Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:46 AM - Prop Pitch (Jonathan Starke)
2. 05:53 AM - Re: prop pitch (Zed Smith)
3. 06:53 AM - Homebuilt aircraft financing (John Hines)
4. 07:18 AM - Re: Homebuilt aircraft financing (David X)
5. 10:04 AM - Aux fuel pump in 701 (george.mueller@aurora.org)
6. 10:17 AM - Re: Homebuilt aircraft financing (Mike)
7. 10:50 AM - Re: Aux fuel pump in 701 (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
8. 11:03 AM - Re: Aux fuel pump in 701 (Bryan Martin)
9. 11:03 AM - Re: Aux fuel pump in 701 (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
10. 11:58 AM - Re: Application for Airworthiness Certificate (Mike Sinclair)
11. 12:24 PM - 701 Top mount fuel sender instalation (JERICKSON03E@aol.com)
12. 12:24 PM - Re: Homebuilt aircraft financing (Phil Maxson)
13. 12:31 PM - Re: Aux fuel pump in 701 (LarryMcFarland)
14. 12:47 PM - Re: Re: Crosswind - The First Step Toward the Next Flight (JERICKSON03E@aol.com)
15. 01:33 PM - Re: 701 Top mount fuel sender instalation (Paul Mulwitz)
16. 01:41 PM - Re: Re: Crosswind - Vented Tanks? (N5SL)
17. 02:04 PM - Re: Re: Crosswind - The First Step Toward the Next Flight (Johann G.)
18. 02:17 PM - Re: Re: Crosswind - Vented Tanks? (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
19. 02:31 PM - Re: Re: Crosswind - The First Step Toward the Next Flight (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
20. 03:20 PM - Re: Application for Airworthiness Certificate (nyterminat@aol.com)
21. 03:47 PM - Any thoughts on the 701 on floats? (John Marzulli)
22. 04:39 PM - Re: 701 Top mount fuel sender instalation (JERICKSON03E@aol.com)
23. 05:27 PM - Re: Re: prop pitch (tach acuracy) (Gary Gower)
24. 05:27 PM - Re: Re: Crosswind - The First Step Toward the Next Flight (n801bh@netzero.com)
25. 07:30 PM - Re: Homebuilt aircraft financing (Terry Turnquist)
26. 07:51 PM - Re: Homebuilt aircraft financing (Jeff Davidson)
27. 08:09 PM - RE : Re: Homebuilt aircraft financing (Carlos Sa)
28. 08:12 PM - Re: wing attachment and control cables (T. Graziano)
29. 09:48 PM - Re: Re: Crosswind - The First Step Toward the Next Flight Altitude. (Gary Gower)
30. 09:55 PM - Re: Any thoughts on the 701 on floats? (Gary Gower)
31. 11:40 PM - Re: Any thoughts on the 701 on floats? (Chip W. Erwin)
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jonathan Starke" <jonathan@entry.co.za>
Hi All wise ones....
Rotax 912S in a Zodiac XL with GSC 3 Blade Prop....
What prop pitch has everyone set?
18degrees seems to stick in my mind, but what has everyone else set the
pitch at?
Ran my engine on Sunday, and it is sweet, smoother than I thought it would
be.
Now to finish the upholstery, and go flying!
Thnx
Jonathan Starke
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Zed Smith <zsmith3rd@earthlink.net>
Suggest you use whatever blade setting gives 5500 rpm max at wide open throttle,
warm engine, etc, with the plane tied to an anchor. Be prepared for the brakes
NOT to hold, tires to slide on grass, Murphy's Law mishaps.
Others will have variations of this, but just don't exceed the 5800 mark on takeoff.
Happy flying.
do not archive
Zed/701/R912/same 90+%
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: | Homebuilt aircraft financing |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "John Hines" <John.Hines@craftontull.com>
Are any of you financing your Zenith Aircraft? If so, with who? Zenith
has several links to financing companies on their web site.
NAFCO: They want spotless credit and because of stuff that is over 5
years old won't help me.
AirFleet Capital and Beacon Credit have a $25000 minimum loan amount. I
was really looking to finance the airframe first and then move on to the
firewall forward.
RecreationalFinance.com: Says the website is under construction.
First National Bank of Audrain County, Missouri: They only loan money
to local residents.
I called a few other aircraft financing companies I found on the web but
they don't finance homebuilts. I'm almost done with my tail kit and I
have realized that I can build it faster than I can afford to pay for
it. Any advise???
John Hines
www.johnsplane.com
John Hines
Manager
Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc.
901 N. 47th Street, Suite 200
Rogers, AR 72756
Tel: 479-878-2449
Mob: 479-366-4783
Fax: 479-631-6224
John.Hines@craftontull.com
Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. exists to anticipate and understand the needs
of our clients and provide them with successful solutions.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely
for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.. If you
have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message
contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual
named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute
or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you
have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,
distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.
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: Homebuilt aircraft financing |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "David X" <dxj@comcast.net>
Try MBNA. If you're a member of AOPA, there are a few good articles about this topic on their website (members area). http://www.aopa.org There's also some non-member material here: http://www.aopa.org/info/certified/afp/
A lot of people go for the home equity loan as a way to finance their project.
--------
Zodiac 601 XL - CZAW Built - Rotax 912S
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=13778#13778
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: | Aux fuel pump in 701 |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: george.mueller@aurora.org
I am thinking about the fuel system in my 701 and am considering putting in
a facet fuel pump as a booster pump The pump I am considering is an
FP40105 which doesn't have a check valve and puts out 25 to 45 PSI (my
understanding is the Rotax 912 can handle a max pressure of 58psi) This
pump would be used to avoid vapor lock on take off and as an aux pump if
the mechanical pump on the Rotax fails I would install the pump after the
gascolator and after an in line fuel filter, basically next to the
gascolator Are there any problems that anyone can see with such an
installation? I am concerned with the greater likelihood of vapor lock
with auto gas
George
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: Homebuilt aircraft financing |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike <rsq2424@yahoo.com>
> Are any of you financing your Zenith Aircraft?
