Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:02 AM - PVC pipe (Tom and Bren Henderson)
2. 02:31 AM - Re: PVC pipe (Paul Mulwitz)
3. 04:42 AM - Re: Wing Wiring (Edward Moody II)
4. 04:42 AM - Basket Weaving 101 (Zed Smith)
5. 04:56 AM - Re: PVC pipe (Edward Moody II)
6. 05:17 AM - Re: Wing Wiring (Noel Loveys)
7. 05:23 AM - Re: PVC pipe (Noel Loveys)
8. 06:12 AM - Re: Gauges (n801bh@netzero.com)
9. 06:12 AM - Re: PVC pipe (VideoFlyer@aol.com)
10. 07:15 AM - Re: Gauges (Frank Roskind)
11. 07:27 AM - Re: Wing Wiring (Frank Roskind)
12. 07:27 AM - Re: PVC pipe (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
13. 08:03 AM - Re: Wing Wiring (Paul Mulwitz)
14. 08:42 AM - Re: PVC pipe (Graham Kirby)
15. 09:21 AM - Re: PVC pipe (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
16. 09:25 AM - John - Say it ain't so! (Craig Moore)
17. 09:29 AM - Re: PVC pipe (Randy L. Thwing)
18. 09:50 AM - Re: John - Say it isn't so! (Craig Moore)
19. 09:59 AM - Re: John - Say it ain't so! (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
20. 10:00 AM - Re: Basket Weaving 101 (John Anderson)
21. 10:18 AM - Re: Rivets: Update on where to buy (ken smith)
22. 10:18 AM - Re: PVC pipe (Frank Stutzman)
23. 10:30 AM - Checking XL parts (Jaybannist@cs.com)
24. 12:46 PM - Re: Checking XL parts ()
25. 01:49 PM - Re: John - Not again ! (JAPhillipsGA@aol.com)
26. 01:50 PM - vw engine (Bill Flick)
27. 02:29 PM - Re: John - Not again ! (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
28. 02:29 PM - Re: Checking XL parts (Tom and Bren Henderson)
29. 03:01 PM - Re: vw engine (LarryMcFarland)
30. 03:12 PM - Still need some more (Bill Naumuk)
31. 03:16 PM - Re: Basket Weaving 101 (Bill Naumuk)
32. 03:29 PM - Re: Checking XL parts (Bill Naumuk)
33. 03:30 PM - Re: Checking XL parts ()
34. 03:36 PM - Re: vw engine (Bill Naumuk)
35. 04:29 PM - Re: Still need some more (Bill Steer)
36. 04:38 PM - Re: Checking XL parts (Robin Bellach)
37. 04:47 PM - Re: Checking XL parts (cleonard52@comcast.net)
38. 04:55 PM - Re: vw engine (Kemter)
39. 05:27 PM - Re: John - Not again ! (Chuck Deiterich)
40. 05:37 PM - Re: Checking XL parts (Paul Mulwitz)
41. 05:56 PM - Re: Checking XL parts (Tom and Bren Henderson)
42. 05:56 PM - Fuel system poser (fred sanford)
43. 06:14 PM - Re: Checking XL parts (Jim Pellien)
44. 06:25 PM - source for gas springs (Dave Thompson)
45. 06:40 PM - Re: Checking XL parts (Tom and Bren Henderson)
46. 06:40 PM - Re: Checking XL parts (Bryan Martin)
47. 07:40 PM - Jon Croke unfortunate incident again (Zodie Rocket)
48. 07:52 PM - Re: Checking XL parts (Paul Mulwitz)
49. 08:05 PM - Re: Fuel system poser (Mike Sinclair)
50. 08:05 PM - Re: Checking XL parts (Ron Lendon)
51. 08:23 PM - fuel sender (mikeandlaurie3@netzero.net)
52. 08:23 PM - Re: Wing Wiring (george may)
53. 08:48 PM - E-LSA airworthiness certificates. (Paul Mulwitz)
54. 09:28 PM - Re: fuel sender (Paul Mulwitz)
55. 10:15 PM - Re: Checking XL parts (plans building) LONG (can delete) (Gary Gower)
56. 10:17 PM - Re: CH701 wing strut attachement vs. Savannah accident (Gary Gower)
57. 11:06 PM - Longeron bending question (LHusky@aol.com)
58. 11:34 PM - Re: Checking XL parts (plans building) LONG (can delete) (Tom and Bren Henderson)
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 |
|
With the few restrictions we have here in the US on homebuilt aircraft, PVC
pipe can be found in many flying aircraft. for the most part (I'm sure SOMEONE
will post something to the contrary) local regulations don't exist that govern
what materials we build from. (Last I checked the Resin used in composite
craft was pretty nasty stuff too).
If you're out to save the world (not a bad thing for any of us to do I suppose),
you could look into Polyethylene pipe instead of PVC. Then again, you
could also weave one from hemp grown in your own back yard if that blows your
skirt up. It's all in what extreme you want to take it to. Just my two pennies
worth...
Peter Dunning <peterd@metec.co.nz> wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted by: Peter
Dunning
Graham/Michael,
With respect, and wishing to make sure you don't tred on the toes of
officialdom, it may be prudent to check that any applicable fire
ratings for PVC usage are observed. I recall PVC burns with toxic gas
emissions. Other listers may be better aware of any local constraints.
cheers
Peter Dunning
CH601HD
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:28 PM
Michael,
You can always use lightweight PVC conduit to be sure that the wiring stays
in a safe place. I attached mine to brackets on the ribs with adel clamps.
The big benefit is that you can postpone the wiring until later in the
build. It's also very easy to change wires without unzipping the wing skin.
(Photo Attached)
Graham Kirby.
601HD
Listers -
Is there anything wrong with having the wiring go through the same
lightening holes that the control cables will run through as long as they
are kept to the edge? This would include strobe/nav, taxi/landing, and
aileron trim cables (and probably tubing for an AOA). Just thought this
might be easier than drilling a grommet hole, but obviously I don't want to
interfere with the cables.
Thanks, Michael
Still finishing the first wing.
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: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
One more comment on this "Off the wall" topic: Perhaps the most
dangerous material used in any airplane or house is polyurethane
foam. In airplanes (virtually all planes including airliners) this
foam is used in the seats. In residential buildings (and commercial
ones too) it is used in nearly all pieces of furniture that is not
just bare metal or wood or plastic. It is also used to prop up most
floor carpeting. When this material is burned it generates huge
quantities of HCN - you guessed it folks, Hydrogen Cyanide - one of
the deadliest gasses known to man. It is the cyanide that kills most
folks in fires.
do not archive
Paul
XL fuselage
At 12:00 AM 6/29/2006, you wrote:
> With the few restrictions we have here in the US on homebuilt
> aircraft, PVC pipe can be found in many flying aircraft. for the
> most part (I'm sure SOMEONE will post something to the contrary)
> local regulations don't exist that govern what materials we build
> from. (Last I checked the Resin used in composite craft was pretty
> nasty stuff too).
> If you're out to save the world (not a bad thing for any of us
> to do I suppose), you could look into Polyethylene pipe instead of
> PVC. Then again, you could also weave one from hemp grown in your
> own back yard if that blows your skirt up. It's all in what
> extreme you want to take it to. Just my two pennies worth...
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Edward Moody II" <dredmoody@cox.net>
Nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell. I chose to use thin wall .5"
I.D. aluminum tubing for conduit. I suspended it from .025 aluminum strips
with a rubber grommet for the tubing. The strips are attached to the rear
ribs with 2 A4 rivets each and they hold the conduit suspended in the
forward lightening hole. At each end I used about 4 inches of .5" O.D. clear
fuel line split and wrapped around the bundle of wires to prevent chafing at
the edge of the conduit. Probably more complicated than it needs to be but I
won't ever worry about how things are going inside that wing and I can pull
new wire if I ever want to.
Ed
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Michael Valentine"
> <mgvalentine@gmail.com>
>
> Is there anything wrong with having the wiring go through the same
> lightening holes that the control cables will run through as long as
> they are kept to the edge? This would include strobe/nav,
> taxi/landing, and aileron trim cables (and probably tubing for an
> AOA). Just thought this might be easier than drilling a grommet hole,
> but obviously I don't want to interfere with the cables.
