Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:18 AM - Re: Zodiac 601 HDS and Corvair engine (Dave Thompson)
2. 04:25 AM - The Value of Flaps (Was: Welcome ...) (Phil Maxson)
3. 06:28 AM - Re: Zodiac 601 HDS and Corvair engines and taildraggers (ron dewees)
4. 07:00 AM - Re: Flaps (LarryMcFarland)
5. 07:01 AM - Re: Zodiac 601 HDS and Corvair engine (jsimons2)
6. 07:12 AM - Flyinmg Zodiac 601 HDS with Corvair (Gpjann@aol.com)
7. 07:43 AM - GroundHawg (Larry)
8. 07:59 AM - Re: GroundHawg (ron wehba)
9. 08:19 AM - Re: Zodiac 601 HDS and Corvair engine (Brandon Tucker)
10. 08:30 AM - Re: Zodiac 601 HDS and Corvair engine (Brandon Tucker)
11. 09:15 AM - Autopilot ?? (EMAproducts@aol.com)
12. 09:15 AM - Re: Flaps (Dave and Jan Clay)
13. 09:31 AM - Flaps+Welder (Bill Naumuk)
14. 09:41 AM - Re: Re: Zodiac 601 "twitchy" (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
15. 09:43 AM - Re: Zodiac 601 HDS and Corvair engine (jsimons2)
16. 10:30 AM - Re: Flaps+Welder (Paul Mulwitz)
17. 11:42 AM - Welder (Bill Naumuk)
18. 01:09 PM - Re: Welder (Ron Hoskins)
19. 01:27 PM - Re: Welder (LarryMcFarland)
20. 01:56 PM - First Flight G CBDG (Clive Richards)
21. 02:14 PM - Re: First Flight G CBDG (n801bh@netzero.com)
22. 02:31 PM - Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar (William Dominguez)
23. 02:47 PM - this "twitchy" nonsense (Jeff Small)
24. 02:52 PM - Re: Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
25. 03:03 PM - Re: this "twitchy" nonsense (Phil Maxson)
26. 03:07 PM - Re: Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar (LarryMcFarland)
27. 04:05 PM - Re: Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar (William Dominguez)
28. 04:05 PM - Re: Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar (William Dominguez)
29. 04:22 PM - Re: Re: Zodiac 601 "twitchy" (Mike Fothergill)
30. 05:06 PM - Re: Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar (LarryMcFarland)
31. 05:53 PM - Re: Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar (Tom and Bren Henderson)
32. 06:17 PM - Re: first hand infomation (Roger)
33. 06:39 PM - Re: Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar (William Dominguez)
34. 08:42 PM - Re: Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar (Hewett Properties)
35. 08:54 PM - Re: first hand infomation (N5SL)
36. 09:24 PM - Re: first hand infomation (Roger)
37. 09:44 PM - Opinions vs. Facts (Paul Mulwitz)
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: Zodiac 601 HDS and Corvair engine |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave Thompson" <dave.thompson@verizon.net>
Jerome,
I asked the same question of "Taildragger or tricycle" to William Wynne. All
his aircraft are taildraggers. He said something like this: Typically,
unless you have a large amount of time in taildraggers, Insurance will be
considerably more. Most people are "tricycle trained". If you build
tricycle, more of your friends can fly it, insurance will be cheaper and it
should be easer to sell, if that time comes.
That's my two cents worth! I'm planning to build a tricycle 601XL. 128 total
hours logged; 5 in a cub, the rest in Cessna 150's and 172's, 25 years ago.
By the way, at the risk of sounding picky, the 601HD has been upgraded and
now it is the 601XL., Not that anything is wrong with the HD, the XL is the
latest model.
Dave Thompson
dave.thompson@verizon.net
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: | The Value of Flaps (Was: Welcome ...) |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Phil Maxson" <pmaxpmax@hotmail.com>
I use the flaps on almost every landing. It definitely lowers stall speed.
They allow me to fly a tighter, steeper approach without building up a lot
of airspeed. With a little practice most people can regularly land th XL in
500 feet. My shortest landings are much shorter than that.
The other advantage to building flaps is the value of sticking to the plans.
It will definetly take you longer to figure out a solution to entingeering
them out, than to build them. And then, you will have an XL that is unique,
and in some future pilot's eyes, less capable.
I vote for keep it simple and follow the designer's plans -- flaps.
Phil Maxson
601XL/Corvair
Northwest New Jersey
>From: "Edward Moody II" <dredmoody@cox.net>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Welcome to the neighborhood!/HF Welders
>Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 20:06:30 -0500
>
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Edward Moody II" <dredmoody@cox.net>
>
>No arguement from me as whether or not others like the flaps or how they
>feel about their usefulness. What I stated about slowing a steeper decent
>is
>what I witnessed in person flying the demo at the factory. For me they are
>worth messing with even if I only use them once in a blue moon. I threw
>that
>opinion into the mix because it's valid for me. I don't think I'll use them
>routinely enough to bother with a flap indicator on the panel even though
>the AF-3500 EFIS I'm going to use has the ability to display flap angle.
>It's just not enough return on investment. I'm not bothered about being in
>the minority if that's how it shakes out. I have heard that many flyers say
>they don't use them or hardly ever do. Like I mentioned, I hardly ever
>floorboard the accelerator pedal in my vehicles, but I wouldn't want a
>smaller engine either.
>
>Ed
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk@alltel.net>
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Welcome to the neighborhood!/HF Welders
>
>
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk@alltel.net>
> >
> > Ed-
> > List contributors have reported no benefit from XL flaps. I'm not
>being
> > negative, I'm simply repeating what listers other than you have posted.
> > Bill
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Zodiac 601 HDS and Corvair engines and taildraggers |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: ron dewees <rdewees@mindspring.com>
Dave and others,
I now have over 130 hours on my 601HDS taildragger and Jabiru 3300
motor. The only plane I am an expert on is my own (at least that's what
the FAA said when they give me a nifty plastic Repairman's Certificate
card). IMHO a lot of "common" information on HDS performance is not
common at all. My HDS TD is a joy to fly and took very little
training. My largest block of tailwheel time came from a UL Cub clone
that was tame as a kitten. I took my BFR in a Taylorcraft pryor to
soloing the HDS and had no problems at all. Visibility is no issue at
all since the tail doesn't sit much lower than the tri-gear model. I
can't say for sure if it lands shorter or handles rough fields better
than tri gear but I fly out of a field that is both short and rough. I
can say it looks sexy and draws a crowd even in the midst of nice tri
gear ZAC models.