Why not finance it yourself by buying component kits one section at a time, rather
than the whole thing at once? You'll save on interest charges (even though
shipping costs will be slightly higher). There's really not much sense in buying
sections that you're not ready to build yet -- especially since you would
be paying interest charges on everything while much of it sits in your garage
untouched.
Mike Fortunato
601XL
do not archive
---------------------------------
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
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: | Aux fuel pump in 701 |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Facet fuel pumps are usually plunger types and really do not need a
filter before the pump. Being completely anal about fuel system design
(seen too many vapour lock occurances) I like to have NO possible
restrictions between the tank and pump and put the pump at the tank.
With a high wing plane you could also put it down low.
I would install it before the gascolator (Gascolators have been known to
leak air which could conceivably air lock your pump...Almost as bad a s
VL). The gasolator works just fine on my 601 in this postion.
The pump pressure sounds awfully high. The Stratus uses the same carbs
as the Rotax and works perfectly well with a 40106 (40105 will show zero
pressure at full throttle and a single pump operating...so go for the
106). I would be concerned about the high pressure pump overcoming the
needle valves in the carbs.
How will you plumb the electric pump relative to the engine (YUUCK!...I
would delete the mechanical pump and run two electrics) pump?...Series
or parallel?
If in series are you sure there is not a failure mode in the mechancial
pump where the electric pump will do you no good?
Safer way is in parallel with a check valve around the mechanical pump.
You will probably need a check valve around the electric pump with this
installation too in case it fails ( unless the mechanical pump can
easily suck thru the dead electric pump)...Assuming you mechanical pump
won't vapour lock at the same time.
In fairness, I have never heard of anyone having a problem with a Rotax
mechanical pump even on low wing aircraft...As I said I am anal.
Use 3/8ths lines between the tanks and inlets to the pump...1/4 on the
pessure side is fine.
Frank
601HDS 2* electric pumps (no mech pump) 400 hours
RV7A injected 2* electric pumps (n mech pump)...Hope it works..:)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
george.mueller@aurora.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:56 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Aux fuel pump in 701
--> Zenith-List message posted by: george.mueller@aurora.org
I am thinking about the fuel system in my 701 and am considering putting
in a facet fuel pump as a booster pump The pump I am considering is an
FP40105 which doesn't have a check valve and puts out 25 to 45 PSI (my
understanding is the Rotax 912 can handle a max pressure of 58psi) This
pump would be used to avoid vapor lock on take off and as an aux pump if
the mechanical pump on the Rotax fails I would install the pump after
the gascolator and after an in line fuel filter, basically next to the
gascolator Are there any problems that anyone can see with such an
installation? I am concerned with the greater likelihood of vapor lock
with auto gas
George
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: Aux fuel pump in 701 |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
I think your numbers are off by a factor of ten. 2.5 to 4.5 psi sounds about
right for the fp40105.
If your fuel is in wing tanks, you probably won't need a booster pump
because the high wing 701 will gravity feed the fuel to the engine. But, if
you are going to put a pump in your system, it should go before the filter.
The fuel filter should be the last thing in the fuel line before the
carburetors. A clean filter might not cause a problem but if it starts to
clog up it will cause a flow restriction and the pressure will drop as fuel
flows through it. A pump can push fuel through a partially clogged filter
much better than it can suck fuel through it. Drawing suction on a fuel line
is a real good way to cause vapor lock. The lower the pressure, the lower
the boiling point. Even cars don't have filters installed ahead of the fuel
pump, just a screen in the tank to keep out larger particles that might
interfere with the pump.
This subject has been covered many times in the past on this list. You can
check the archives for previous posts on this subject.
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL, Stratus Subaru.
on 2/21/06 12:56 PM, george.mueller@aurora.org at george.mueller@aurora.org
wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: george.mueller@aurora.org
>
>
>
> I am thinking about the fuel system in my 701 and am considering putting in
> a facet fuel pump as a booster pump The pump I am considering is an
> FP40105 which doesn't have a check valve and puts out 25 to 45 PSI (my
> understanding is the Rotax 912 can handle a max pressure of 58psi) This
> pump would be used to avoid vapor lock on take off and as an aux pump if
> the mechanical pump on the Rotax fails I would install the pump after the
> gascolator and after an in line fuel filter, basically next to the
> gascolator Are there any problems that anyone can see with such an
> installation? I am concerned with the greater likelihood of vapor lock
> with auto gas
>
>
> George
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: | Aux fuel pump in 701 |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Ok re-read this...You are considering a 40105...Thats 2.5 to 4.5psi
probably...Yeah its probably OK on a high wing.
Depends also on how you intend to plumb it...if in series the pressure
will be cumulative (unless there is som kind of pressure relief) This
may well put over the pressure acceptable at the carb.
If in parallel..it might still be better with the 105 as you will gain
roughly 1 psi for 4 feet of elevation gain between the pump inlet and
the tank. This will put your 105 pump in the 3.5 to 5.5 psi range for a
4' elevation. Its probably OK for a no mechanical pump operation in
parallel.
(remember if in series to account for the ressure drop of a dead pump,
if it will even work at all.
Have fun..:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
george.mueller@aurora.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:56 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Aux fuel pump in 701
--> Zenith-List message posted by: george.mueller@aurora.org
I am thinking about the fuel system in my 701 and am considering putting
in a facet fuel pump as a booster pump The pump I am considering is an
FP40105 which doesn't have a check valve and puts out 25 to 45 PSI (my
understanding is the Rotax 912 can handle a max pressure of 58psi) This
pump would be used to avoid vapor lock on take off and as an aux pump if
the mechanical pump on the Rotax fails I would install the pump after
the gascolator and after an in line fuel filter, basically next to the
gascolator Are there any problems that anyone can see with such an
installation? I am concerned with the greater likelihood of vapor lock
with auto gas
George
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: Application for Airworthiness Certificate |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair <mike.sinclair@att.net>
Just a little update on the confusion as to whether a revised 3180-6 was needed
with my engine change, just in case any of you find yourselves in this
situation one of these days. I have been on the phone a couple of times today
with our local FSDO Aviation Safety Inspector (Airworthiness) and the decision
was made that a revised 3180-6 wasn't need in this instance. Where the
confusion begins is with the line in sec. 19 of my operating limitations that
states "If the major change includes installing a different make and model of
engine or propeller". Our airworthiness inspector says the current version of
the operating limitations has changed the words "make and model" to "type".