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: | Basket Weaving 101 |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Zed Smith <zsmith3rd@earthlink.net>
Hemp.
Now there's an original idea.
I usually get to the office early to check this List and fumble through paperwork.
The conduit woven from hemp was an eye-opener.
Thanks for the smile!
Absolutely do not archive!
Zed
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Edward Moody II" <dredmoody@cox.net>
Gee... glad I used the thinwall aluminum for conduit.
Ed
Do Not Archive
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz
> <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
>
When this material is burned it generates huge
> quantities of HCN - you guessed it folks, Hydrogen Cyanide - one of the
> deadliest gasses known to man. It is the cyanide that kills most folks in
> fires.
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
AC43 recommends this:
11-125. MOVABLE CONTROLS WIRING PRECAUTIONS.
Clamping of wires routed near movable flight controls must be attached with
steel hardware and must be spaced so that failure of a single attachment
point can not result in interference with controls. The minimum separation
between wiring and movable controls must be at least 1/2 inch when the
bundle is displaced by light hand pressure in the direction of the controls.
I take this to mean that if your wire bundle is passing through the same
lightening holes as your flight controls it should be clamped in such a way
it won't touch the edges of the lightening holes or come close to movable
flight controls. The cable should not move any more than 1/2" with light
hand pressure between any two clamps.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michael Valentine
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 1:07 AM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Wing Wiring
>
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Michael Valentine"
> <mgvalentine@gmail.com>
>
> Listers -
>
> Is there anything wrong with having the wiring go through the same
> lightening holes that the control cables will run through as long as
> they are kept to the edge? This would include strobe/nav,
> taxi/landing, and aileron trim cables (and probably tubing for an
> AOA). Just thought this might be easier than drilling a grommet hole,
> but obviously I don't want to interfere with the cables.
>
> Thanks, Michael
> Still finishing the first wing.
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
PVC pipe long enough o go form the wing tip to the root and wide enough
to
slide wire through would be heavier than a few clamps. Pre wire the
wing
with clamps. Doing it that way will also allow for a bit more heat
dissipation... hope you won't need that.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom and
Bren
Henderson
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:31 AM
With the few restrictions we have here in the US on homebuilt
aircraft,
PVC pipe can be found in many flying aircraft. for the most part (I'm
sure
SOMEONE will post something to the contrary) local regulations don't
exist
that govern what materials we build from. (Last I checked the Resin
used in
composite craft was pretty nasty stuff too).
If you're out to save the world (not a bad thing for any of us to do
I
suppose), you could look into Polyethylene pipe instead of PVC. Then
again,
you could also weave one from hemp grown in your own back yard if that
blows
your skirt up. It's all in what extreme you want to take it to. Just
my
two pennies worth...
Peter Dunning <peterd@metec.co.nz> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Peter Dunning
Graham/Michael,
With respect, and wishing to make sure you don't tred on the toes of
officialdom, it may be prudent to check that any applicable fire
ratings for PVC usage are observed. I recall PVC burns with toxic gas
emissions. Other listers may be better aware of any local constraints.
cheers
Peter Dunning
CH601HD
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:28 PM
Michael,
You can always use lightweight PVC conduit to be sure that the wiring
stays
in a safe place. I attached mine to brackets on the ribs with adel
clamps.
The big benefit is that you can postpone the wiring until later in the
build. It's also very easy to change wires without unzipping the wing
skin.
(Photo Attached)
Graham Kirby.
601HD
Listers -
Is there anything wrong with having the wiring go through the same
lightening holes that the control cables will run through as
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 |
|
I Agree !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I assembled my panel and"complete" it weig
hed in at 43 lbs..
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Jari Kaija" <jari.kaija@pp.inet.fi> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jari Kaija" <jari.kaija@pp.inet.fi>
I can't wait, that I get my plane ready to fly :)
It was surprising, how much this instrument panel weights.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=43687#43687
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/news_dsc03791_673.jpg
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
<html><P>I Agree !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I assembled m
y panel and"complete" it weighed in at 43 lbs.. </P>
<P>do not archive<BR><BR><BR>Ben Haas<BR>N801BH<BR>www.haaspowerair
.com<BR><BR>-- "Jari Kaija" <jari.kaija@pp.inet.fi>
wrote:<BR>--> Zenith-List message posted by
: "Jari Kaija" <jari.kaija@pp.inet.fi><BR><BR>I&nbs
p;can't wait, that I get my plane rea
dy to fly :)<BR><BR>It was surprising,&nb
sp;how much this instrument panel weights.<BR><
BR><BR><BR><BR>Read this topic online here:<BR><BR>h
ttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=43687#43687<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<BR>Attachments: <BR><BR>http://forums.matronics.com//files/news_ds
========================
========================
p;Use the Matronics List Features Navigator&nbs
hive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse,
========================
sp; -&n
sp;out the All New Matronics Email List&nb
nbsp; &
nbsp; &
nbsp; &
========================
========================
- List Contribution&
p; &nbs
p; &nbs
========================
========================
=====<BR><BR><BR><BR> <BR> <BR> <BR></P></html>
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 |
|
I used the clear safety tubing that goes over fluoresent light bulbs. It's
supposed to contain the glass in the event of breakage. It's transparent, much
lighter than PVC and it's cheaper, too. I found it at Home Depot.
Dave
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Frank Roskind" <frankroskind@hotmail.com>
This brings to mind a question I have had for quite a while. Is there a
source for installed weights of various instruments and radios?
I Agree !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I assembled my panel and"complete" it weighed
in at 43 lbs..
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Jari Kaija" <jari.kaija@pp.inet.fi> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jari Kaija" <jari.kaija@pp.inet.fi>
I can't wait, that I get my plane ready to fly :)
It was surprising, how much this instrument panel weights.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=43687#43687
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/news_dsc03791_673.jpg
===================================
===================================
===================================
===================================
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: "Frank Roskind" <frankroskind@hotmail.com>
I think the important thing here is that the FAA wants to avoid a potential
single point failure which could lead to a loss of control. Thus they want
TWO or more clamps, with no single point failure mode. This makes a lot of
sense. I wouldn't want to have a situation where a single cracked clamp
leads to a loss of control. An alternative is to find a routing where the
wires are not using the same holes as the control cables or torque tubes.
It does not seem to be a requirement that the bundle not move more than 1/2
inch, rather, it seems that the distance from the wire bundle to the
controls must be at least 1/2 inch at the least favorable displacement of
both.
F. Roskind, Esq
A&P, PPL, Transportation Safety Economist
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
AC43 recommends this:
11-125. MOVABLE CONTROLS WIRING PRECAUTIONS.
Clamping of wires routed near movable flight controls must be attached with
steel hardware and must be spaced so that failure of a single attachment
point can not result in interference with controls. The minimum separation
between wiring and movable controls must be at least 1/2 inch when the
bundle is displaced by light hand pressure in the direction of the controls.
I take this to mean that if your wire bundle is passing through the same
lightening holes as your flight controls it should be clamped in such a way
it won't touch the edges of the lightening holes or come close to movable
flight controls. The cable should not move any more than 1/2" with light
hand pressure between any two clamps.
Noel
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 |
|
Its really too heavy, A better choice is nylon conduit. Vans aircraft
sells the stuff and its not split either...Perfect for wing wiring.
Frank
________________________________
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 5:22 AM
PVC pipe long enough o go form the wing tip to the root and wide enough
to slide wire through would be heavier than a few clamps. Pre wire the
wing with clamps. Doing it that way will also allow for a bit more heat
dissipation... hope you won't need that.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom and
Bren Henderson
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:31 AM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: Zenith-List: PVC pipe
With the few restrictions we have here in the US on
homebuilt aircraft, PVC pipe can be found in many flying aircraft. for
the most part (I'm sure SOMEONE will post something to the contrary)
local regulations don't exist that govern what materials we build from.
(Last I checked the Resin used in composite craft was pretty nasty stuff
too).
If you're out to save the world (not a bad thing for any of
us to do I suppose), you could look into Polyethylene pipe instead of
PVC. Then again, you could also weave one from hemp grown in your own
back yard if that blows your skirt up. It's all in what extreme you
want to take it to. Just my two pennies worth...