I didn't chose to insure till I had flown off the Phase I hours and
insurance wasn't rated higher because of TW configuration, but because
of turf strip i'm based in.
Re performance-- while I have heard that the cruse and top speeds of
XL and HDS are inflated I find them to be conservative. I know of at
least one local Jab powered XL that is probably capable of 150 plus mph
WOT. Mine is slower than that but not a lot. I cruse at 125-128 mph
and burn about 4.3 gph. No complaints at all there. Re "twitchiness"
-- this is a little hard to explain. Yes, when you yank on a HDS it
will TURN, but if you don't it won't do it by itself. I think of
twitchy as flying a Sonex and being able to turn by moving your head
from side to side. I don't think any 600- 800 pound plane is going to
handle tufbulence as well as a Mooney or a heavier plane but it's for
day vfr flight, generally and the twitchiness "problem" is the
delightful light handling that makes it feel different from a C152.
I've never been a yank and bank pilot but the ease of doing a 50 degree
turn makes you feel like Walter Mitty (if you want to).
Re the difference between the XL and the HDS. Could't comment of the
choice at the time I got my HDS project because there wasn't an XL. I
do think the airfoil is better on the XL as well as a number of problem
issues that weren't address with earlier HD/HDS models. I think the XL
is a refinement of the HD series with it's good and bad points. It
weighs more but has more wing area and I like the clean spring gear
option. OTOH I like the puggish military look to the HDS taildrgger with
it's bent wings. I can't comment on the flap issue but if I had them I
would use them, but don't so I can't. My HDS slips just fine and allows
descents into long or short fields.
Re Corvair powered HDS planes- there is at least one that I am aware
of built by Greg Jannakos. He is in the early stages of flight testing
with it and you would have to ask him what his experience is with it.
I am sure there will be something like an XL Plus or some newer,
slicker model than the current group of ZAC offerings. Nothing is
perfect for everyone so don't sit back and gloat on your choice.
Finish up whatever you have and fly it. It's a great family of planes
with strong and weaker points but it will get you in the air and smiling.
Ron DeWees
601HDS N601TD
Dave Thompson wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave Thompson" <dave.thompson@verizon.net>
>
>Jerome,
>
>
>
>I asked the same question of "Taildragger or tricycle" to William Wynne. All
>his aircraft are taildraggers. He said something like this: Typically,
>unless you have a large amount of time in taildraggers, Insurance will be
>considerably more. Most people are "tricycle trained". If you build
>tricycle, more of your friends can fly it, insurance will be cheaper and it
>should be easer to sell, if that time comes.
>
>
>
>That's my two cents worth! I'm planning to build a tricycle 601XL. 128 total
>hours logged; 5 in a cub, the rest in Cessna 150's and 172's, 25 years ago.
>
>
>
>By the way, at the risk of sounding picky, the 601HD has been upgraded and
>now it is the 601XL., Not that anything is wrong with the HD, the XL is the
>latest model.
>
>
>
>Dave Thompson
>
>dave.thompson@verizon.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
Paul,
I would agree with you but for the HDS and the HD. They have such a
thick wing profile that
they generate huge lift and its like flying with the flaps on all the
time. Don't need them on these
models, but it is classic to be accustomed to what you've used previously.
Larry McFarland - 601HDS
do not archive
Paul Mulwitz wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
>
>
>
>
>>I was planning on avoiding comment on the flaps issue, but I guess I
>>finally got sucked in.
>>
>>
>
>
>For me, flaps serve three purposes:
>
>1. Soft field take-off. A little flaps goes a long way to get the
>weight off the wheels and the plane airborne. About 10 degrees is
>perfect in a Cessna and probably would work nicely in a Zodiac too.
>
>2. Increase landing descent angle. This is a way to adjust for a
>high approach. After on final and with power off, if the plane is
>still headed for the wrong end of the runway flaps will bring it down
>faster. This can also be accomplished quite nicely with a forward
>slip and no flaps.
>
>3. As a normal landing procedure, I sometimes add flaps while in
>ground effect on the landing approach. I have normally done this
>when at high traffic density airports (i.e. where I am trying to stay
>ahead of jets on final so I am approaching at a high
>airspeed). Adding full flaps at the last moment reduces the landing
>speed and the resulting damage to both tires and brakes.
>
>I certainly wouldn't consider building or buying a plane without flaps.
>
>Paul
>XL wings
>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: Zodiac 601 HDS and Corvair engine |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "jsimons2" <jsimons4@triad.rr.com>
Thanks to all who have replied so far. A little more info as to why I chose the
HDS over the XL may be in order.
1. If I could afford it, I would try to build a 2 seater P-40 or Spitfire replica.
However, I work for a municipal government that doesn't pay all that well
(but the benefits are great). Therefor my choice of scratch building and rebuilding
a Corvair (100hp) vs. a VW (80hp).
2. I am about 5'11" and 190 - 195 lbs.. My wife and I with full fuel in a Corvair
powered HDS would still leave about 60 some pounds below HDS gross for luggage.
On our recent 2 day trip to the Mid Atlantic Fly-In we only carried about
25 lbs. of luggage (and that included the small Coleman cooler with 6 drinks
and ice). The same full fuel setup in a XL would only allow us an additional 30
pounds or so.
3. My basement workshop will allow me to assemble the HDS fuselage on it's gear
and still be able to walk around it. The XL would only allow me access to 3 sides.
Yes, the extra 12" makes that much difference.
4. Like some of you, I just think it looks sexier, lol.
I plan to use the plane to travel without having to fight traffic. I live right
in between the Greensboro area and the Raleigh-Durham area of North Carolina
on the I-85/40 corridor. To go anywhere by interstate I have to go through one
of these two areas. The traffic and road construction has been horrible for over
10 years now. Our local airport is still a "country" airport, no tower, no
heavy traffic and very friendly. Yet the runway is 100' wide and over 5000' long.
Not a bad combination and in unclassified air space.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36942#36942
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: | Flyinmg Zodiac 601 HDS with Corvair |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Gpjann@aol.com
I have a flying 601HDs with Corvair engine.