Such as reciprocating to turbine, or fixed pitch to inflight adjustable, or
constant speed, then a new 3180-6 will need to be submitted. He did call
Oklahoma City and evidently this has been a bit of a gray area and the wording
was revised to clear it up a bit. He did say that my operating limitations are
still in effect as is and if I should ever have to go through this again, to
apply for a new set of limitations. But for now, and in case someone should
question this of me, I need to add an appropriate entry in the log book that
the decision that a revised 3180-6 is not needed, was made at the Wichita FSDO
and is on file there. So no new inspection either. Though if any of you should
have this same question in the future, I would double check with your local
FAA rep. before proceeding. Moving right along and should be back in phase I
real soon. I plan on first start of the new engine tomorrow.
Mike Sinclair N701TD
Randy Stout wrote:
> When I replaced my engine, I made the necessary changes to the 8130-6, and
> wrote a letter explaining what I was doing. Since I was still in my testing
> period and had more than 5 hours remaining, I told them that I didn't
> intend to extend the flight testing beyond 40 hours unless they informed me
> of a need to do so. I think I still had 20 hours or so to go. I don't
> remember what I put on the 8130-6 exactly, but you can be sure that if it's
> not right, they will send it back for corrections. I would suggest calling
> your local FSDO or MIDO if you need guidance. One thing I wish I would have
> done that I didn't do was to send the letter "return receipt". For along
> time, I kept wondering if they got it. They probably won't require a new
> inspection. I would recommend getting a tech counselor to check things out
> before flying.
>
> Randy Stout
> n282rs"at"earthlink.net
> www.geocities.com/r5t0ut21
>
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair <mike.sinclair@att.net>
> >
> > Hi Guys
> >
> > Maybe some of you have been in this situation before, and if so I
> could use a little guidance. As a part of the latest rebuild I have changed
> engines from a 912UL to a 912ULS. Per the operating limitations sec. 19,
> and per the letter of concurence I got yesterday from our local Aviation
> Safety Inspector (Airworthiness) I have to fill out a revised Form 8130-6
> (application for airworthiness certificate). I have a couple of questions.
> >
> > 1. Section IV of form 8130-6 (Inspection Agency Verification) says to
> complete only if 14 CFR part 21.183(d) applies. As best I can figure part
> 21.183(d) would not apply to this aircraft, but there is some doubt. ????
> >
> > 2. Section V (FAA Representative Certification). Does this engine change
> require a complete new DAR or FAA inspection?
>
> > Mike Sinclair N701TD
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: | 701 Top mount fuel sender instalation |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: JERICKSON03E@aol.com
Has anyone used the new fuel senders, 70-10 ohm configuration, in the top
mount position?
I have seen the side mount now shown in the builders manual, but would like
to have the top mount for easier access & maintenance.
Advice & info appreciated.
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: Homebuilt aircraft financing |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Phil Maxson" <pmaxpmax@hotmail.com>
Mike is a smart man. This is exactly what I did.
Phil Maxson
601XL/Corvair
Northwest New Jersey
>From: Mike <rsq2424@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Homebuilt aircraft financing
>Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:12:23 -0800 (PST)
>
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike <rsq2424@yahoo.com>
>
> > Are any of you financing your Zenith Aircraft?
>
>Why not finance it yourself by buying component kits one section at a time,
>rather than the whole thing at once? You'll save on interest charges (even
>though shipping costs will be slightly higher). There's really not much
>sense in buying sections that you're not ready to build yet -- especially
>since you would be paying interest charges on everything while much of it
>sits in your garage untouched.
>
>Mike Fortunato
>601XL
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: Aux fuel pump in 701 |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
George,
I've been using a pair of 105s on my HDS and they are both after the
gascolator and before the
replaceable paper filter. From the filter to a T, the line branches to
the Bings. Works well, but I'd question
putting an annually replaceable filter before the pumps.
Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
george.mueller@aurora.org wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: george.mueller@aurora.org
>
>
>I am thinking about the fuel system in my 701 and am considering putting in
>a facet fuel pump as a booster pump The pump I am considering is an
>FP40105 which doesn't have a check valve and puts out 25 to 45 PSI (my
>understanding is the Rotax 912 can handle a max pressure of 58psi) This
>pump would be used to avoid vapor lock on take off and as an aux pump if
>the mechanical pump on the Rotax fails I would install the pump after the
>gascolator and after an in line fuel filter, basically next to the
>gascolator Are there any problems that anyone can see with such an
>installation? I am concerned with the greater likelihood of vapor lock
>with auto gas
>
>
>George
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Crosswind - The First Step Toward the Next Flight |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: JERICKSON03E@aol.com
In a message dated 2/19/2006 12:59:52 PM Central Standard Time,
squiggles@yahoo.com writes:
- The ZAC fuel caps require supplemental vents. On a
ground test of 20gph on a tank the tank sucked itself
inwards. Subsequent tests of the remaining 3 fuel
caps in my kit revealed the same behaviors
What configurations of fuel caps are being used on completed 701 & 801
aircraft?
The ZAC kit caps I have are vented, four places at the edges.
Cap's seen at the factory have ram air tubes attached. Several older designs
also have used ram tubes on the caps.
Question is one of having at least free gravity flow while in flight, so the
cap's need to at least be freely vented. Which leads to, what is the air
pressure on the wing upper surface, where the caps live? Has anyone ever checked
to
understand what the effect is of venting the caps close to the wing upper
surface?
Searching for a good solution for fuel flow in flight.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 Top mount fuel sender instalation |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
I just finished installation of one of the senders. I have not done
one of the old ones, so I can't really address the differences.
I do wonder about your comment about easier maintenance on the top
mounted position. Once the nose skin is riveted in place I think it
would be very hard to do any maintenance on the sender. Fortunately,
I don't think it is likely to need much attention.
I have some pictures if you want to see them, but I don't think there
were any surprises. The only issue that caused me some trouble was
getting a good ground connection to the base plate of the sender. I
did that by eliminating one of the paper washers.