Peter Dunning <peterd@metec.co.nz> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Peter Dunning
Graham/Michael,
With respect, and wishing to make sure you don't tred on
the toes of
officialdom, it may be prudent to check that any
applicable fire
ratings for PVC usage are observed. I recall PVC burns
with toxic gas
emissions. Other listers may be better aware of any
local constraints.
cheers
Peter Dunning
CH601HD
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:28 PM
Michael,
You can always use lightweight PVC conduit to be sure
that the wiring stays
in a safe place. I attached mine to brackets on the ribs
with adel clamps.
The big benefit is that you can postpone the wiring
until later in the
build. It's also very easy to change wires without
unzipping the wing skin.
(Photo Attached)
Graham Kirby.
601HD
Listers -
Is there anything wrong with having the wiring go
through the same
lightening holes that the control cables will run
through as
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: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
I agree that it is very important to keep wiring clear of
controls. It is also desirable to keep the wiring from moving a
great deal - particularly in turbulent conditions. I don't know that
1/2 inch is an achievable goal for the movement of wiring, but I
believe it is important to keep the movement limited so the wire
bundles don't come in contact with any controls or the wing skin.
I found this a very difficult goal to achieve without using conduit
for the wiring. This is compounded by the Tefzel wiring which is
very slippery and hard to grab onto. I wound up using waxed lacing
tape to hold it in place as it is routed through the wing.
Paul
XL fuselage.
do not archive
>It does not seem to be a requirement that the bundle not move more
>than 1/2 inch, rather, it seems that the distance from the wire
>bundle to the controls must be at least 1/2 inch at the least
>favorable displacement of both.
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 |
|
Frank,
I'm using the thin-wall PVC pipe. It weighs just under a pound for the
length of each wing. I will certainly take a look at the Vans material. I
dont think it's too late to change it if it will save me some weight.
Thanks
Graham Kirby
601HD
Its really too heavy, A better choice is nylon conduit. Vans aircraft sells
the stuff and its not split either...Perfect for wing wiring.
Frank
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 |
|
Oh yeah, the flex conduit will only be a couple of ounces.
I used conduit for the HDS but I went with snap bushings for the RV..In
retrospect I really should have used conduit again.
Frank
________________________________
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Graham
Kirby
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:39 AM
Frank,
I'm using the thin-wall PVC pipe. It weighs just under a pound for the
length of each wing. I will certainly take a look at the Vans material.
I dont think it's too late to change it if it will save me some weight.
Thanks
Graham Kirby
601HD
Its really too heavy, A better choice is nylon conduit. Vans aircraft
sells the stuff and its not split either...Perfect for wing wiring.
Frank
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: | John - Say it ain't so! |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Craig Moore <moorecomp@yahoo.com>
I hope he is ok.
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 701US Make/Model: EXP
Description: ZENITH CH 701
Date: 06/27/2006 Time: 1835
Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Minor Mid
Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Destroyed
LOCATION
City: STURGEON BAY State: WI Country: US
DESCRIPTION
ACFT ON LANDING HIT A TREE TOP WITH THE WING AND
CRASHED, 7 MI SW OF
STURGEON BAY, WI
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0
Min: 1 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0
Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0
Min: 0 Unk:
WEATHER: METAR KSUE 271835Z AUTO 07005KT 8SM FEW035
SCT049 SCT110 21/14 A2994
OTHER DATA
Departed: PRIVATE STRIP Dep Date:
Dep. Time:
Destination: PRIVATE STRIP Flt Plan:
Wx Briefing:
Last Radio Cont:
Last Clearance:
FAA FSDO: MILWAUKEE, WI (GL13)
Entry date: 06/28/2006
__________________________________________________
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 |
|
MessageHello Listers:
In my '48 Bonanza, the wires in the wing to the position lights are
strung through the rib lightning holes and held by small clamps, haven't
jumped out of place in 58 years. Of course, being a Bonanza, the
highest quality wire was used. Remember, pounds add up and I personally
have never attended a "happy" weighing, I've heard legends of them, but
I've never attended one.
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing, Las Vegas
Frank,
I'm using the thin-wall PVC pipe. It weighs just under a pound for
the length of each wing.
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: John - Say it isn't so! |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Craig Moore <moorecomp@yahoo.com>
Unfortunatly, it is so - however John is ok.
Pray for him and his family. I konw he will need much
encouragement from this group. I know I appreciate all
here. This is the story from the local paper.
http://tinyurl.com/z9f5q
Craig Moore
__________________________________________________
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: | John - Say it ain't so! |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Oh No...Surely this has to be a mistake.
Jon Croke are you out there?
Frank
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Moore
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 9:25 AM
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Craig Moore <moorecomp@yahoo.com>
I hope he is ok.
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 701US Make/Model: EXP
Description: ZENITH CH 701
Date: 06/27/2006 Time: 1835
Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Minor Mid
Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Destroyed
LOCATION
City: STURGEON BAY State: WI Country: US
DESCRIPTION
ACFT ON LANDING HIT A TREE TOP WITH THE WING AND CRASHED, 7 MI SW OF
STURGEON BAY, WI
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0
Min: 1 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0
Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0
Min: 0 Unk:
WEATHER: METAR KSUE 271835Z AUTO 07005KT 8SM FEW035
SCT049 SCT110 21/14 A2994
OTHER DATA
Departed: PRIVATE STRIP Dep Date:
Dep. Time:
Destination: PRIVATE STRIP Flt Plan:
Wx Briefing:
Last Radio Cont:
Last Clearance:
FAA FSDO: MILWAUKEE, WI (GL13)
Entry date: 06/28/2006
__________________________________________________
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: Basket Weaving 101 |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <ande437@bellsouth.net>
Hemp: If you choose your hemp carefully then when your plane burns you will
not care and can possibly enjoy it.
I CAN NOT BELIEVE I SAID THAT!
CUL,
John
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: Rivets: Update on where to buy |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: ken smith <lrepilot@yahoo.com>
what is the web address for buying these online? I
called Canada, they referred me to NC, who referred me
to an outfit in California who wanted $US 0.08 ech for
the A4 rivet, and had to call back east for P&D on the
A5 size.
Ken
--- norriedh <norried@shaw.ca> wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "norriedh"
> <norried@shaw.ca>
>
> There have been posts on this site as well as the
> Zenith and CH701
> Matronics sites about where to buy additional A4 and
> A5 rivets.
> These note that the English-made rivets which are
> the ones
> traditionally recommended as being of best quality
> were available
> from Avdel Division of Textron Canada Ltd, Ph
> 1-800-268-9947 or (416)
> 679-0622. These English-made rivets are no longer
> available from
> this source, in fact, these rivets are not made in
> England any more and in any case are now not sold
> anywhere in North America.
>
> However, Textron, above, still sell the A4 and A5
> rivets to the same
> strength specifications but they are made in
> Textron's own factory
> in China. I talked to one of their technical people
> and was assured
> that the factory does all the necessary testing to
> ensure the rivets
> are up to the spec (Textron's website gives the
> strength and other
> data). Even Zenith source their rivets from Textron
> above and no
> longer even do their own tests on each batch as they
> once did.
>
> The part numbers and prices are
>
> A4 01604-00412 49.99 CDN per thousand
> A5 01604-00514 64.45 CDN per thousand
>
> Textron will take orders online and accept credit
> card.
>
> These rivets are also available from resellers
> including Zenith and
> others. Ordering direct from Textron is usually
> cheaper.
>
> The Textron tech said that they have done tests on
> holes in
> overlapping sheets where the holes did not line up.
> In general, the
> rivets wont line up the holes --- apparently the
> side forces
> generated are not too significant -- but he stressed
> that all the
> offset holes will get filled by rivet material
> (Unless the holes are
> way too much out of line). This agrees with my own
> testing -- I made
> overlapping coupons of 6061 sheet -- sometimes two
> sheets other
> times three - with sheet thicknesses varying from
> .016 to .040 inch -
> -- sectioned the riveted coupons -- and found the A5
> rivets would
> completely fill holes offset up to .020 and
> sometimes even more -
> and the A4 a bit less.