Would be more than happy to discuss HDS and engine.
Email _gpjann@aol.com_ (mailto:gpjann@aol.com)
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Larry" <lrm01@centurytel.net>
BlankI added a couple of pages to my site about my new project. I =
thought some might find it interesting. More pages to come as I get =
done and time. www.skyhawg.com/sam1.html. =20
Update on the plane. Having a bunch of my airplane buddies over next =
Saturday for an unofficial inspection and brisket, then it's DAR time.
Larry Martin, www.skyhawg.com
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "ron wehba" <rwehba@cebridge.net>
hey larry, i had a sammy for a while, miss it and can't find another around
my area,bet yours is gonna get some strange looks at a hog rally.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry" <lrm01@centurytel.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 9:38 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: GroundHawg
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Larry" <lrm01@centurytel.net>
>
> BlankI added a couple of pages to my site about my new project. I =
> thought some might find it interesting. More pages to come as I get =
> done and time. www.skyhawg.com/sam1.html. =20
> Update on the plane. Having a bunch of my airplane buddies over next =
> Saturday for an unofficial inspection and brisket, then it's DAR time.
> Larry Martin, www.skyhawg.com
>
>
>
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: Zodiac 601 HDS and Corvair engine |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Brandon Tucker <btucke73@yahoo.com>
Snip:
>Re performance-- while I have heard that the cruse
and top speeds of
>XL and HDS are inflated I find them to be
conservative. I know of at
>least one local Jab powered XL that is probably
capable of 150 plus >mph WOT. Mine is slower than
that but not a lot. I cruse at >125-128 >mph and burn
about 4.3 gph.
Not splitting hairs here, but the Jab is capable
of putting out more than the 65 - 115 hp, which is why
WOT speed is high. Their test bed was the 80hp Rotax.
Your reported cruise speed is actually 7 mph slower
than their listed cruise speed (80 hp) at:
http://zenithair.com/zodiac/601-hds.html
While anything over 120 is good enough for me, I would
hesitate to call their 135 mph "conservative."
Respectfully,
Brandon
HDS Corvair
__________________________________________________
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: Zodiac 601 HDS and Corvair engine |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Brandon Tucker <btucke73@yahoo.com>
Snip:
>3. My basement workshop will allow me to assemble the
HDS fuselage >on it's gear and still be able to walk
around it. The XL would only allow >me access to 3
sides. Yes, the extra 12" makes that much difference.
The HDS center wing is much wider than the XL,
which made it more difficult to get around in my
garage. Mine would not fit in my garage once I built
the cowling, so I just removed the rudder until I was
ready to take it to the airport. What dimension of
the XL is 12" shorter than the HDS?
R/
Brandon
__________________________________________________
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: EMAproducts@aol.com
All right guys and gals, what do owners of Pitts Specials do, or many of the
other aerobatic planes?? The Zenith, from all engineering studies on tail
length, volume etc. should be a nice flying plane, should you shorten the tail
a foot or so maybe it would indeed be "twitchy".
Base your choice on statements from those with a variety of experience in
the similar aircraft, not Cessna, Pipers and so on. I've flown X-C in all
sorts of aircraft before autopilots were available and guess what ~~I'm still
here. Twitchy is not an engineering term to the best of my knowledge.
There wouldn't be so many Zenith aircraft built if they were "twitchy"~
(assuming that means impossible to hold on altitude & heading) I'm sure the
designer knows a lot more about designing than many who report on the twitchyness
do about handling characteristics.
That being said, are you building to fly with the auto pilot or to fly for
enjoyment?? I've got 25000 hours and still enjoy flying by hand, so what if I
have to go the awful task of changing the fuel tanks to keep in balance, or
moving the elevator trim as fuel burns off. This is part of flying.
Homebuilt aircraft are normally not as heavy on the controls as most
production aircraft, and the majority of pilots I fly with giving flight reviews
(CFI 40+ yrs) are not smooth on the controls unless they own their airplane and
fly at least every other week. ~~ hence "twitchy" feeling to them. Aircraft
should be flown with the fingertips for a smooth ride for pilot and
passengers.
The Pitts Special isn't a nasty flying aircraft, it does just exactly what
you tell it to, nothing more, nothing less. Knowing what to tell it is the
problem! Pilot Proficiency = Safety
Elbie
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave and Jan Clay" <dclaytx2@hotmail.com>
Speaking from a scratch builder's point of view I can say the flaps were
extremely easy to fabricate and assemble. Just finished mine last week.
Dave
601XL Plans builder
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk@alltel.net>
All-
Before I go farther, I'd like to say that I'd appreciate the owner =
reviews on the HF welder and comments from builders of more than one kit =
as to how the Zenith plans stack up I originally requested.
Flaps? Bottom line is, you depend on them if that's the way you =
were trained. Before there were such things as flaps, there was a =
technique known as the slip. I was taught to never rely on anything =
electrically powered. Partial panel training- how about ZERO panel?! =
Example:
You've had an electrical fire and had to pop all the breakers. The =
cockpit is full of smoke, you're flying in fog, and the only instrument =
you can see is the whiskey compass. How do you survive?
Use the fluid level in the whiskey compass as an ad-hoc artificial =
horizon. Shut off the engine(s) and secure the gas feed(s). Drop the =
nose and slip the plane right into the ground. The plane will be a mess =
unless you break out, you might spend time in the hospital, but you'll =
live to tell the story. This is an example of what JJ taught me, because =
he had to do it himself flying an Air Force C-54. He also pulled a Bob =
Hoover, taxiing up to within 200 ft of the main hangar after losing half =
a prop at the hub on a C-172 at 6000', then dead sticking it 13 miles to =
a field 1400' MSL.=20
JJ quit logging his time after he went over 40K hours. His wife =
recently died (She was also an instructor who taught me how to land a =
C-150 in a 35kt crosswind- we survived, but she was a nervous wreck) and =
I haven't seen him since last year, when we spent 2 hrs doing every =
maneuver legal in the same C-172 that lost the prop.
For me, flying is more people than hardware. I hope you all can =
experience the feeling you get when someone in the right seat grabs the =
stick/yoke and you KNOW he/she's the boss.
Bill
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: Zodiac 601 "twitchy" |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
I have not flown an HDS, but I have seen comments by multiple owners
suggesting you can't fly one cross country without an autopilot.