Good luck,
Paul
XL wings
>Has anyone used the new fuel senders, 70-10 ohm configuration, in the top
>mount position?
>
>I have seen the side mount now shown in the builders manual, but would like
>to have the top mount for easier access & maintenance.
>
>Advice & info appreciated.
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Crosswind - Vented Tanks? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: N5SL <nfivesl@yahoo.com>
Are the 701 tanks vented? My wing tanks are vented as
shown in this 601XL drawing snippet (in bubble):
http://www.cooknwithgas.com/TankVent.jpg
Scott Laughlin
> --> Zenith-List message posted by:
> JERICKSON03E@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 2/19/2006 12:59:52 PM Central
> Standard Time,
> squiggles@yahoo.com writes:
>
> - The ZAC fuel caps require supplemental vents.
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: Crosswind - The First Step Toward the Next Flight |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Johann G." <johann@rafpostur.is>
Hello All.
I am using one old fuel tank and one newer fuel tank in the wings. Both
have the vented caps, but the caps are different.
I do not have the fowrard facing tube in the caps. To prevent the
possibility of gravity not doing its work in my wing tanks, I installed
one facet 105 fuel pump behind the seats which feeds the header tank.
When I turn the pump on and it has been running for a few sec. fuel
seems to flow freely without the pump.
So the conclusion in my setup is, you need to get the flow started and
then it will flow on its own with gravity.
Regards,
Johann G.
Iceland.
Z 701
JERICKSON03E@aol.com wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: JERICKSON03E@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 2/19/2006 12:59:52 PM Central Standard Time,
>squiggles@yahoo.com writes:
>
>- The ZAC fuel caps require supplemental vents. On a
>ground test of 20gph on a tank the tank sucked itself
>inwards. Subsequent tests of the remaining 3 fuel
>caps in my kit revealed the same behaviors
>
>
>What configurations of fuel caps are being used on completed 701 & 801
>aircraft?
>The ZAC kit caps I have are vented, four places at the edges.
>Cap's seen at the factory have ram air tubes attached. Several older designs
>also have used ram tubes on the caps.
>
>Question is one of having at least free gravity flow while in flight, so the
>cap's need to at least be freely vented. Which leads to, what is the air
>pressure on the wing upper surface, where the caps live? Has anyone ever checked
to
>understand what the effect is of venting the caps close to the wing upper
>surface?
>
>Searching for a good solution for fuel flow in flight.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Crosswind - Vented Tanks? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Yup tank vents...A quick seminar.
1) All tanks must be vented somehow (duh!)
2) Vent tanks into high pressure areas
3) Take advantage of total (forward ram) pressure
4) make sure vent can drain
5) don't fly in icing conditions!
All of this means sticking the vent below the wing (or fuselage) and
cutting a 45 deg angle on the end, as shown on Scott's drawing...You
don't want to use a pitot tube setup as this can collect water/ice.
If you have to stick a vent above the wing it needs to be high enough to
get out the low pressure air. If on the bottom it still should be long
enough to escape the boundary layer (about an inch I believe)
Stay below about 12k'when using autofuel unless to do a vapour pressure
check on a fuel sample....Don't want it boiling off on us do we?...:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of N5SL
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Crosswind - Vented Tanks?
--> Zenith-List message posted by: N5SL <nfivesl@yahoo.com>
Are the 701 tanks vented? My wing tanks are vented as shown in this
601XL drawing snippet (in bubble):
http://www.cooknwithgas.com/TankVent.jpg
Scott Laughlin
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: Crosswind - The First Step Toward the Next Flight |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
This is not ideal but probably workable because the wing tanks are
feeding the header.
What is happening here is the vacuum in the tank (vented to a low
pressure area above the wing) is preventing the fuel from flowing
downhill.
You then turn on the pump and suck on the bottom of the fuel to get it
moving.
"Vacuum" and "suck" are not good terms for a fuel system....If this was
a high altitude plane I can guarantee you would be boiling fuel in the
tank and potentially vapour locking a pump.
Not an ideal setup but workable because 701 won't normally go that high
and you are not feeding the engine directly from the wing tanks.
If this was a direct feed I would want a better venting system.
Farnk
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Johann G.
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Crosswind - The First Step Toward the Next
Flight
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Johann G." <johann@rafpostur.is>
Hello All.
I am using one old fuel tank and one newer fuel tank in the wings. Both
have the vented caps, but the caps are different.
I do not have the fowrard facing tube in the caps. To prevent the
possibility of gravity not doing its work in my wing tanks, I installed
one facet 105 fuel pump behind the seats which feeds the header tank.
When I turn the pump on and it has been running for a few sec. fuel
seems to flow freely without the pump.
So the conclusion in my setup is, you need to get the flow started and
then it will flow on its own with gravity.
Regards,
Johann G.
Iceland.
Z 701
JERICKSON03E@aol.com wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: JERICKSON03E@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 2/19/2006 12:59:52 PM Central Standard Time,
>squiggles@yahoo.com writes:
>
>- The ZAC fuel caps require supplemental vents. On a ground test of
>20gph on a tank the tank sucked itself inwards. Subsequent tests of
>the remaining 3 fuel caps in my kit revealed the same behaviors
>
>
>What configurations of fuel caps are being used on completed 701 & 801
>aircraft?
>The ZAC kit caps I have are vented, four places at the edges.
>Cap's seen at the factory have ram air tubes attached. Several older
>designs also have used ram tubes on the caps.
>
>Question is one of having at least free gravity flow while in flight,
>so the cap's need to at least be freely vented. Which leads to, what is
>the air pressure on the wing upper surface, where the caps live? Has
>anyone ever checked to understand what the effect is of venting the
>caps close to the wing upper surface?
>
>Searching for a good solution for fuel flow in flight.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Application for Airworthiness Certificate |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: nyterminat@aol.com
Way to go Mike. I hope that you will be in the air soon. The exact thing that you
described was told to me by my DAR when he inspected my plane.