>
> Douglas N
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=42736#42736
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Frank Stutzman <stutzman@stutzman.com>
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Randy L. Thwing wrote:
> In my '48 Bonanza, the wires in the wing to the position lights are
> strung through the rib lightning holes and held by small clamps, haven't
> jumped out of place in 58 years. Of course, being a Bonanza, the
> highest quality wire was used.
All true, Randy. However, in my '49 Bonanza ;-), Beech used the highest
quality wire AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME.
The problem is when you want to change/add to the wiring. I have
seriously considered adding wingtip strobes to my plane, but the labor and
pain of getting new wire out to the wing tips holds me back. A added
pound or two added in order to facilitate future upgrades seems to me to
be worth it.
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR
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: | Checking XL parts |
I have, sadly, found several parts, supplied in my kit from ZAC, that have
been cut to the wrong lengths. Most recently, the fuselage-wing rear channel
and the upper seat back support were cut too long and had to be trimmed. The
manual clearly says to measure 1120mm, out to out of the upper forward lngerons
at the location of the upper seat back support. The part must fit inside to
inside of the longerons and the part measures 1150mm, clearly in error.
The moral of the story is: you must check the size of parts supplied by ZAC,
and trim if necessary to get them to fit properly.
Jay in Dallas, working on XL fuselage
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: Checking XL parts |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <dredmoody@cox.net>
A lot of the parts come to us needing to be trimmed or cut to length. The recent
posts regarding the fuel filler cap flange not screwing down far enough to make
contact with the nose skin for instance. Another example would be the X and
Y coordinates that at least in my case don't coincide with the wing's rear channel
and spar tip (and they absolutely must). It's not a big deal but it does
keep us on our toes, doesn't it?
Ed
---- Jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
> I have, sadly, found several parts, supplied in my kit from ZAC, that have
> been cut to the wrong lengths.
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: John - Not again ! |
Did John have another accident ? Is he uninjuried ? Who Knows the poop ?
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 |
|
can anyone tell me if a 78hp revmaster engine will be satisfactory in a
601 hds that i am building.? thanks bill
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: | John - Not again ! |
Yes he did...One of the earlier messages has a link to the local paper
describing the incident.
I'm just relieved he is not hurt apparently.
Frank
Do not archive
________________________________
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
JAPhillipsGA@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 1:46 PM
Did John have another accident ? Is he uninjuried ? Who Knows the poop ?
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: Checking XL parts |
You'd be surprised at how many discrepancies you find when you start laying
the 601XL out in a 3D CAD package for fabrication. Skins run off at strange
angles to spars, parts are miss-aligned by more than an inch or two, etc. Obviously
the airplane can be built safely and soundly using the existing plans,
but it would sure be nice if we didn't have to fire up the thinking noodle every
time we start a new part. Whatever happened to good, quality CAD work?
dredmoody@cox.net wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted by:
A lot of the parts come to us needing to be trimmed or cut to length. The recent
posts regarding the fuel filler cap flange not screwing down far enough to make
contact with the nose skin for instance. Another example would be the X and
Y coordinates that at least in my case don't coincide with the wing's rear channel
and spar tip (and they absolutely must). It's not a big deal but it does
keep us on our toes, doesn't it?
Ed
---- Jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
> I have, sadly, found several parts, supplied in my kit from ZAC, that have
> been cut to the wrong lengths.
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
Bill Flick wrote:
> can anyone tell me if a 78hp revmaster engine will be satisfactory in
> a 601 hds that i am building.? thanks bill
Bill,
The VW engine is going to make it fly, but it's going to be a bit of a
beast getting off unless you build it very light.
A prop for that engine and horsepower would suggest you'd need a
reduction drive to swing an adequate diameter.
You'd find the Subaru a good engine if you're not concerned about
carrying water and it has good economy.
Larry McFarland - 601HDS
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: | Still need some more |
All-
Still need 9 questionnaire responses. Contact me off-line if you
need the questionnaire.
Thanks.
Bill
do not archive
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: Basket Weaving 101 |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk@alltel.net>
John-
For some reason, "I smoked but I didn't inhale" doesn't cut it in this
situation. Who gives a s__- your plane's on fire!!!!!!!!!! Betcha a nickel
you'll care!
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 12:59 PM
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <ande437@bellsouth.net>
>
> Hemp: If you choose your hemp carefully then when your plane burns you
> will
> not care and can possibly enjoy it.
> I CAN NOT BELIEVE I SAID THAT!
> CUL,
> John
>
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Checking XL parts |
Tom-
It hasn't existed since CAD!
In the old days, if you made a mistake, you had to erase it and draw
new lines. God help you if you had to re-do a drawing that was inked
with one of the old pens.
The Zenith drawings leave something to be desired, but you ought to
see the crap I deal with every day at work- and we're talking tenths,
not 2mm tolerance!
Bill
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom and Bren Henderson
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Checking XL parts
You'd be surprised at how many discrepancies you find when you
start laying the 601XL out in a 3D CAD package for fabrication. Skins
run off at strange angles to spars, parts are miss-aligned by more than
an inch or two, etc. Obviously the airplane can be built safely and
soundly using the existing plans, but it would sure be nice if we didn't
have to fire up the thinking noodle every time we start a new part.
Whatever happened to good, quality CAD work?
dredmoody@cox.net wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by:
A lot of the parts come to us needing to be trimmed or cut to
length. The recent posts regarding the fuel filler cap flange not
screwing down far enough to make contact with the nose skin for
instance. Another example would be the
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: Checking XL parts |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <dredmoody@cox.net>
---- Tom and Bren Henderson <admin@arachnidrobotics.com> wrote:
> You'd be surprised at how many discrepancies you find when you start laying
the 601XL out in a 3D CAD package for fabrication. Whatever happened to good,
quality CAD work?
>
I guess we could wait a couple of years for the RV12 to make it through to prduction
and struggle through the teething pains that accompany the first several
kits. And of course we would have to accept that Vans is only designing the "12"
to use the Rotax 912S, no Soobs, no Corvairs, No Jabs, no Continentals or
Lycomings. And we would certainly get used to the idea of having micro space between
the panel and firewall, and having to settle for what ever the fuelage
tank will hold......
Bottom line is the 601XL is a good design and a good kit; warts wrinkles and all.
Really would be nice if it went together like an RV kit though.
Ed
Do Not Archive
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 |
|
Bill-
I researched VW engines myself, but reports say they just doesn't
have the oomph.
The (relatively) accepted alternative is a WW Corvair conversion.
Same principle, more cubic inches and cylinders.
Bill
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Flick
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:50 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: vw engine
can anyone tell me if a 78hp revmaster engine will be satisfactory in
a 601 hds that i am building.? thanks bill
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Still need some more |
What's your email address, Bill?
Bill
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Naumuk
To: zenith list
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 6:06 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Still need some more
All-
Still need 9 questionnaire responses. Contact me off-line if you
need the questionnaire.
Thanks.
Bill
do not archive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
No virus found in this incoming message.
6/28/2006
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Checking XL parts |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Robin Bellach" <601zv@ritternet.com>
Yup, but if you only have 10 toes, you'll lose count almost before you
start.
Do not archive.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:39 PM
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: <dredmoody@cox.net>
>
> A lot of the parts come to us needing to be trimmed or cut to length. The
> recent posts regarding the fuel filler cap flange not screwing down far
> enough to make contact with the nose skin for instance. Another example
> would be the X and Y coordinates that at least in my case don't coincide
> with the wing's rear channel and spar tip (and they absolutely must). It's
> not a big deal but it does keep us on our toes, doesn't it?
>
> Ed
> ---- Jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
>> I have, sadly, found several parts, supplied in my kit from ZAC, that
>> have
>> been cut to the wrong lengths.
>
>
>
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: | Re: Checking XL parts |
IF YOU DID NOT HAVE TO DO ANY WORK ON THE PARTS, MAYBE THE PLANE WOULD NOT MEET
THE 51% RULE. OR YOU COULD JUST CALL IT A QUICK BUILD KIT.