In that case we have given you the wong impression...You can fly one
cross country very easily, its just that it is more tuned to yanking and
banking rather than flat and level cross coutry.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Mulwitz
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Zodiac 601 "twitchy"
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz
--> <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
Hi Fritz,
By "Twitchy" I mean unstable. This is different from sensitive.
I have not flown an HDS, but I have seen comments by multiple owners
suggesting you can't fly one cross country without an autopilot.
Apparently every little bit of bump in the air throws it off from the
trimmed up attitude. I assume it doesn't return to the trimmed attitude
without help from the pilot or autopilot.
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: Zodiac 601 HDS and Corvair engine |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "jsimons2" <jsimons4@triad.rr.com>
Hi Brandon,
Yes, the center wing is wider on the HDS. However, the gear track (center to
center of wheels) on the XL is 84" (7'). Now if you add 3" to each wheel for
the rest of the tire and wheel pants............................. gee, you have
90". The same as the width of the center wing on the HDS. The length I was refering
to was the fuselage length, front of nose bowl to back edge of rudder.
The HDS is 19' long, the XL is 20'. My basement is approximately 21' long maybe
22' at the most. But it is about 15' wide. This gives me room for the aircraft
and my workbench without being pinched. Not as much room as I would like to
have, but it's enough. 8)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36978#36978
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: Flaps+Welder |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
Bill,
I built a MiniMax a couple of decades ago. I found the plans
flawless for that design.
My experience with last year's version of the XL prints is something
different. I have noticed many small inconsistencies and some just
plain errors in the drawings from Mexico, MO. I feel the
instructions are even worse. They often are off by several years
from the actual design in the prints. Furthermore, the instructions
are not well thought out. I have found the order of operations and
the methods of getting the parts properly installed leave a lot to be desired.
The worst example I have encountered caused me to destroy my first
wing. It calls for aligning the nose skin using the reference line
on the nose ribs. Unfortunately, only scratch builders have this
line available to them since it is a line on the forming block for
the nose ribs. The kit supplied parts do not have this line. I
tried to estimate where it belonged and made a 1/2 inch mistake that
cost me my wing spar. The mistake was mine, but the instructions
were involved in getting there.
All that said, there are some very positive things to say about the
XL kit too. All the parts are labeled with the drawing number and
some dimensions. That is a vast improvement over the MiniMax kit
where nothing was labeled and I needed to figure out which part was
which in the large pile of pieces. Also, the Zodiac design is much
better than the MiniMax (IMHO) and the sales documentation did a much
better job of describing the plane sufficiently to make a good
purchase choice. I stopped building the MiniMax after it was on its
wheels when I discovered my shoulders didn't fit in the
cockpit. After a year of building on the XL and a demo flight I am
still convinced it was the perfect choice of a design for me to build.
One last note on the XL drawings - I suspect what has happened is the
"Designer" has changed since Chris Heintz retired. The drawing pages
just show his name in the information block, but I am quite sure he
has not been doing the day to day changes for the last few
years. This explains (at least for me) both the inconsistencies in
the drawings and some of the parts that seem to be designed with a
completely different philosophy from the rest of the plane. An
example of the last notion is the flat outboard elevator trim tab
shown on my original prints which has since been changed to one with
the inset triangular shape consistent with the rest of the plane.
I am still willing to recommend the XL kit to anyone interested in
the same things as me when selecting a kit. These include: All
metal construction; Light Sport Aircraft qualification with maximum
performance allowed; significant design longevity indicating a safe
flying history; and reasonably good looking lines (unlike the Sonex
which I think is ugly). While the documentation package doesn't live
up to my fondest wishes, the difficulties that arise from the
shortcomings are not severe. I don't think any of them add up to
safety problems with the finished plane.
Paul
XL wings
do not archive
At 09:29 AM 5/28/2006, you wrote:
> Before I go farther, I'd like to say that I'd appreciate the owner =
>reviews on the HF welder and comments from builders of more than one kit =
>as to how the Zenith plans stack up I originally requested.
-
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk@alltel.net>
All-
My uncle is going to loan me his Lincoln stick welder to build the =
legs on my new bench, etc. so there's no rush. I've seen tons of owner =
reviews on other welders. Once again, I'm looking for reviews of the HF =
models. Good, bad, or go for something else. I'm looking at a purchase =
I'll have to live with for a long time. All input appreciated.
Bill
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Ron Hoskins" <r56c1@netzero.net>
Hey Bill...
It was years ago that I bought a HF welder and sent it back due to makin=
g low quality welds. I have also worn out a Daytona Mig welder that was =
better at welding sheet metal rather than heavey stuff. I now have a Mil=
ler 135 amp welder that works beautiful. It is 220 volt which helps make=
better welds. The Lincoln welders of the same size are very much the sa=
me. It depends on if you like blue or red... Once you have spent the =
extra money for a quality machine, it will be money well spent.
HF welders could be better now, but as with most all of there tools, you=
get what you pay for. =
Ron...
=
<html><P>Hey Bill...</P>
<P>It was years ago that I bought a HF welder and sent it back due to ma=
king low quality welds. I have also worn out a Daytona Mig welder that w=
as better at welding sheet metal rather than heavey stuff. I now have a =
Miller 135 amp welder that works beautiful. It is 220 volt which helps m=
ake better welds. The Lincoln welders of the same size are very much the=
same. It depends on if you like blue or red... Once y=
ou have spent the extra money for a quality machine, it will be money we=
ll spent.</P>
<P>HF welders could be better now, but as with most all of there tools, =
you get what you pay for. </P>
<P>Ron...</P>
<P> </P></html>
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
Bill,
If you have the perspective of wanting a good welder for service life,
I'd recommend you look
at the Miller line, specifically the EconoTIG. It's got a good range,
capacity and is based on
a good design. I believe it replaces or is equal to the Syncrowave 180
that I use. I really like
that machine for all round welding AC-DC and TIG.
http://www.millerwelds.com/products/tig/econotig/
Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Bill Naumuk wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk@alltel.net>
>
>All-
> My uncle is going to loan me his Lincoln stick welder to build the =
>legs on my new bench, etc. so there's no rush. I've seen tons of owner =
>reviews on other welders. Once again, I'm looking for reviews of the HF =
>models. Good, bad, or go for something else. I'm looking at a purchase =
>I'll have to live with for a long time. All input appreciated.