Bob Spudis
N701ZX 90-100 degrees here in Ghana
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Sinclair <mike.sinclair@ATT.NET>
Sent: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:55:02 -0600
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Application for Airworthiness Certificate
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair <mike.sinclair@att.net>
Just a little update on the confusion as to whether a revised 3180-6 was needed
with my engine change, just in case any of you find yourselves in this
situation one of these days. I have been on the phone a couple of times today
with our local FSDO Aviation Safety Inspector (Airworthiness) and the decision
was made that a revised 3180-6 wasn't need in this instance. Where the
confusion begins is with the line in sec. 19 of my operating limitations that
states "If the major change includes installing a different make and model of
engine or propeller". Our airworthiness inspector says the current version of
the operating limitations has changed the words "make and model" to "type".
Such as reciprocating to turbine, or fixed pitch to inflight adjustable, or
constant speed, then a new 3180-6 will need to be submitted. He did call
Oklahoma City and evidently this has been a bit of a gray area and the wording
was revised to clear it up a bit. He did say that my operating limitations are
still in effect as is and if I should ever have to go through this again, to
apply for a new set of limitations. But for now, and in case someone should
question this of me, I need to add an appropriate entry in the log book that
the decision that a revised 3180-6 is not needed, was made at the Wichita FSDO
and is on file there. So no new inspection either. Though if any of you should
have this same question in the future, I would double check with your local
FAA rep. before proceeding. Moving right along and should be back in phase I
real soon. I plan on first start of the new engine tomorrow.
Mike Sinclair N701TD
Randy Stout wrote:
> When I replaced my engine, I made the necessary changes to the 8130-6, and
> wrote a letter explaining what I was doing. Since I was still in my testing
> period and had more than 5 hours remaining, I told them that I didn't
> intend to extend the flight testing beyond 40 hours unless they informed me
> of a need to do so. I think I still had 20 hours or so to go. I don't
> remember what I put on the 8130-6 exactly, but you can be sure that if it's
> not right, they will send it back for corrections. I would suggest calling
> your local FSDO or MIDO if you need guidance. One thing I wish I would have
> done that I didn't do was to send the letter "return receipt". For along
> time, I kept wondering if they got it. They probably won't require a new
> inspection. I would recommend getting a tech counselor to check things out
> before flying.
>
> Randy Stout
> n282rs"at"earthlink.net
> www.geocities.com/r5t0ut21
>
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair <mike.sinclair@att.net>
> >
> > Hi Guys
> >
> > Maybe some of you have been in this situation before, and if so I
> could use a little guidance. As a part of the latest rebuild I have changed
> engines from a 912UL to a 912ULS. Per the operating limitations sec. 19,
> and per the letter of concurence I got yesterday from our local Aviation
> Safety Inspector (Airworthiness) I have to fill out a revised Form 8130-6
> (application for airworthiness certificate). I have a couple of questions.
> >
> > 1. Section IV of form 8130-6 (Inspection Agency Verification) says to
> complete only if 14 CFR part 21.183(d) applies. As best I can figure part
> 21.183(d) would not apply to this aircraft, but there is some doubt. ????
> >
> > 2. Section V (FAA Representative Certification). Does this engine change
> require a complete new DAR or FAA inspection?
>
> > Mike Sinclair N701TD
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: | Any thoughts on the 701 on floats? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "John Marzulli" <john.marzulli@gmail.com>
I've been considering building a 701 for a long time and I'm getting closer
everyday. The most important question in my mind is how well does the 701 do
on floats?
All of my training ( and checkride ) for the ASES ticket was done in a 180HP
Top Cub... a very overpowered aircraft. I consider this a factor since I
never really had to finese the plane up except when doing a partial power
glassy water takeoff.
My assumption is that a 701 on floats would do best with the 100HP rotax
when at gross weight or high density altitude.
So I was wondering a few things:
- First what is the quality of the Skyshops/Czech floats?
- Has anyone installed Edos or Wiplines?
- Has Zenith supported you during the build for floats that were not
from Skyshops?
- Is there a big difference between the various
manufacturers/installations in regards to ease of getting on the step or
stability during step taxing?
- Does the 701 have enough aileron authority to do well in a
cross-wind landing despite it's light weight?
- Who did you use to insure the plane? Is the premium ridiculous?
- And the biggest question is has anyone setup their 701 for easy gear
swap between floats and tricycle gear?
I live in Seattle and what I want is a plane I can use to go camping with in
the mountain lakes or use to tour Alaska with.
Thanks
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 Top mount fuel sender instalation |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: JERICKSON03E@aol.com
In a message dated 2/21/2006 3:41:39 PM Central Standard Time,
p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net writes:
I do wonder about your comment about easier maintenance on the top
mounted position. Once the nose skin is riveted in place I think it
would be very hard to do any maintenance on the sender. Fortunately,
I don't think it is likely to need much attention.
Thanks Paul, The senders on the 701 are mounted under the top skin, with
covers. The nose skin is not involved. another way to install them is at the end
of the tank, not easy to access without removing skin, so it seems.
About maintenance, perhaps they are good enough so as to not require
maintenance. This is one reason that I am going to the new senders, 70-10 ohm.
But, things that move, have elect flow, and otherwise hide away,,, are
maintenance prone.
Actually a cork on a wire would be useful if it would fit.
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: re: prop pitch (tach acuracy) |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
I will add one VERY Important thing:
Before doing the full throttle test of the propeller pitch.
With a optical Tach and a hand calculator, check the acuracy of your airplane
tach... a faulty (showing less rpms than real) tach, can over rev your
engine without you noticing and that is a real danger.
Most of the modern tachs are very acurate, but Murphy sometimes visits the
factories :-)
Also if in the future ( some "X" hours later) during the time you own the plane,
you notice something about your tach readings (higher or lower readings)
first check the tach, then go to something else. I almost rebuilt an engine
once and was the tach...
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Zed Smith <zsmith3rd@earthlink.net> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Zed Smith
Suggest you use whatever blade setting gives 5500 rpm max at wide open throttle,
warm engine, etc, with the plane tied to an anchor. Be prepared for the brakes
NOT to hold, tires to slide on grass, Murphy's Law mishaps.
Others will have variations of this, but just don't exceed the 5800 mark on takeoff.