CHARLES
-------------- Original message --------------
I have, sadly, found several parts, supplied in my kit from ZAC, that have been
cut to the wrong lengths. Most recently, the fuselage-wing rear channel and
the upper seat back support were cut too long and had to be trimmed. The manual
clearly says to measure 1120mm, out to out of the upper forward lngerons at
the location of the upper seat back support. The part must fit inside to inside
of the longerons and the part measures 1150mm, clearly in error.
The moral of the story is: you must check the size of parts supplied by ZAC, and
trim if necessary to get them to fit properly.
Jay in Dallas, working on XL fuselage
<html><body>
<DIV>IF YOU DID NOT HAVE TO DO ANY WORK ON THE PARTS, MAYBE THE PLANE WOULD NOT
MEET THE 51% RULE. OR YOU COULD JUST CALL IT A QUICK BUILD KIT.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>CHARLES</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: Jaybannist@cs.com
<BR><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT lang=0 face=Arial size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10">I have, sadly, found several parts, supplied in my kit from
ZAC, that have been cut to the wrong lengths. Most recently, the fuselage-wing
rear channel and the upper seat back support were cut too long and had
to be trimmed. The manual clearly says to measure 1120mm, out to out
of the upper forward lngerons at the location of the upper seat back support.
The part must fit inside to inside of the longerons and the part measures
1150mm, clearly in error. <BR><BR>The moral of the story is: you must check
the size of parts supplied by ZAC, and trim if necessary to get them to fit properly.<BR><BR>Jay
in Dallas, working on XL fuselage<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></body></html>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Kemter" <kemter@msn.com>
Same story for the lighter 701's??? Haven't heard much talk about VW powered 701's
- anyone out there flying one that could comment on the performance (or lack
there of)?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=43840#43840
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: John - Not again ! |
Which John? What is date of previous message?
Thanks,
Chuck D.
N701TX
----- Original Message -----
From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:27 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: John - Not again !
Yes he did...One of the earlier messages has a link to the local paper
describing the incident.
I'm just relieved he is not hurt apparently.
Frank
Do not archive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
JAPhillipsGA@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 1:46 PM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: John - Not again !
Did John have another accident ? Is he uninjuried ? Who Knows the poop
?
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Checking XL parts |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
For people building a LSA compliant plane, the 51% rule doesn't
apply. This is certainly true for completions through January 2008,
and might apply after that date. All you need to do is get a E-LSA
airworthiness certificate rather than E-AB which does indeed require
51% work by amateurs.
It seems the benefits of using the E-LSA choice include shorter phase
1 testing requirements and much simpler requirements (e.g. no 51%
proof required). The down side is you need to attend a short
training course to qualify to sign off condition inspections.
On the core topic of this thread, I agree that the prints I received
last year are very sloppy. If an engineer who worked for me tried to
release drawings of this quality for production I would fire
him. They were obviously not reviewed for accuracy and
consistency. Still, I believe the core design is sound and we don't
need to worry about our wings folding up in the traffic pattern (at
least I hope so). The errors I have found merely cause scrapped parts.
Paul
XL fuselage
>IF YOU DID NOT HAVE TO DO ANY WORK ON THE PARTS, MAYBE THE PLANE
>WOULD NOT MEET THE 51% RULE. OR YOU COULD JUST CALL IT A QUICK BUILD KIT.
>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Checking XL parts |
51%? The quickbuild kit meets the 51% rule, so I'm thinking parts cut to the
right length probably would too. Did math change since I was in college?
cleonard52@comcast.net wrote: IF YOU DID NOT HAVE TO DO ANY WORK ON THE PARTS,
MAYBE THE PLANE WOULD NOT MEET THE 51% RULE. OR YOU COULD JUST CALL IT A QUICK
BUILD KIT.
CHARLES
-------------- Original message --------------
I have, sadly, found several parts, supplied in my kit from ZAC, that have been
cut to the wrong lengths. Most recently, the fuselage-wing rear channel and
the upper seat back support were cut too long and had to be trimmed. The manual
clearly says to measure 1120mm, out to out of the upper forward lngerons at
the location of the upper seat back support. The part must fit inside to inside
of the longerons and the part measures 1150mm, clearly in error.
The moral of the story is: you must check the size of parts supplied by ZAC, and
trim if necessary to get them to fit properly.
Jay in Dallas, working on XL fuselage
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuel system poser |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: fred sanford <sonar1@cox.net>
Hi guys:
I've got 70 hours on my CH701, and loving it, but I have a real poser
for you thinkers.
On two flights, one fuel tank has failed to feed. I landed once with ten
gallons on one side, and two on the other. Today, it was 8 on one side,
and one gallon on the other. And they were different tanks! Once the
right one, and once the left!
There is a bubble in the line of the tank that is not feeding. I thought
it might be a vacuum from the caps, so they have been changed.
What could be simpler? Two high tanks with lines to the gascolator,
through the fuel filter, and to the engine.
Am I flying sideways? I'm stumped!!
Fred Sanford N9701 Santa Barbara, Ca. 70 hours having fun!
do not archive
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Checking XL parts |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jim Pellien" <jim@pellien.com>
As far as I know, there are no current ELSA kits available. My
understanding of the rule is that an ELSA kit manufacturer first has to
produce a certified S-LSA and then he/she can sell ELSA kits that are exact
design duplicates of the SLSA that was certified.
To date, nobody has produced a ELSA kit......that is not to say it cannot be
done, only that nobody has done it.
An individual or a company cannot just build a new kit aircraft and
designate it as an ELSA at the FAA inspection.
Jim
Jim Pellien
Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes
Sky Bryce Airport (VG18)
Basye, VA
www.MASPL.com
703-313-4818
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:36 PM
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
For people building a LSA compliant plane, the 51% rule doesn't
apply. This is certainly true for completions through January 2008,
and might apply after that date. All you need to do is get a E-LSA
airworthiness certificate rather than E-AB which does indeed require
51% work by amateurs.
It seems the benefits of using the E-LSA choice include shorter phase
1 testing requirements and much simpler requirements (e.g. no 51%
proof required). The down side is you need to attend a short
training course to qualify to sign off condition inspections.
On the core topic of this thread, I agree that the prints I received
last year are very sloppy. If an engineer who worked for me tried to
release drawings of this quality for production I would fire
him. They were obviously not reviewed for accuracy and
consistency. Still, I believe the core design is sound and we don't
need to worry about our wings folding up in the traffic pattern (at
least I hope so). The errors I have found merely cause scrapped parts.
Paul
XL fuselage
>IF YOU DID NOT HAVE TO DO ANY WORK ON THE PARTS, MAYBE THE PLANE
>WOULD NOT MEET THE 51% RULE. OR YOU COULD JUST CALL IT A QUICK BUILD KIT.
>
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | source for gas springs |
Guys,
I have read that some of you are upgrading to a front tilt canopy. You will
need some gas springs.
I just found a cool website. Check it out.
http://www.Surpluscenter.com.
I don't know the specs for the gas springs but check out this link and see
if they have something that will work:
http://www.surpluscenter.com/sort.asp?UID 06062919344392
<http://www.surpluscenter.com/sort.asp?UID 06062919344392&catname=misc&key
word=XG11> &catname=misc&keyword=XG11
Dave Thompson
dave.thompson@verizon.net
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Checking XL parts |
Thanks for the informed post. I appreciate it. The wrong info can cause no
end of problems down the road for both newbies and the old timers.
Jim Pellien <jim@pellien.com> wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jim Pellien"
As far as I know, there are no current ELSA kits available. My
understanding of the rule is that an ELSA kit manufacturer first has to
produce a certified S-LSA and then he/she can sell ELSA kits that are exact
design duplicates of the SLSA that was certified.
To date, nobody has produced a ELSA kit......that is not to say it cannot be
done, only that nobody has done it.
An individual or a company cannot just build a new kit aircraft and
designate it as an ELSA at the FAA inspection.
Jim
Jim Pellien
Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes
Sky Bryce Airport (VG18)
Basye, VA
www.MASPL.com
703-313-4818
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:36 PM
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz
For people building a LSA compliant plane, the 51% rule doesn't
apply. This is certainly true for completions through January 2008,
and might apply after that date. All you need to do is get a E-LSA
airworthiness certificate rather than E-AB which does indeed require
51% work by amateurs.