> Bill
>
>=====
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | First Flight G CBDG |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Clive Richards" <stephen@crichards.flyer.co.uk>
After 8 years work Ray Lasniers 601HD took its first flight today Sunday =
28 May at1320 Hrs from Sleap airfield.
601HD Rolls Royce Continental 0 200 Empty Weight 720 lbs will publish =
performance
details later.=20
The test pilot found a few minor problems for us =
to attend to, we need a trim=20
tab on the rudder as he had to hold right boot to balance at cruse, the =
elevator trim is insufficient,
we beleve this can be resolved by increasing travel.=20
We need a longer breather tube to remove oil vapor from engine =
compartment.
Three 20 minuite test flights were carried out and further testing will =
continue once we have attended
to minor problems.=20
do not archive
Clive Richards for Ray Lasnier
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: First Flight G CBDG |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com>
Congrats to you guys !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Clive Richards" <stephen@crichards.flyer.co.uk> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Clive Richards" <stephen@crichards.f=
lyer.co.uk>
After 8 years work Ray Lasniers 601HD took its first flight today Sunday=
=3D
28 May at1320 Hrs from Sleap airfield.
601HD Rolls Royce Continental 0 200 Empty Weight 720 lbs will publish =3D=
performance
details later.=3D20
The test pilot found a few minor problems for us =
=3D
to attend to, we need a trim=3D20
tab on the rudder as he had to hold right boot to balance at cruse, the =
=3D
elevator trim is insufficient,
we beleve this can be resolved by increasing travel.=3D20
We need a longer breather tube to remove oil vapor from engine =3D
compartment.
Three 20 minuite test flights were carried out and further testing will =
=3D
continue once we have attended
to minor problems.=3D20
do not archive
Clive Richards for Ray Lasnier
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=
=
=
<html><P>Congrats to you guys !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</P>
<P>do not archive<BR><BR><BR>Ben Haas<BR>N801BH<BR>www.haaspowerair=
.com<BR><BR>-- "Clive Richards" <stephen@crichards.fly=
er.co.uk> wrote:<BR>--> Zenith-List message po=
sted by: "Clive Richards" <stephen@crichards.flye=
r.co.uk><BR><BR>After 8 years work Ray Lasni=
ers 601HD took its first flight today =
;Sunday =3D<BR>28 May at1320 Hrs from Slea=
p airfield.<BR>601HD Rolls Royce Continental 0&=
nbsp;200 Empty Weight 720 lbs will publish=
=3D<BR>performance<BR>details later.=3D20<BR> &nbs=
p; &nbs=
p; The test pil=
ot found a few minor problems for us&=
nbsp;=3D<BR>to attend to, we need a trim=3D=
20<BR>tab on the rudder as he had to&=
nbsp;hold right boot to balance at cruse,&=
nbsp;the =3D<BR>elevator trim is insufficient,<BR>&n=
bsp;we beleve this can be resolved by =
;increasing travel.=3D20<BR>We need a longer br=
eather tube to remove oil vapor from =
engine =3D<BR>compartment.<BR>Three 20 minuite test&=
nbsp;flights were carried out and further =
testing will =3D<BR>continue once we have =
attended<BR>to minor problems.=3D20<BR><BR>do not ar=
chive<BR>Clive Richards for Ray Lasnier<BR><BR><BR><=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
- The Zenith-List Ema=
;many List utilities such as the Subscript=
sp; &nb=
sp; &nb=
sp; &nb=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
- NEW MATRONICS LIST W=
p; &nbs=
p; &nbs=
p; &nbs=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
sp; &nb=
; Thank you for your generous suppor=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; -Matt Dralle, L=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR><BR><BR><BR> <B=
R> <BR> <BR><BR><BR><BR></P></html>
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: | Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
I have all my rudder parts built as per plans. I did a
test fit clamping the ribs to the spar and rib #7 and
#8 (6T4-7 and 6T4-8) are narrower right where it meet
the spar. My rudder spar is within .5 millimeter
accurate from top to bottom. According to the plans,
rib #2 is 340 mm and #3 is 590 mm from the beginning
of the doublers, that are 30 mm extended from the
bottom of the spar.
The width of the spar at the point where rib #2 should
be located is 91 mm however, the plans call for rib #2
to be 88 mm in its wide side (projected). Im getting
exactly 1.5 mm difference in each side between the
flange of rib #2 and the flange of the spar. For rib
#3 the difference is 2 mm in each side. I presented a
piece of .016 skin and this difference would be
noticeable. My rudder spar flange has the correct
angle. I even presented the ribs in a drawing template
of the spar that is 100% accurate with the plans
dimensions and still getting this difference.
If I slide up the ribs to the point where they fit
correctly, #2 would have moved 35 mm and #3 would have
moved 80 mm.
I searched the archives and no one has had this
problem so I dont know what to do. It seems that I
might misinterpreted the plans but I cant see where.
I have measured my parts several times and they are
accurate with the plans.
Any thoughts?
William Dominguez
Plansbuilt Zodiac 601XL
Working on the rudder
__________________________________________________
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: | this "twitchy" nonsense |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff Small" <zodiacjeff@msn.com>
>I have not flown an HDS, but I have seen comments by multiple owners=20
>suggesting you can't fly one cross country without an=20
>autopilot. Apparently every little bit of bump in the air throws it=20
>off from the trimmed up attitude. I assume it doesn't return to the=20
>trimmed attitude without help from the pilot or autopilot.
Absolute horsehockey!!! If it "doesn't return to trimmed attitude" then =
the a/c demonstrates unstable pitch attitude. Any kit/plans a/c with =
that problem wouldn't have much of a following.
With probably 10,000 miles of cross country in my HDS and even though I =
have a Navaid, I still fly most of it on the good old center Y.
The a/c is neutral in pitch stability. Trim for level flight and put a =
5 pound (estimated) pull or push on the stick and you'll be flying level =
in no more than three oscillations. I agree with Larry M. about rough =
air, with the short span and reduced wing area an HDS is far better than =
comparable spam cans that we've all learned in.
Paul, I've noticed that you have an opinion and post on every topic that =
comes up, but you rarely have hard documentation to bear out those =
opinions. It borders on the irresponsible to post opinions when others =
are searching for facts. You like the combination you built and it =
serves you well, any aviation lover would pat you on the back for that. =
Just keep in mind that what works for you might not fit the mission for =
others, and opinions that are plucked out of the air do nothing for any =
of us.