Happy flying.
do not archive
Zed/701/R912/same 90+%
---------------------------------
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Crosswind - The First Step Toward the Next Flight |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com>
What configurations of fuel caps are being used on completed 701 & 801
aircraft?
The ZAC kit caps I have are vented, four places at the edges.
Cap's seen at the factory have ram air tubes attached. Several older designs
also have used ram tubes on the caps.
Question is one of having at least free gravity flow while in flight, so the
cap's need to at least be freely vented. Which leads to, what is the air
pressure on the wing upper surface, where the caps live? Has anyone ever checked
to
understand what the effect is of venting the caps close to the wing upper
surface?
Searching for a good solution for fuel flow in flight.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I can tell you guys what happens on my 801. I built 17 gal aux tanks that sit
outboard of the stock tanks and are plumbed together at the rear. The inner tanks
fill the outer tanks through the transfer line. I kept it VERY simple because
most experimental planes go down because of poor fuel systems. There are a
few things my 801 does that most other ones do too. In the beginning I ran the
stock ZAC caps on my inner tanks. The low pressure created on the top surface
of the thick STOL wings that Chris Heinz designed is alot more then most of
us can realize. If I fill my tanks even close to the top, the suction will draw
out fuel and it runs down the top of the wing, This happens through the vent
openings that are in the cap. I painted my plane with Dupont Imron and believe
it or not the paint is now stained with blue dye that's in 100LL. Ya I am pissed
but I don't loose sleep over it. When I built my aux tanks I welded a bung
on the top outer end panel of the tanks just like ZAC provides with their stock
ones. I ran a 3/16" tube from there down and protruding through the lower
skin to vent the tanks. This uses the high pressure thats on the underside
of the wing. To fix the fuel from being drawn through the vent openings in the
cap I expoxied the holes closed and use my other vents to breath the fuel system.
I also tied both wings together using the ports that are on the inner top
end surfaces of the stock tanks that ZAC provide. This port is for the return
line if one is running a fuel injection setup that needs a fuel return to the
tank. My main concern was two fold. The first was the 801 that crashed in Texas
because of poor tank venting in it first few flights. It was clear that caused
the downing of that plane. My other concern was most 801's are known to
empty the left tank twice as fast as the right tank if they are used together,
ie, fuel valve on both. Well, guess what. I thought I had the solution to that
problem and mine STILL uses more fuel from the left tank when I have my fuel
valves se!
t to bot
h. All I can figure is that the circular flow of the prop hits both wings in different
ways and that causes the uneven flows. I have resigned to that fact and
manage my fuel by using my left/right fuel valves as needed. I can say my setup
does work and shows no sign of vent problems and I am at the stage of testing
my firebreathing monster that I have removed most of the HP limiting devices,
IE, restrictor plates, ignition RPM chips,etc I initially installed on my
plane to prevent it from breaking in half during full power climbs. Currently
I am burning 16+ gph during takeoff and throttle it back to 5.8-6.2 gph for cruise.
I have never had a moment where the tanks didn't vent properly at climb
power settings. FWIW....
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
What configurations of fuel caps are being used on completed 701 801
aircraft?
The ZAC kit caps I have are vented, four places at the edges.
Cap's seen at the factory have ram air tubes attached. Several older designs
also have used ram tubes on the caps.
Question is one of having at least free gravity flow while in flight, so the
cap's need to at least be freely vented. Which leads to, what is the air
pressure on the wing upper surface, where the caps live? Has anyone ever checked
to
understand what the effect is of venting the caps close to the wing upper
surface?
Searching for a good solution for fuel flow in flight.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I cantell you guys what happens on my 801. I built 17 gal aux tanks that sit outboard
of the stock tanks and are plumbed together at the rear. The inner tanks
fill the outer tanks through the transfer line. I kept it VERY simple because
most experimental planes go down because of poor fuel systems. There are a few
things my 801 does that most other ones do too. In the beginning I ran the
stock ZAC caps on my inner tanks. The low pressure createdon the top surface of
the thick STOLwings that Chris Heinz designedis alot more then most of us can
realize. If I fill my tanks even close to the top, the suction will draw out
fuel and it runs down the top of the wing, This happens through the vent openings
that are in the cap. I painted my plane with Dupont Imron and believe it
or not the paint is now stained with blue dye that's in 100LL. Ya I am pissed
but I don't loose sleep over it. WhenI built my aux tanks I welded a bung on the
top outer end panel of the tanks just like ZAC provides with their stock ones.
I ran a 3/16" tube from there down and protruding through the lower skin to
vent the tanks. This uses the high pressure thats on the underside of the wing.
To fix the fuel from being drawn through the vent openings in the cap I expoxied
the holes closed and use my other vents to breath the fuel system. I also
tiedboth wings together using the ports that are on the inner top end surfaces
of the stock tanks that ZAC provide. This port is for the return line if one
is running a fuel injection setup that needs a fuel return to the tank. My
main concern was two fold. The first was the 801 that crashed in Texas because
of poor tank venting in it first few flights. It was clear that caused the downing
of that plane. My other concern was most 801's are known to empty the left
tank twice as fast as the right tank if they areused together, ie, fuel valve
on both.Well, guess what. I thought I had the solution to that problem and
mine STILL uses more fuel from the left tank when I have my fuel valves set to
both. All!
I can f
igure is that the circular flow of the prop hits both wings in different ways and
that causes the uneven flows. I have resigned to that fact and manage my fuel
by usingmy left/right fuel valvesas needed. I can say my setup does work and
shows no sign of vent problemsand I am at the stage of testing my firebreathing
monster that I have removed most of the HP limiting devices,IE, restrictor
plates, ignition RPM chips,etcI initially installed on my plane to prevent it
from breaking in half during full power climbs. Currently I am burning 16+ gph
during takeoff and throttle it back to 5.8-6.2 gph for cruise. I have never
had a moment where the tanks didn't vent properly at climb power settings. FWIW....
do not archive
BenHaas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt aircraft financing |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Terry Turnquist <ter_turn@yahoo.com>
John, you might consider scratch building..that'll slow down your build progress
but the tradeoff is it'll save you a bunch of money!