It seems the benefits of using the E-LSA choice include shorter phase
1 testing requirements and much simpler requirements (e.g. no 51%
proof required). The down side is you need to attend a short
training course to qualify to sign off condition inspections.
On the core topic of this thread, I agree that the prints I received
last year are very sloppy. If an engineer who worked for me tried to
release drawings of this quality for production I would fire
him. They were obviously not reviewed for accuracy and
consistency. Still, I believe the core design is sound and we don't
need to worry about our wings folding up in the traffic pattern (at
least I hope so). The errors I have found merely cause scrapped parts.
Paul
XL fuselage
>IF YOU DID NOT HAVE TO DO ANY WORK ON THE PARTS, MAYBE THE PLANE
>WOULD NOT MEET THE 51% RULE. OR YOU COULD JUST CALL IT A QUICK BUILD KIT.
>
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Checking XL parts |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
On Jun 29, 2006, at 8:35 PM, Paul Mulwitz wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz
> <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
>
> For people building a LSA compliant plane, the 51% rule doesn't
> apply. This is certainly true for completions through January
> 2008, and might apply after that date. All you need to do is get a
> E-LSA airworthiness certificate rather than E-AB which does indeed
> require 51% work by amateurs.
>
Easier said than done. There are two ways to get an E-LSA certificate:
1. If the airplane is a "fat ultra-light" currently operating under
the ultra-light training exemption, it can be registered in the E-LSA
category and this must be done before January 2008 when the exemption
is phased out. Since the CH 601 doesn't perform at all like an ultra-
light (FAR 103), it's unlikely anybody will ever get or has ever
gotten an ultra-light training exemption for one. I don't know if any
exemptions are still being issued.
2. The manufacturer must build an S-LSA compliant prototype and
then sell E-LSA kits which must then be built exactly according to
the plans. If you bought one of Zenith's E-AB kits, you can't
complete it as an E-LSA. If you want to build an E-LSA registered
plane you have to buy an E-LSA kit. At this time, I don't think
Zenith is selling E-LSA kits and they don't have any immediate plans
to do so. Czech Aircraft Works was selling E-LSA kits for the CH 601,
but I don't know if they still are.
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL, Stratus Subaru.
do not archive.
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Jon Croke unfortunate incident again |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Zodie Rocket" <zodierocket@hsfx.ca>
I'm sending this a second time as the first seems to have been lost.
Ok List, It is true Jon Croke has had another episode of 701 and tree. I
have just finished talking with him and he has no recollection of any
part of the incident. Jon did sustain minor injuries with about 40
stitches, some under the chin and knee, he also has quite a few bruises
on his leg and is using crutches for a few days. Luckily nothing is
broken other then his dignity. A quick run down on the incident, Jon was
making an approach to his private strip beside his residence, which he
has done several times before and has a total of 10 hrs on this new 701
when he clipped a tree on his neighbors property prior to the threshold
of his runway. Jon always approaches through a cleared opening just to
the side of that stand of trees but on this occasion it almost seems
that the got caught into a cross wind and pushed laterally into the path
of the tree. The wing struck the top branches and caused the 701 to
rotate and make a small spiral into the ground. This time there were no
trees to slow Jon down and he plummeted from the 60ft height with full
throttle into the ground nose first. It looks as if the tail and
possibly a part of the rear fuselage are salvageable but little else has
survived. The plane will be recovered this weekend and I will post
pictures of the plane later. Jon spent the night in the hospital and
underwent several exams in which he has been dealt a hefty bill.
Jon is embarrassed and has a hurt pride from this event happening once
again but he has a determination to re-build once again, he hopes that
his engine is repairable as the cost of a new one is more then he can
afford at present. Both David and I are friends of Jon and realize that
his sole source of income is from the sales of DVD's on his HYPERLINK
"http://www.homebuilthelp.com/"www.homebuilthelp.com website. With this
in mind we have informed Jon that we will be donating all the parts that
we have for our 701, which consists of the wings and several skins for
his re-construction. If possible, I would like to ask everyone who is
able, to purchase a DVD or two from Jon's website. This will go a long
way to help him recover from the hospital expenses and hopefully allow
him to start re-building his 701, Jon has too much pride to accept any
donations but he cannot refuse a DVD sale. Please do not try to call him
for awhile and lets not ask to much of him with E-Mails. I will be
posting everything we learn about the event ASAP to this list and Jon
will send a letter when he has recovered emotionally. OK , Guys lets
support one of our own, especially one who ahs always been there for us
and willing to share, buy a great DVD for your collections.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
president@can-zacaviation.com
www.can-zacaviation.com
--
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Checking XL parts |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
Hi Jim,
That was my understanding too until I was corrected by the local FAA
inspector who is also a very friendly home builder himself. He
issued an E-LSA certificate to one of our local chapter members for a
Kitfox and gave it a 5 hour phase 1 flight test requirement because
the engine and prop had been used together somewhere before (neither
the engine nor prop was certified). It turns out the way the
regulations were written the one covering the fat ultralights also
covers virtually every kit built (or scratch built, for that matter)
airplane. It defines the eligible planes as anything that doesn't
qualify as a part 103 ultralight. That includes anything from a fat
ultralight to a Boeing 707. Of course the other LSA definition parts
apply - single engine, two seats, etc.
That rule expires in January 2008 (unless my memory is playing tricks
on me) and training can be conducted for hire in those E-LSA planes until 2010.
I can find the exact text for you if you would like, but you can take
what I am telling you to the bank. There really is a simple way to
get an E-LSA airworthiness certificate for the next year and a
half. It may well be that after that you need to meet the more
complex definition of E-LSA you mentioned.
Happy Landings,
Paul
XL fuselage.
At 06:12 PM 6/29/2006, you wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jim Pellien" <jim@pellien.com>
>
>As far as I know, there are no current ELSA kits available. My
>understanding of the rule is that an ELSA kit manufacturer first has to
>produce a certified S-LSA and then he/she can sell ELSA kits that are exact
>design duplicates of the SLSA that was certified.
>
>To date, nobody has produced a ELSA kit......that is not to say it cannot be
>done, only that nobody has done it.
>
>An individual or a company cannot just build a new kit aircraft and
>designate it as an ELSA at the FAA inspection.
>
>Jim
>
>Jim Pellien
>Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes
>Sky Bryce Airport (VG18)
>Basye, VA
>www.MASPL.com
>703-313-4818
>
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel system poser |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair <mike.sinclair@att.net>
Fred
Suspect what may be happening is that even with the vented caps and the
tanks up high, there is not enough actual pressure from fuel depth to
overcome a bubble in the line up in the wing root area. I've got a header
tank and transfer fuel from the wing tanks to the header. I have clear lines
from the fittings at the wing root, down the cabin frame ahead of the doors,
then they run through standard fuel line to the header. I went with the bing
blue fuel line in this area so that I can tell when the wing tanks are
empty. I can also see after fueling and during preflight if there is air in
the line. If there is air I make sure the header tank valve is off, open the
valve for the wing tank, open the drain on the gascolator, and hit the
switch for the electric fuel pump (mounted slightly higher than the
gascolator, but just barely), and see the bubble pulled right on down and
out. I lose less than a cup of fuel in the process. Part of my preflight is
to make sure there is no visible air in the down line, because the fuel just
don't want to transfer if I see air. First time I ran into this I had about
a 3rd of a tank full in the header and 14 gallons in the wings. I was
rocking the wings and other related manuvers for about 10 minutes before I
could get fuel to flow from one of the tanks. All that gas and I was getting
real serious about a place to stop before I would run out of gas. I had this
problem a couple other times and finally figured out what was happening. Now
with no air showing I still see little bubbles at the start of transfer so I
do know the fuel is flowing. Little air bubbles good, big air bubble bad!
Hope this gives you a place to look.
Mike Sinclair Just over 100 hours now on mine.
fred sanford wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: fred sanford <sonar1@cox.net>
>
> Hi guys:
> I've got 70 hours on my CH701, and loving it, but I have a real poser
> for you thinkers.
> On two flights, one fuel tank has failed to feed. I landed once with ten
> gallons on one side, and two on the other. Today, it was 8 on one side,
> and one gallon on the other. And they were different tanks! Once the
> right one, and once the left!