So Jerome, while this list is a treasure of help and motivation, you =
must read the answers with a cautious eye. Who knows, sometimes you'll =
run into old curmudgeons like me.
Regards jeff Oscillations=20
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: Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Afterfxllc@aol.com
did you extend your doublers behond the spar by 30 mm? If not that is your
problem.
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: | this "twitchy" nonsense |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Phil Maxson" <pmaxpmax@hotmail.com>
Jeff's right. There's nothing "twitchy" about the 601XL or the HDS the two
models I've flown. They are both sound, stable, easy flying machines. If
you are used to a 152 or a 172 you will find them much more responsive.
Regarding Paul's posts: I have benefitted greatly from the comments of many
members of this list. There are some excellent people here that are willing
to help. They generally can be found posting with a positive attitude, and
the sense of "can do" spirit. Pauls posts haven't yet risen to that level.
I hope they will in the future. Until then, I'll do my best to keep it
positive and only post information that I have obtained first hand. And
I'll only listen to those who are helpful.
Phil Maxson
601XL/Corvair
N601MX
Northwest New Jersey
>From: "Jeff Small" <zodiacjeff@msn.com>
>Subject: Zenith-List: this "twitchy" nonsense
>Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 17:44:51 -0400
>
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff Small" <zodiacjeff@msn.com>
>
> >I have not flown an HDS, but I have seen comments by multiple owners=20
> >suggesting you can't fly one cross country without an=20
> >autopilot. Apparently every little bit of bump in the air throws it=20
> >off from the trimmed up attitude. I assume it doesn't return to the=20
> >trimmed attitude without help from the pilot or autopilot.
>
>Absolute horsehockey!!! If it "doesn't return to trimmed attitude" then =
>the a/c demonstrates unstable pitch attitude. Any kit/plans a/c with =
>that problem wouldn't have much of a following.
>
>With probably 10,000 miles of cross country in my HDS and even though I =
>have a Navaid, I still fly most of it on the good old center Y.
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
William,
You might shim your form a bit and stretch out the rib width or consider
shims. It's not uncommon to
have to add shims between rib and skins to get perfect skin alignments.
In your case, the difference could
be had by reforming your ribs a little. Better to reform than shim if
it's possible.
Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
William Dominguez wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>
>I have all my rudder parts built as per plans. I did a
>test fit clamping the ribs to the spar and rib #7 and
>#8 (6T4-7 and 6T4-8) are narrower right where it meet
>the spar. My rudder spar is within .5 millimeter
>accurate from top to bottom. According to the plans,
>rib #2 is 340 mm and #3 is 590 mm from the beginning
>of the doublers, that are 30 mm extended from the
>bottom of the spar.
>
>The width of the spar at the point where rib #2 should
>be located is 91 mm however, the plans call for rib #2
>to be 88 mm in its wide side (projected). Im getting
>exactly 1.5 mm difference in each side between the
>flange of rib #2 and the flange of the spar. For rib
>#3 the difference is 2 mm in each side. I presented a
>piece of .016 skin and this difference would be
>noticeable. My rudder spar flange has the correct
>angle. I even presented the ribs in a drawing template
>of the spar that is 100% accurate with the plans
>dimensions and still getting this difference.
>
>If I slide up the ribs to the point where they fit
>correctly, #2 would have moved 35 mm and #3 would have
>moved 80 mm.
>
>I searched the archives and no one has had this
>problem so I dont know what to do. It seems that I
>might misinterpreted the plans but I cant see where.
>
>I have measured my parts several times and they are
>accurate with the plans.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>William Dominguez
>Plansbuilt Zodiac 601XL
>Working on the rudder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
Yes.
William Dominguez
Plansbuilt Zodiac 601XL
--- Afterfxllc@aol.com wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by:
> Afterfxllc@aol.com
>
> did you extend your doublers behond the spar by 30
> mm? If not that is your
> problem.
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
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: Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
Thanks. What do you mean by reforming?
By shim, do you mean adding material as spacer?
William Dominguez
Plansbuilt Zodiac 601XL
--- LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com> wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland
> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>
> William,
> You might shim your form a bit and stretch out the
> rib width or consider
> shims. It's not uncommon to
> have to add shims between rib and skins to get
> perfect skin alignments.
> In your case, the difference could
> be had by reforming your ribs a little. Better to
> reform than shim if
> it's possible.
>
> Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
> William Dominguez wrote:
>
> >--> Zenith-List message posted by: William
> Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
> >
> >I have all my rudder parts built as per plans. I
> did a
> >test fit clamping the ribs to the spar and rib #7
> and
> >#8 (6T4-7 and 6T4-8) are narrower right where it
> meet
> >the spar. My rudder spar is within .5 millimeter
> >accurate from top to bottom. According to the
> plans,
> >rib #2 is 340 mm and #3 is 590 mm from the
> beginning
> >of the doublers, that are 30 mm extended from the
> >bottom of the spar.
> >
> >The width of the spar at the point where rib #2
> should
> >be located is 91 mm however, the plans call for rib
> #2
> >to be 88 mm in its wide side (projected). Im
> getting
> >exactly 1.5 mm difference in each side between the
> >flange of rib #2 and the flange of the spar. For
> rib
> >#3 the difference is 2 mm in each side. I presented
> a
> >piece of .016 skin and this difference would be
> >noticeable. My rudder spar flange has the correct
> >angle. I even presented the ribs in a drawing
> template
> >of the spar that is 100% accurate with the plans
> >dimensions and still getting this difference.
> >
> >If I slide up the ribs to the point where they fit
> >correctly, #2 would have moved 35 mm and #3 would
> have
> >moved 80 mm.
> >
> >I searched the archives and no one has had this
> >problem so I dont know what to do. It seems that I
> >might misinterpreted the plans but I cant see
> where.
> >
> >I have measured my parts several times and they are
> >accurate with the plans.
> >
> >Any thoughts?
> >
> >William Dominguez
> >Plansbuilt Zodiac 601XL
> >Working on the rudder
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
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: Zodiac 601 "twitchy" |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Fothergill <mfothergill@sympatico.ca>
I wonder how I ever managed to fly from Toronto to Florida???
You can trim it to hands off. No problem.
