPM. That's 80 FPS horizontally and 14 FPS vertically.
The web site indicates you'll need about 115 feet for take-off roll at max
gross weight, presumably on a hard runway surface. Let's assume a 50%
increase in rolling distance for wet/soft/high grass and low density air due
to high temperature and humidity ... so your take-off roll will be about 170
feet.
The web site indicates a landing roll of 140 feet, presumably on a hard
runway surface. Let's assume landing roll on grass is 25% longer because you
don't want to be too aggressive with the brakes on a grass surface. That
puts landing roll at 175 feet.
You'll want to clear the trees by at least 50 feet, so you need to be 80 AGL
at the end of the runway. Runway length is 500 feet.
Takeoff:
========
You'll need a little less than 6 seconds (80 feet AGL divided by 14 FPS
vertical) after liftoff to clear the trees by 50 feet. At 80 FPS
(horizontal) you'll use up another 450 feet of runway in that time to clear
the trees by 50 feet. Add that to the 170 feet of ground roll for a total of
620 feet. You're 120 feet short. In fact, with a 500 foot runway you only
have about 4 seconds of runway left after take-off; which would put you only
25 feet above the trees at the end of the runway. That's less than a wing
span from disaster or death. So, technically, your 500 foot runway would
work for takeoff so long as everything went well and you don't mind skimming
trees on occasion.
Aborted takeoff:
================
Let's say things don't go as planned: You get off or are about to get off
the ground and things just don't seem right. Perhaps you forgot to put the
flaps in the right position or the carb heat was on or the tires are
under-inflated or the grass is wet/soft/tall etc. Maybe a suicidal deer
jumped on the runway.
You'll need perhaps 175 feet to stop if your wheels are on the ground at the
time you abort. If you abort before liftoff, you'll need 345 feet (170+175),
leaving 165 feet to spare.
Let's say you lift off before aborting. You're traveling at about 80 FPS, so
you'll have about 2 seconds of in-the-air time on an abort. How long will it
take you make an abort decision once airborne? There is really no margin for
error once you are off the ground - perhaps 1 second to decide to abort once
airborne ... because if you climbed for 1 second, you'll presumably descend
for 1 second before back to mother earth.
Landing:
========
Approach is typically done at best glide speed for safety. Let's assume best
glide is the same as Vy - or 84 FPS horizontally - and you're a minimum of
50 feet above the trees at the approach end of the runway. You could use up
as much as 450 feet of the runway on approach while descending 80 AGL and
bleeding off your air speed during the flare etc. High-lift planes tend to
have long flares. Add another 175 feet of ground roll to stop for a total of
625 feet. You're 125 feet short. Ok, maybe you can come in steep and slow
and closer to the trees. Maybe you can force it on the ground sooner and
brake for longer. Would 500 feet be enough? I don't know, but it would be
very close.
Aborted landing:
================
Let's say things don't go as planned again and you have to abort the
landing, perhaps even a few feet off the ground. It's that damned suicidal
deer again! You already know that you can barely make it above the trees on
take-off after a 170 ground roll, so it follows that you can only abort the
landing in the first 170 feet of runway.
Unfortunately, that deer did his math and knows that if he pops out anywhere
on the last half of the runway, you'll either have to kill him or kill
yourself (and passenger) on a go-around attempt.
Conclusion:
===========
You need at least 650 feet if everything goes well, but 1000 feet if they
don't. You need an additional 5 acres.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Take-off roll reality check... |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave (theCoverts)" <dave@thecoverts.com>
Very good thoughts, I didn't re-run your math on this, but if that stupid
deer gets in the way, I will likely not care if I clear the trees by 50'...
I will likely be quite happy with 50". In the emergency sitation I will in
effect only have to obtain about 50% of the altittude I would normally like
to see. (40' vs 80')
Based on all of that I think that tailhook and arresting wires idea I have
been toying with is sounding better and better. That and use the grass at a
local airport until I get proficient at launching and landing the craft at
it true capabilities. I have seen a number of references (by people who
replied directly to me) that they make short final in the 30's and roll on
in the 20s. Being able to land in the 30s will still get you hurt, but it
sure isn't like landing my Grumman at 75-80mph.
Out of curiosity what sort of strip do you usually operate your 701 out of?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of David X
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Take-off roll reality check...
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "David X" <dxj@comcast.net>
This is an interesting problem, and I hope you don't mind the long answer
... but I would hate to see a fellow pilot get hurt or killed ... so read
on. Don't let your desires over-ride your common sense. That might get you
divorced in case of marriage, but it will kill you in the case of airplanes.