> There is a bubble in the line of the tank that is not feeding. I thought
> it might be a vacuum from the caps, so they have been changed.
> What could be simpler? Two high tanks with lines to the gascolator,
> through the fuel filter, and to the engine.
> Am I flying sideways? I'm stumped!!
>
> Fred Sanford N9701 Santa Barbara, Ca. 70 hours having fun!
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Checking XL parts |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon@comcast.net>
Well that was real nice!
Measure twice cut once. I think I would be grateful, the part was to long and
needed trimming. Just think of the time it would have taken to put the material
back on [Laughing]
Happy building.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
Corvair Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=43864#43864
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi from Arizona.
I went to test my 601XL fuel tank for leaks and the sender unit. With fu
el in the tank, I am getting no ohms from the sender unit. Empty the tan
k and I get ohms! Is this because tank isn't grounded? (it isn't in the
wing yet) Any thoughts out there? Thanks in advance.
Mike
N445ML
<html><P>Hi from Arizona.</P>
<P>I went to test my 601XL fuel tank for leaks and the sender unit. With
fuel in the tank, I am getting no ohms from the sender unit. Empty the
tank and I get ohms! Is this because tank isn't grounded? (it isn't in t
he wing yet) Any thoughts out there? Thanks in advance.</P>
<P>Mike</P>
<P>N445ML</P></html>
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "george may" <gfmjr_20@hotmail.com>
Michael--
Why gamble when youdo not have to. Keep the control cable holes clear of
everything except the cable. It's a relatively easy process to run the
wiring without going through these control cable holes
George May
601XL 912s----starting to paint
>From: "Michael Valentine" <mgvalentine@gmail.com>
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Wing Wiring
>Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:36:41 -0400
>
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Michael Valentine"
><mgvalentine@gmail.com>
>
>Listers -
>
>Is there anything wrong with having the wiring go through the same
>lightening holes that the control cables will run through as long as
>they are kept to the edge? This would include strobe/nav,
>taxi/landing, and aileron trim cables (and probably tubing for an
>AOA). Just thought this might be easier than drilling a grommet hole,
>but obviously I don't want to interfere with the cables.
>
>Thanks, Michael
>Still finishing the first wing.
>
>do not archive
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
>http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | E-LSA airworthiness certificates. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
There was such a negative reaction to my post on the transition
regulation for fat ultralights that I decided to go look up the
regulation number so everyone can try to make sense of it.
The reference is FAR 21.191.i.1. This is the paragraph that expires
January 31, 2008. While many magazine article authors claim this
provision covers only fat ultralight trainers, the fact is it covers
anything that is not part 103 compliant.
I asked the friendly FAA inspector if this was a mistake on the FAA's
part when writing the regulation. He said it was not - that they did
this intentionally. My own interpretation (not his) is that the
paragraph covering the kind of E-LSA we all thought was the only kind
(21.191.i.2) was written by folks that knew no such S-LSA planes
existed yet. I think they wanted to make an easy way for home
builders to get an experimental LSA certificate in the transition
period while S-LSA designs were going through their approval and
market shake-out.
On a slightly different topic, the inspector told me they did indeed
make a mistake on this whole regulation package, but not in the area
of E-LSA transition certificates. It was in the approval for people
to fly with state driver's license so long as they have not been
rejected for their most recent medical. Apparently the FAA
bureaucrats thought most pilots would keep applying for medical
certificates until they were turned down. It didn't occur to these
rocket scientists that pilots are smart enough to not apply for a
medical certificate when they know they won't qualify. That means
that lots of the older pilots who take advantage of the new Sport
Pilot privileges without FAA medical approval will have conditions
that the FAA would have grounded them for and the bureaucrats are
very unhappy about that.
Let me say one more time that this whole story came to me as a big
surprise. I thought only exact duplicates of S-LSA planes could get
E-LSA certificates. That is what all the magazine articles have
said. I was shocked when the local club member got the E-LSA
certificate for a plane that had been started before the LSA rule was
even considered. That led me to ask the right questions from the
right people to learn that this "Fat Ultralight" rule really covers
anything that is not an ultralight including most of the kit built
planes we are building.
Paul
XL fuselage
-
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
The sender and fuel tank must share ground with the gauge. If there
is no ground for the fuel tank then there is an incomplete circuit.
Paul
XL fuselage.
do not archive
At 08:20 PM 6/29/2006, you wrote:
>Hi from Arizona.
>
>I went to test my 601XL fuel tank for leaks and the sender unit.
>With fuel in the tank, I am getting no ohms from the sender unit.
>Empty the tank and I get ohms! Is this because tank isn't grounded?
>(it isn't in the wing yet) Any thoughts out there? Thanks in advance.
>
>Mike
>
>N445ML
---------------------------------------------
Paul Mulwitz
32013 NE Dial Road
Camas, WA 98607
---------------------------------------------
Message 55
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Checking XL parts (plans building) LONG (can delete) |
Do not archive.
Hello Tom,
Personal experience, you can delete or read on as you want, hope it helps you
to get the "sweet and rewarding feeling of home building" and flying your own
"Creation".
Sure, lots of improvement can be done to any set of plans and kits in the market.
But that also goes hand by hand with COST and availability... If we are
building a kit or plans built airplane, instead of buying a new C-182 IFR "glass"
panel or a pressurized Lancair (built by professionals "kit" assemblers),
is because final cost of our airplane IS important.
In my point of view, given that I have already built 6 airplanes (now building
# 7) all of them in different materials (1 tube and cloth, 2 wood, 1 composite,
1 with aluminum ladders (yes, is true), 1 aluminum (701) and now building
a 601 XL . I have gone also though several set of plans, some can only
be named "instructive sketches" instead of plans, also most of this were built
by me before the great help of Internet lists!!! (now we can ask how could
we build one without this GREAT help)...
Building from plans (earlier in time called blueprints) is (was) for sure more
a FUN and LEARNING process that a "Lego fit and push" assembly process, like
a computer desk we buy at Home Depot in a box...
When I built my first airplane, it was a wood construction type, made from raw
material (VP-1). My experience with wood at that time, was only making a
camp fire :-) Several times during the building process I wanted to burn it,,,
But with help of a local builder friend and lots of persistence, the plane
was completed, flown and is still flying (new owner, cant keep all my toys
:-(
The important part of building a plane is, once you decided the type of flying
and the plane you are going to build, is Think Positive Always!
The average of plans built completed projects is about 10% (kits can be a little
higher because they are LOTS more easy to built).
But if you don't stand in front of your project with a smile, every day you are
going to start work on it, and try to solve with patience and will all the
(little, once they are solved) problems you encounter, please don't start any
project, there are enough of partial built airplanes in garages and at e-bay
to add one more... when you see your parts you have completed, imagine the
complete airplane with you flying inside the cabin...
There is a very "romantic" builder in the Club that once made this similarity
at a hangar talk one evening:
Think of your project like an affair with a pretty women that you cant get her
image away from your mind.... A good affair, one that you will really enjoy.
When you receive your kit, is like the first time you ask her to dinner, and
the maiden flight is when you take her out for a weekend the first time :-0 ...
If you enjoy the "building" process, is interesting and demanding, you will
fly her lots of years with happiness, or the other way if you don't want
to go to all this process, you just need to "call" (the local FBO) and "rent"
one (C-150) any Saturday ;-) :-) :-)
Another point we have to take in account is, that any home built, is the brain
child of a designer, most of them are designed around their flying needs and
most (not the Zenith case of course) the plans are drawn from building sketches
and memory once the plane is flying and people around start asking for plans
(at least this is what used to be in the beguining of homebuilding)... so
they can be not "that" perfectly accurate.
The kit build airplane is far more elaborate, there is always a team working
with the Designer, to improve the actual designs, they use their experience,
knowledge and the comments from builders (our comments and complains help a lot)
to make this improvements, but we all have to be part of this happy group,
remember we are the "Ten Per Centers Builder and Flying Group" so this makes
US very exclusive!
Another good thing is that the Factory (anyone) is in constant improvement, and
the Designer (most of the cases a Genius) is always thinking and designing
a new kit. See Zenith, RV and some other serious kit manufacturers as example...