Mike
UHS Spinners
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> I have not flown an HDS, but I have seen comments by multiple owners
> suggesting you can't fly one cross country without an autopilot.
>
> In that case we have given you the wong impression...You can fly one
> cross country very easily, its just that it is more tuned to yanking and
> banking rather than flat and level cross coutry.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> Mulwitz
> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 8:55 AM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Zodiac 601 "twitchy"
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz
> --> <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
>
> Hi Fritz,
>
> By "Twitchy" I mean unstable. This is different from sensitive.
>
> I have not flown an HDS, but I have seen comments by multiple owners
> suggesting you can't fly one cross country without an autopilot.
> Apparently every little bit of bump in the air throws it off from the
> trimmed up attitude. I assume it doesn't return to the trimmed attitude
> without help from the pilot or autopilot.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
William,
If you've got the forms you used to bend the rib/flanges, you could re
cut the form and spread the rib
outward some and re-bend the rib to pick up the 1.5mm. Or you could
just remake the ribs with new
forms. You're only talking small parts and an hour and a half at most.
I misspoke on the shims because
the skin material is too thin to accept the shift from shim to rib
flange. I have 3 shims on my center section
ribs that are tapered to nothing to gain precise support and alignment
of the skin from rib to rib, but the
skins are thicker.
Larry McFarland
William Dominguez wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>
>Thanks. What do you mean by reforming?
>
>By shim, do you mean adding material as spacer?
>
>William Dominguez
>Plansbuilt Zodiac 601XL
>
>--- LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland
>><larry@macsmachine.com>
>>
>>William,
>>You might shim your form a bit and stretch out the
>>rib width or consider
>>shims. It's not uncommon to
>>have to add shims between rib and skins to get
>>perfect skin alignments.
>>In your case, the difference could
>>be had by reforming your ribs a little. Better to
>>reform than shim if
>>it's possible.
>>
>>Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Tom and Bren Henderson <admin@arachnidrobotics.com>
You must come from the same type of fabrication background I did William. I
made the exact same mistake you did when I first began my project.
The 88mm dimension on Rib #2 is NOT the width of the rib. It's the width
of the rib's FORMING BLOCK. If you add two materials (roughly 0.8 mm) and account
for spring-back during forming you will end up with a 91mm wide rib, or very
nearly so. As I formed these on a CNC brake, the forming block dimension
didn't even register in my head. I have since added 1.5 mm to each dimension
when omitting the forming blocks. Everything has fit well since then.
I sent an email to Zenith months ago regarding this very subject. I was informed
that many of the dimensions are to the limits of the forming blocks, and
not the parts themselves. I find this to be very in-exact and confusing at
times, but manageable.
It would pay DOUBLE my plans price to receive fully dimensioned prints from
Zenith with the FINISHED dimensions depicted. When I began laying out the parts
in Solidworks (3D CAD) to throw at the CNC punches and lasers, I had no end
of compounding calculations to arrive at the finished product.
I'm hoping one day that Chris at Zenith actually reads some of these posts
and shells out the $ for a professional to re-work the drawings. Heck, I'd offer
mine if I thought he'd take them. lol Anyway, I hope this helped you.
William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com> wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted by:
William Dominguez
I have all my rudder parts built as per plans. I did a
test fit clamping the ribs to the spar and rib #7 and
#8 (6T4-7 and 6T4-8) are narrower right where it meet
the spar. My rudder spar is within .5 millimeter
accurate from top to bottom. According to the plans,
rib #2 is 340 mm and #3 is 590 mm from the beginning
of the doublers, that are 30 mm extended from the
bottom of the spar.
The width of the spar at the point where rib #2 should
be located is 91 mm however, the plans call for rib #2
to be 88 mm in its wide side (projected). Im getting
exactly 1.5 mm difference in each side between the
flange of rib #2 and the flange of the spar. For rib
#3 the difference is 2 mm in each side. I presented a
piece of .016 skin and this difference would be
noticeable. My rudder spar flange has the correct
angle. I even presented the ribs in a drawing template
of the spar that is 100% accurate with the plans
dimensions and still getting this difference.
If I slide up the ribs to the point where they fit
correctly, #2 would have moved 35 mm and #3 would have
moved 80 mm.
I searched the archives and no one has had this
problem so I dont know what to do. It seems that I
might misinterpreted the plans but I cant see where.
I have measured my parts several times and they are
accurate with the plans.
Any thoughts?
William Dominguez
Plansbuilt Zodiac 601XL
Working on the rudder
__________________________________________________
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Zenith-List:first hand infomation |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Roger <rspritchard@earthlink.net>
Phil,
I am looking for some of that first hand information about mounting the nosebowl.
How far
behind the front face of the prop hub should it be? I just received a WW nosebowl
that
will go around a WW type prop hub.
Thank you for any help,
Roger Pritchard
601XL/Corvair
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Maxson <pmaxpmax@hotmail.com>
Until then, I'll do my best to keep it
positive and only post information that I have obtained first hand. And
I'll only listen to those who are helpful.
Phil Maxson
601XL/Corvair
N601MX
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
Thanks. My forming block is 88mm. But I used the
bending brake only to pre-bend the part, then I used
the mallet to complete the bend and the part came up
just a fraction of millimeter bigger than the forming
block.
Thanks. My forming block is 88mm. But I used the
bending brake only to pre-bend the part, then I used
the mallet to complete the bend and the part came up
just a fraction of millimeter bigger than the forming
block.
Right now Im leaning toward remaking the parts
completely using new forming blocks with the right
dimensions.
William Dominguez
Plansbuilt Zodiac 601XL
--- Tom and Bren Henderson
<admin@arachnidrobotics.com> wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Tom and Bren
> Henderson <admin@arachnidrobotics.com>
>
> You must come from the same type of fabrication
> background I did William. I made the exact same
> mistake you did when I first began my project.
>
> The 88mm dimension on Rib #2 is NOT the width
> of the rib. It's the width of the rib's FORMING
> BLOCK. If you add two materials (roughly 0.8 mm)
> and account for spring-back during forming you will
> end up with a 91mm wide rib, or very nearly so. As
> I formed these on a CNC brake, the forming block
> dimension didn't even register in my head. I have
> since added 1.5 mm to each dimension when omitting
> the forming blocks. Everything has fit well since
> then.