A quick look at the specs on Zenair's site for the CH701:
http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-perf.html
Assumptions:
============
Let's assume you're going to be attempting takeoff at maximum gross weight.
The web site quotes 38 as the stall speed with "dual" ... but it's not clear
if that's maximum gross or not. For the purposes of discussion, let's use 38
as Vso.
The best rate of climb (Vy) of 1000 FPM quoted on the site probably doesn't
account for the worst case density altitude and humidity either. Let's
assume Vy is 1.5 times Vso - or 57 MPH at 900 FPM. That's 84 feet per second
(FPS) horizontally for every 15 FPS vertically.
The best rate of climb (Vy) is also not the same as best angle of climb
(Vx). On a short runway, you'll definitely want to use Vx; which means the
rate of climb is going to be less than Vy! Lets assume Vx is 1.4 times Vso -
or 54 MPH at 850 FPM. That's 80 FPS horizontally and 14 FPS vertically.
The web site indicates you'll need about 115 feet for take-off roll at max
gross weight, presumably on a hard runway surface. Let's assume a 50%
increase in rolling distance for wet/soft/high grass and low density air due
to high temperature and humidity ... so your take-off roll will be about 170
feet.
The web site indicates a landing roll of 140 feet, presumably on a hard
runway surface. Let's assume landing roll on grass is 25% longer because you
don't want to be too aggressive with the brakes on a grass surface. That
puts landing roll at 175 feet.
You'll want to clear the trees by at least 50 feet, so you need to be 80 AGL
at the end of the runway. Runway length is 500 feet.
Takeoff:
========
You'll need a little less than 6 seconds (80 feet AGL divided by 14 FPS
vertical) after liftoff to clear the trees by 50 feet. At 80 FPS
(horizontal) you'll use up another 450 feet of runway in that time to clear
the trees by 50 feet. Add that to the 170 feet of ground roll for a total of
620 feet. You're 120 feet short. In fact, with a 500 foot runway you only
have about 4 seconds of runway left after take-off; which would put you only
25 feet above the trees at the end of the runway. That's less than a wing
span from disaster or death. So, technically, your 500 foot runway would
work for takeoff so long as everything went well and you don't mind skimming
trees on occasion.
Aborted takeoff:
================
Let's say things don't go as planned: You get off or are about to get off
the ground and things just don't seem right. Perhaps you forgot to put the
flaps in the right position or the carb heat was on or the tires are
under-inflated or the grass is wet/soft/tall etc. Maybe a suicidal deer
jumped on the runway.
You'll need perhaps 175 feet to stop if your wheels are on the ground at the
time you abort. If you abort before liftoff, you'll need 345 feet (170+175),
leaving 165 feet to spare.
Let's say you lift off before aborting. You're traveling at about 80 FPS, so
you'll have about 2 seconds of in-the-air time on an abort. How long will it
take you make an abort decision once airborne? There is really no margin for
error once you are off the ground - perhaps 1 second to decide to abort once
airborne ... because if you climbed for 1 second, you'll presumably descend
for 1 second before back to mother earth.
Landing:
========
Approach is typically done at best glide speed for safety. Let's assume best
glide is the same as Vy - or 84 FPS horizontally - and you're a minimum of
50 feet above the trees at the approach end of the runway. You could use up
as much as 450 feet of the runway on approach while descending 80 AGL and
bleeding off your air speed during the flare etc. High-lift planes tend to
have long flares. Add another 175 feet of ground roll to stop for a total of
625 feet. You're 125 feet short. Ok, maybe you can come in steep and slow
and closer to the trees. Maybe you can force it on the ground sooner and
brake for longer. Would 500 feet be enough? I don't know, but it would be
very close.
Aborted landing:
================
Let's say things don't go as planned again and you have to abort the
landing, perhaps even a few feet off the ground. It's that damned suicidal
deer again! You already know that you can barely make it above the trees on
take-off after a 170 ground roll, so it follows that you can only abort the
landing in the first 170 feet of runway.
Unfortunately, that deer did his math and knows that if he pops out anywhere
on the last half of the runway, you'll either have to kill him or kill
yourself (and passenger) on a go-around attempt.
Conclusion:
===========
You need at least 650 feet if everything goes well, but 1000 feet if they
don't. You need an additional 5 acres.
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! --
|