Terry Turnquist
St. Peters, MO
John Hines <John.Hines@craftontull.com> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "John Hines"
Are any of you financing your Zenith Aircraft? If so, with who? Zenith
has several links to financing companies on their web site.
I'm almost done with my tail kit and I
have realized that I can build it faster than I can afford to pay for
it. Any advise???
John Hines
www.johnsplane.com
John Hines
Manager
Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc.
901 N. 47th Street, Suite 200
Rogers, AR 72756
Tel: 479-878-2449
Mob: 479-366-4783
Fax: 479-631-6224
John.Hines@craftontull.com
---------------------------------
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: | Homebuilt aircraft financing |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff Davidson" <jeffrey_davidson@earthlink.net>
Another benefit of buying component kits as you build is that you get the
benefit of improvements made to the kit that are available at the time you
buy. With a manufacturer like ZAC, who has stood the test of time in the
business, you can be comfortable that they will be there when you need the
next kit.
Jeff Davidson
>
> > Are any of you financing your Zenith Aircraft?
>
>Why not finance it yourself by buying component kits one section at a time,
>rather than the whole thing at once?
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Homebuilt aircraft financing |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Carlos Sa <carlosfsa@yahoo.com>
...and, if you are as fast as I am, the expenses will be spread over such a long
period of time,
you won't even notice!
Carlos
CH601-HD, plans
Building since 1998 - almost a tradition...
... but do not archive
--- Terry Turnquist <ter_turn@yahoo.com> a crit :
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Terry Turnquist <ter_turn@yahoo.com>
>
> John, you might consider scratch building..that'll slow down your build progress
but the
> tradeoff is it'll save you a bunch of money!
>
> Terry Turnquist
> St. Peters, MO
>
>
>
> John Hines <John.Hines@craftontull.com> wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "John Hines"
>
> Are any of you financing your Zenith Aircraft? If so, with who? Zenith
> has several links to financing companies on their web site.
> I'm almost done with my tail kit and I
> have realized that I can build it faster than I can afford to pay for
> it. Any advise???
>
> John Hines
Lche-vitrine ou lche-cran ?
magasinage.yahoo.ca
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wing attachment and control cables |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "T. Graziano" <tonyplane@bellsouth.net>
John,
The way I installed my wings was with the use of an engine hoist with
two straps supporting the wing about its span wise CG. You can get pretty
precise with the hydraulic lifting ram. I supported the wing on two padded
saw horses before lifting. I also used pieces of 2x4s at the aft channel to
prevent the straps from distorting the wing skin's aft edges and made sure
the straps would not distort the leading edge. I was able to trial fit and
install thewings without help.
I used handled 5/16 inch drift pins (you can also use modified 5/16 inch
bolts) which I tapered/bullet nosed to help align the holes in the wing spar
to center spar section. You want these aids to have a smooth surface finish
to prevent scratching or gouging the critical spar attach bolt holes, which
would create stress risers.
With the use of a mirror and flashlight, once you have one of the
center holes line up and pinned, careful use of the engine hoist will permit
you to align the other holes for pinning. (I procured a complete XL kit from
Zenith. Zenith match drills/reams the wing spars to center spar attach
holes, so you know that all 6 holes per wing should match up precisely).
After pinning, or if you wish temporarily bolting, the wing spars to the
center spar, you can then clamp the aft wing channel (spar) to the fuselage
fitting to check/adjust for alignment, incidence etc, before drilling for
the aft spar attachment.
After this is done, you can cleco the flaps to check for flap settings,
jack screw microswitch adjustments etc and also cleco the ailerons and
temporarily attach the bellcrank pushrod..
You may also at this time check your wing skin trim and trim as required
for the fuselage to wing seal fit.
As far as the aileron control cables, I had them installed in the wing
and attached to the aileron bellcrank with excess cable hanging out. I did
the final cable cut and swaging after I had drilled and temporarily bolted
the aft spar and clecoed the ailerons. I final rigged and safetied the
turnbuckles for the ailerons at the airport. One thing about the Zenith kits
is that they
provide more cable than you need so as to permit this.
The above is the way I did it before taking the wings and fuselage to the
airport for final assembly. I am sure there are many more ways to skin this
cat, though.
Tony Graziano
601XL N493TG 65+ hours
> Time: 08:56:27 AM PST US
> From: john butterfield <jdbutterfield@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Zenith-List: wing attachment and control cables
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: john butterfield
<jdbutterfield@yahoo.com>
>
> hi list
> after looking at my fuse i started wondering how hard
> it would be to attach the wings. I was thinking of
> taking off the rear protion of the wing gigs and just
> seeing if the holes match, but like most of my
> thoughts, something always seems to be different. any
> suggestions on how to make the final attachment
> easier.
>
> also, is there plenty of play in the flap arm when
> attaching to the actual flap. the plans seem
> confusing to me in that the diagram shows the unit in
> the flap down position, but looks to me like it is the
> in the flaps up position.
>
> as to the control cables, should i attach the cables
> to the stick, and rudder and run them out to the
> control surfaces and then attanch them later when
> assembling the machine.
>
> as you can see, my logical minds sometimes abandons me
> regards
> john butterfield
> XL corvair
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: Crosswind - The First Step Toward the Next Flight |
Altitude.
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
Hello Frank,
I will like to learn more about it, any leads?
We do fly here with autogas our 701 (and several other airplanes with 912S engines,
Kitfox, QS GT 500, etc) from 6,000 to around 12,000 ft ASL (depending
on direction of flight) because here most area around has 10,000 plus mountains
and "low land" is 4,000 ft ASL...
How do gasoline boil with altitude???? (limited english and unkown subject.)
Thanks a lot.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
"Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
This is not ideal but probably workable because the wing tanks are
feeding the header.
What is happening here is the vacuum in the tank (vented to a low
pressure area above the wing) is preventing the fuel from flowing
downhill.
You then turn on the pump and suck on the bottom of the fuel to get it
moving.
"Vacuum" and "suck" are not good terms for a fuel system....If this was
a high altitude plane I can guarantee you would be boiling fuel in the
tank and potentially vapour locking a pump.
Not an ideal setup but workable because 701 won't normally go that high
and you are not feeding the engine directly from the wing tanks.
If this was a direct feed I would want a better venting system.