They never stop bringing new designs, so we always receive great support,
not only while building, but also the time we keep our girlfriend (oops,
airplane) :-) :-)
Welcome to the group and enjoy your "half full" glass of water... (is not half
empty, off course).
Saludos
Gary "Compulsive Builder" Gower :-)
Flying from Chapala, Mexico.
Tom and Bren Henderson <admin@arachnidrobotics.com> wrote:
You'd be surprised at how many discrepancies you find when you start laying
the 601XL out in a 3D CAD package for fabrication. Skins run off at strange
angles to spars, parts are miss-aligned by more than an inch or two, etc.
Obviously the airplane can be built safely and soundly using the existing plans,
but it would sure be nice if we didn't have to fire up the thinking noodle
every time we start a new part. Whatever happened to good, quality CAD work?
dredmoody@cox.net wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted by:
A lot of the parts come to us needing to be trimmed or cut to length. The recent
posts regarding the fuel filler cap flange not screwing down far enough to make
contact with the nose skin for instance. Another example would be the
---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Message 56
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CH701 wing strut attachement vs. Savannah accident |
The Savannah is a "pirate" copy, so is not the same design quality as the 701.
Stay with the original always.
No more said.
Saludos
Gary Gower
MacDonald Doug <dougsnash@yahoo.com> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: MacDonald Doug
Forgive me if I am overstepping my limits here since I
have never posted to this list before but here goes.
My understanding of the Savannah incident is that the
aircraft in question was stressed during a windstorm.
It had been tied down by the strut attach fitting and
therefore the fitting received the brunt of the forces
from the wind. The owner had replacement parts on
order to repair the aircraft and decided to continue
flying until they arrived. The pictures in the
original post show the catastrophic result.
Again. This is only my understanding and not
necessarily what actually happened.
Chris briefly mentioned this incident at a seminar
last summer at Oshkosh and stated it was not an issue
with the CH-701.
Doug MacDonald
CH-701 scratch builder
NW Ontario, Canada
do not archive
__________________________________________________
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting
at 1/min.
Message 57
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Longeron bending question |
OK, I am officially going crazy!!! I am trying to bend the lower longerons
for the rear fuse on my XL. I have tried a variety of things and ruined a
nice piece of extrusion. I am trying what Scott Laughlin uses on his website
and it bends the metal nice and easy, but I dont have a uniform shape to the
fuse I can get it to bend in the right spot, but it does not stay round.
There are flat spots in it. Can anyone tell me if there is a way to get the
smooth countor of the fuse. I am using .75x.75x.125 wall extrusion due to
availability reasons. This is stronger than what is called for in the plans and
may be the reason why I am having so much problems. Can you KIT BUILDERS tell
me if yours came already formed in the kit? I don't think they do, but have
not called and asked. Any help would be appreciated.
Larry Husky
Trying to build fuse!!
Message 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Checking XL parts (plans building) LONG (can delete) |
Of course, you're right about the glass being half full. I'm trusting that
everyone in the list is bright enough to understand that my opinion of the
plans has nothing to do with my opinion of the airplanes. Most of us have a set
of Zenith plans in the garage or hanger, and most of us have looked at them
and thought, "That's the best they could do?" I don't pretend that I could begin
to design an airplane such as the 601. Chris has done an excellent job.
You, yourself make the point that this is an ever improving hobby/passion.
My sole point is that Zenith has designed wonderful aircraft, maintains a decent
web site, provides more than adequate technical support, and does a fair
job of getting the right parts out to the right people on time. Couldn't they
see their way to exchanging the trained ape for a draftsman? : ) It's a bit
like getting into a fully loaded jaguar and tying a string around your waist for
a seat belt. It just detracts from the experience (although it's still a great
experience!).
I think I've commented on, or replied to this subject three or four times.
I'll quit beating the horse, I think it's dead. I do appreciate your perspective
though.
Thanks,
Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com> wrote: Do not archive.
Hello Tom,
Personal experience, you can delete or read on as you want, hope it helps you
to get the "sweet and rewarding feeling of home building" and flying your own
"Creation".
Sure, lots of improvement can be done to any set of plans and kits in the market.
But that also goes hand by hand with COST and availability... If we are
building a kit or plans built airplane, instead of buying a new C-182 IFR "glass"
panel or a pressurized Lancair (built by professionals "kit" assemblers),
is because final cost of our airplane IS important.
In my point of view, given that I have already built 6 airplanes (now building
# 7) all of them in different materials (1 tube and cloth, 2 wood, 1 composite,
1 with aluminum ladders (yes, is true), 1 aluminum (701) and now building
a 601 XL . I have gone also though several set of plans, some can only
be named "instructive sketches" instead of plans, also most of this were built
by me before the great help of Internet lists!!! (now we can ask how could
we build one without this GREAT help)...
Building from plans (earlier in time called blueprints) is (was) for sure more
a FUN and LEARNING process that a "Lego fit and push" assembly process, like
a computer desk we buy at Home Depot in a box...
When I built my first airplane, it was a wood construction type, made from raw
material (VP-1). My experience with wood at that time, was only making a
camp fire :-) Several times during the building process I wanted to burn it,,,
But with help of a local builder friend and lots of persistence, the plane
was completed, flown and is still flying (new owner, cant keep all my toys
:-(
The important part of building a plane is, once you decided the type of flying
and the plane you are going to build, is Think Positive Always!
The average of plans built completed projects is about 10% (kits can be a little
higher because they are LOTS more easy to built).
But if you don't stand in front of your project with a smile, every day you are
going to start work on it, and try to solve with patience and will all the
(little, once they are solved) problems you encounter, please don't start any
project, there are enough of partial built airplanes in garages and at e-bay
to add one more... when you see your parts you have completed, imagine the
complete airplane with you flying inside the cabin...
There is a very "romantic" builder in the Club that once made this similarity
at a hangar talk one evening:
Think of your project like an affair with a pretty women that you cant get her
image away from your mind.... A good affair, one that you will really enjoy.
When you receive your kit, is like the first time you ask her to dinner, and
the maiden flight is when you take her out for a weekend the first time :-0 ...
If you enjoy the "building" process, is interesting and demanding, you will
fly her lots of years with happiness, or the other way if you don't want
to go to all this process, you just need to "call" (the local FBO) and "rent"
one (C-150) any Saturday ;-) :-) :-)
Another point we have to take in account is, that any home built, is the brain
child of a designer, most of them are designed around their flying needs and
most (not the Zenith case of course) the plans are drawn from building sketches
and memory once the plane is flying and people around start asking for plans
(at least this is what used to be in the beguining of homebuilding)... so
they can be not "that" perfectly accurate.
The kit build airplane is far more elaborate, there is always a team working
with the Designer, to improve the actual designs, they use their experience,
knowledge and the comments from builders (our comments and complains help a lot)
to make this improvements, but we all have to be part of this happy group,
remember we are the "Ten Per Centers Builder and Flying Group" so this makes
US very exclusive!
Another good thing is that the Factory (anyone) is in constant improvement, and
the Designer (most of the cases a Genius) is always thinking and designing
a new kit. See Zenith, RV and some other serious kit manufacturers as example...
They never stop bringing new designs, so we always receive great support,
not only while building, but also the time we keep our girlfriend (oops,
airplane) :-) :-)
Welcome to the group and enjoy your "half full" glass of water... (is not half
empty, off course).
Saludos
Gary "Compulsive Builder" Gower :-)
Flying from Chapala, Mexico.
Tom and Bren Henderson <admin@arachnidrobotics.com> wrote:
You'd be surprised at how many discrepancies you find when you start laying
the 601XL out in a 3D CAD package for fabrication. Skins run off at strange
angles to spars, parts are miss-aligned by more than an inch or two, etc.
Obviously the airplane can be built safely and soundly using the existing plans,
but it would sure be nice if we didn't have to fire up the thinking noodle
every time we start a new part. Whatever happened to good, quality CAD work?
dredmoody@cox.net wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted by:
A lot of the parts come to us needing to be trimmed or cut to length. The recent
posts regarding the fuel filler cap flange not screwing down far enough to make
contact with the nose skin for instance. Another example would be the
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! --
|