>
> I sent an email to Zenith months ago regarding
> this very subject. I was informed that many of the
> dimensions are to the limits of the forming blocks,
> and not the parts themselves. I find this to be
> very in-exact and confusing at times, but
> manageable.
>
> It would pay DOUBLE my plans price to receive
> fully dimensioned prints from Zenith with the
> FINISHED dimensions depicted. When I began laying
> out the parts in Solidworks (3D CAD) to throw at the
> CNC punches and lasers, I had no end of compounding
> calculations to arrive at the finished product.
>
> I'm hoping one day that Chris at Zenith
> actually reads some of these posts and shells out
> the $ for a professional to re-work the drawings.
> Heck, I'd offer mine if I thought he'd take them.
> lol Anyway, I hope this helped you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com> wrote: -->
> Zenith-List message posted by: William Dominguez
>
> I have all my rudder parts built as per plans. I did
> a
> test fit clamping the ribs to the spar and rib #7
> and
> #8 (6T4-7 and 6T4-8) are narrower right where it
> meet
> the spar. My rudder spar is within .5 millimeter
> accurate from top to bottom. According to the plans,
> rib #2 is 340 mm and #3 is 590 mm from the
> beginning
> of the doublers, that are 30 mm extended from the
> bottom of the spar.
>
> The width of the spar at the point where rib #2
> should
> be located is 91 mm however, the plans call for rib
> #2
> to be 88 mm in its wide side (projected). Im getting
> exactly 1.5 mm difference in each side between the
> flange of rib #2 and the flange of the spar. For rib
> #3 the difference is 2 mm in each side. I presented
> a
> piece of .016 skin and this difference would be
> noticeable. My rudder spar flange has the correct
> angle. I even presented the ribs in a drawing
> template
> of the spar that is 100% accurate with the plans
> dimensions and still getting this difference.
>
> If I slide up the ribs to the point where they fit
> correctly, #2 would have moved 35 mm and #3 would
> have
> moved 80 mm.
>
> I searched the archives and no one has had this
> problem so I dont know what to do. It seems that I
> might misinterpreted the plans but I cant see where.
>
> I have measured my parts several times and they are
> accurate with the plans.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> William Dominguez
> Plansbuilt Zodiac 601XL
> Working on the rudder
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hewett Properties" <hewettproperties@cox.net>
Did you build the spar closed 5.5 degrees?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Dominguez
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 4:30 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Rudder Rib #7 and #8 Underfitting in Spar
--> Zenith-List message posted by: William Dominguez
--> <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
I have all my rudder parts built as per plans. I did a
test fit clamping the ribs to the spar and rib #7 and
#8 (6T4-7 and 6T4-8) are narrower right where it meet
the spar. My rudder spar is within .5 millimeter
accurate from top to bottom. According to the plans,
rib #2 is 340 mm and #3 is 590 mm from the beginning
of the doublers, that are 30 mm extended from the
bottom of the spar.
The width of the spar at the point where rib #2 should
be located is 91 mm however, the plans call for rib #2
to be 88 mm in its wide side (projected). Im getting
exactly 1.5 mm difference in each side between the
flange of rib #2 and the flange of the spar. For rib
#3 the difference is 2 mm in each side. I presented a
piece of .016 skin and this difference would be
noticeable. My rudder spar flange has the correct
angle. I even presented the ribs in a drawing template
of the spar that is 100% accurate with the plans
dimensions and still getting this difference.
If I slide up the ribs to the point where they fit
correctly, #2 would have moved 35 mm and #3 would have
moved 80 mm.
I searched the archives and no one has had this
problem so I dont know what to do. It seems that I
might misinterpreted the plans but I cant see where.
I have measured my parts several times and they are
accurate with the plans.
Any thoughts?
William Dominguez
Plansbuilt Zodiac 601XL
Working on the rudder
__________________________________________________
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Zenith-List:first hand infomation |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: N5SL <nfivesl@yahoo.com>
Roger:
Here's some firsthand information. Two hours ago I
installed my WW nosebowl for the Umpteenth time
getting a fit-up measurement for an exhaust manifold
I'm making. If you plan to use the Van's spinner WW
recommends, go ahead and order the kit from Vans.
Since it comes with a large, round rear bulkhead to
mount the spinner, you can slide this over the prop
hub center (it's a tight fit) and this will show you
exactly how far you need to put the nose bowl past the
front of the hub.
If you cut the hole exactly the size of the prop hub,
it will fit tightly to allow alignment. It's a
standard hole saw size you can get at Lowes (I forget
what size). Measure your prop hub. Gus told me he
uses a piece of plywood with a 7/8" spacer to align
everything. This is about right from what I've seen
of the spinner rear bulkhead. This will also keep
everything nice and square with the engine centerline
I hope this was helpful.
Scott Laughlin
www.cooknwithgas.com
--- Roger <rspritchard@earthlink.net> wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Roger
> <rspritchard@earthlink.net>
>
>
> Phil,
>
> I am looking for some of that first hand information
> about mounting the nosebowl.
__________________________________________________
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Zenith-List:first hand infomation |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Roger <rspritchard@earthlink.net>
Scott,
It is, thank you very much.
Roger
>I hope this was helpful.
>
>Scott
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Opinions vs. Facts |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
Gee Jeff,
Your personal attack on me sounds more like an opinion than a fact to
me. I guess it is OK for you to express your opinion but not OK for
me. At least I am careful to label my opinions as such rather than
claiming I have sole possession of the TRUTH like you do.
If you think this email list is only for facts, than I feel sorry for
you. Many of the so-called facts I come across here are just plain wrong.
I thought this list was a place for us all to express opinions and
exchange ideas. I'm sorry if you think that applies to you and not me.
Let me apologize for making a personal comment. I try to avoid that
here and elsewhere. I have found too many people who think the best
way to deal with someone who you might disagree with is to make
personal attacks.
Paul
do not archive
>Paul, I've noticed that you have an opinion and post on every topic that =
>comes up, but you rarely have hard documentation to bear out those =
>opinions. It borders on the irresponsible to post opinions when others =
>are searching for facts. You like the combination you built and it =
>serves you well, any aviation lover would pat you on the back for that. =
>Just keep in mind that what works for you might not fit the mission for =
>others, and opinions that are plucked out of the air do nothing for any =
>of us.
-
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! --
|