Farnk
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Johann G.
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Crosswind - The First Step Toward the Next
Flight
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Johann G."
Hello All.
I am using one old fuel tank and one newer fuel tank in the wings. Both
have the vented caps, but the caps are different.
I do not have the fowrard facing tube in the caps. To prevent the
possibility of gravity not doing its work in my wing tanks, I installed
one facet 105 fuel pump behind the seats which feeds the header tank.
When I turn the pump on and it has been running for a few sec. fuel
seems to flow freely without the pump.
So the conclusion in my setup is, you need to get the flow started and
then it will flow on its own with gravity.
Regards,
Johann G.
Iceland.
Z 701
JERICKSON03E@aol.com wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: JERICKSON03E@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 2/19/2006 12:59:52 PM Central Standard Time,
>squiggles@yahoo.com writes:
>
>- The ZAC fuel caps require supplemental vents. On a ground test of
>20gph on a tank the tank sucked itself inwards. Subsequent tests of
>the remaining 3 fuel caps in my kit revealed the same behaviors
>
>
>What configurations of fuel caps are being used on completed 701 & 801
>aircraft?
>The ZAC kit caps I have are vented, four places at the edges.
>Cap's seen at the factory have ram air tubes attached. Several older
>designs also have used ram tubes on the caps.
>
>Question is one of having at least free gravity flow while in flight,
>so the cap's need to at least be freely vented. Which leads to, what is
>the air pressure on the wing upper surface, where the caps live? Has
>anyone ever checked to understand what the effect is of venting the
>caps close to the wing upper surface?
>
>Searching for a good solution for fuel flow in flight.
>
---------------------------------
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
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: Any thoughts on the 701 on floats? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
Hello John,
I will advise you to contact Chip, from Chez Aircraft works, directly, probably
he will contact you soon, because he normally monitors the list. but has
been a while he hasnt post...
I will trust hands off his advise and comments, his email is aircraft@czaw.cz
He personally has won several amph airplane events and races with 601 and also
701 float equiped airplanes in Europe.
Saludos
Gary Gower
John Marzulli <john.marzulli@gmail.com> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "John Marzulli"
I've been considering building a 701 for a long time and I'm getting closer
everyday. The most important question in my mind is how well does the 701 do
on floats?
All of my training ( and checkride ) for the ASES ticket was done in a 180HP
Top Cub... a very overpowered aircraft. I consider this a factor since I
never really had to finese the plane up except when doing a partial power
glassy water takeoff.
My assumption is that a 701 on floats would do best with the 100HP rotax
when at gross weight or high density altitude.
So I was wondering a few things:
- First what is the quality of the Skyshops/Czech floats?
- Has anyone installed Edos or Wiplines?
- Has Zenith supported you during the build for floats that were not
from Skyshops?
- Is there a big difference between the various
manufacturers/installations in regards to ease of getting on the step or
stability during step taxing?
- Does the 701 have enough aileron authority to do well in a
cross-wind landing despite it's light weight?
- Who did you use to insure the plane? Is the premium ridiculous?
- And the biggest question is has anyone setup their 701 for easy gear
swap between floats and tricycle gear?
I live in Seattle and what I want is a plane I can use to go camping with in
the mountain lakes or use to tour Alaska with.
Thanks
---------------------------------
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Any thoughts on the 701 on floats? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Chip W. Erwin" <aircraft@czaw.cz>
OK, I will make some brief comments. Please scroll down
Chip W. Erwin
CZECH AIRCRAFT WORKS
LUCNI 1824
686 02
STARE MESTO, CZECH REPUBLIC
TEL: +420 572 543 456
FAX: +420 572 543 692
USA FAX: 772-264-0936
Mobile: +420 602 342 717
E-MAIL: AIRCRAFT@CZAW.CZ
WWW.AIRPLANE.CZ
Hello John,
I will advise you to contact Chip, from Chez Aircraft works, directly,
probably he will contact you soon, because he normally monitors the list.
but has been a while he hasnt post...
I will trust hands off his advise and comments, his email is
aircraft@czaw.cz
He personally has won several amph airplane events and races with 601
and also 701 float equiped airplanes in Europe.
My assumption is that a 701 on floats would do best with the 100HP rotax
when at gross weight or high density altitude.
So I was wondering a few things:
- First what is the quality of the Skyshops/Czech floats? VERY HIGH
ACCORDING TO OUR CUSTOMERS
- Has anyone installed Edos or Wiplines?TOO BIG, TOO HEAVY, AND TOO
EXPENSIVE FOR THE 701
- Has Zenith supported you during the build for floats that were not
from Skyshops?NO, NOT NECESSARY AS WE OFFER FINISHED FLOATS ONLY.
- Is there a big difference between the various
manufacturers/installations in regards to ease of getting on the step or
stability during step taxing? WE HAVE ONE 701 FLOAT AND INSTALLATION KIT. I
AM NOT SURE WHAT OTHER MANUFACTURE YOU ARE REFERRING TO.
- Does the 701 have enough aileron authority to do well in a
cross-wind landing despite it's light weight? YES. AS A STOL DESIGN IT HAS
PLENTY OF AILERON AUTHORITY.
- Who did you use to insure the plane? Is the premium ridiculous?
- And the biggest question is has anyone setup their 701 for easy gear
swap between floats and tricycle gear? OURS CAN BE DONE IN 1 DAY WITH 2
PEOPLE.
CZAW HAS COMPLETELY REDESIGNED THE FLOATS AND INSTALLATION. PLUS WE HAVE
MADE MANY IMPROVEMENTS ON THE AIRCRAFT LIKE MUCH NICER COWL. THE REULTS ARE
A 701 AMPHIB THAT CRUISES FASTER ON FLOATS THAN MANY 701S WITHOUT FLOATS. WE
DO SUGGEST THE 100HP ROTAX. AND THE NEW 4-WHEEL AMPHIBS. WE MAKE MANY OF
THIS COMBINATION OFR EUROPEAN CUSTOMERS. I DO FLY THEM OFTEN. THIS IS REALLY
ONE NICE FLOATPLANE. WATER PERFORMANCE IS EXCELLENT.
CWE
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! --
|