Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:20 AM - Re: Re: Oil Temperature (Thilo Kind)
2. 03:58 AM - Re: 701 Jury Strut question (Graeme Bell)
3. 06:42 AM - Re: Back in the saddle Seat Belt Attachments. (John Bolding)
4. 07:26 AM - Introduction and Fuel Systems (trying to keep it brief!) (zuluonecat)
5. 07:45 AM - 701 Seat Belt Attachment (CH701)
6. 07:53 AM - Re: Back in the saddle Seat Belt Attachments. (cleonard52@comcast.net)
7. 08:14 AM - Re: Oil Temperature (Ronnie Koonce)
8. 09:09 AM - Re: Back in the saddle Seat Belt Attachments. (Chuck Deiterich)
9. 09:18 AM - Re: Re: Sun Shade - Night VFR (Bill Naumuk)
10. 09:33 AM - Re: Back in the saddle Seat Belt Attachments. (Chuck Deiterich)
11. 10:18 AM - Re: Re: Sun Shade - Night VFR (John Anderson)
12. 11:21 AM - Re: Re: Sun Shade - Night VFR (Steve Hulland)
13. 01:01 PM - Stratus access panel (George Swinford)
14. 01:53 PM - Re: Airplane insurance. (Garrou, Douglas)
15. 01:53 PM - Re: Stratus access panel (LarryMcFarland)
16. 02:57 PM - Re: Aviation Safety (Steve Hulland)
17. 03:12 PM - RE : Re: Back in the saddle (Carlos Sa)
18. 03:45 PM - Re: Stratus access panel (George Swinford)
19. 03:48 PM - Riveted fuel tank - test (Carlos Sa)
20. 03:50 PM - Re: Introduction and Fuel Systems (trying to keep it brief!) (george may)
21. 03:58 PM - Re: Riveted fuel tank - test (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
22. 04:15 PM - Re: Airplane insurance. (Christopher Smith)
23. 04:25 PM - Re: Aviation Safety (Bill Naumuk)
24. 04:25 PM - Where can I buy Cortec 373? (William Dominguez)
25. 05:01 PM - Re: Where can I buy Cortec 373? (Elwood140@aol.com)
26. 05:03 PM - Re: Riveted fuel tank - test (John Bolding)
27. 05:32 PM - Re: Where can I buy Cortec 373? (Robin Bellach)
28. 07:26 PM - Fuels with alcohol added in Rotax engines (Charles Kyle)
29. 08:13 PM - The Bends! (kevinbonds)
30. 09:25 PM - Re: Airplane insurance. (Paul Mulwitz)
31. 09:26 PM - Insurance & Night Flight VFR (Dan & Paula)
32. 10:55 PM - Re: Airplane insurance. (Larry Winger)
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: Oil Temperature |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Thilo Kind" <thilo.kind@gmx.net>
Hi Doug,
you probably have to improve the air flow through the cowling. Initially, I
had problems with the oil, too, going up to 260 F. I then modified the
bottom of the cowling - basically installed a small lip on the bottom
opening. Now I'm running on a 75 F day around 175 F oil temp.
Good luck
Thilo
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 2:05 AM
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "dfmoeller" <dfmoeller@austin.rr.com>
>
> I was sitting on 265 and headed UP.
>
> Doug
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=47489#47489
>
>
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: | Re: 701 Jury Strut question |
I newer plans show a 4 piece jury strut system with solid alloy
rectangular bar with rounded corners.
During my rebuild I had to squash the tube slightly to drive the solid
alloy up to the required distance.
The mounting bolts go through the tube and the solid .
The brackets are bent out of steel and bolt to the wings instead of a
welded lug.
Graeme
----- Original Message -----
From: NYTerminat@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 Jury Strut question
Zed,
I used my vice to squeeze the end of the jury struts. I also epoxied
the very end of the strut to keep the strut cap in place. I found that
some of them would slide in the jury tube.
Bob Spudis
N701ZX 60 hrs
In a message dated 7/16/2006 12:01:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Keith.Ashcraft@itt.com writes:
Is this 7V10-7SP "cap" just stuck into the ends of the 1/2" jury
tubing and then flattened with a hammer? Then drill through this for an
AN3 bolt? Surely this can't be! Okay, so it is....then the proper name
for the item would be Jury Strut Insert.
Appreciate any photos or comments, directions, corrections, or
hammer instructions.
Thanks and best regards.....105 degrees today. Paint dries REAL
fast in this weather.
Zed/701/R912/still diddling
do not archive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
2/06/2006
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: Back in the saddle Seat Belt Attachments. |
From: Gary Gower
Now, about John's comment. Probably the belts could need a little
more attachment force.
But lets be honest that the human body can only take certain amount of
"G" forces before (fataly and serious) damaging the brain and vital
organs...
Gary is correct in stating that there is a limit to what body can take
in a harness.
If memory serves, (50% chance of that) ultimate design strength of
restraint system on certified aircraft is 40G.
I guess that's with the standard 170# dude so us fat asses can assume
less. Or maybe I'm remembering the 40G's is the practical limit of
survivalibility. Someone that KNOWS please help me here.
MY point is (and I didn't get it across very well the first time) is
that I don't want a 20G system (pick whatever # here you feel is where
Jon's system failed) and leave additional protection of my tender pink
body on the table. We are saddled with the problem of having rather
shallow fuselage depth and seats with a vertical compression component
can't be used but that was not the MAIN issue here.
I have aircraft drawings from several well known designers of
certified aircraft (in addition to Chris) that have also entered the
homebuilt field at one time or another (C.G. Taylor, Dave Thurston, John
Thorpe etc.) I'll dig thru them and see if they have a different
application of attach fittings.
Some detailed pics of Jon's failure point might help a LOT here.
I have field tested the restraint system of an RV3 using a human (me)
and walked away with only a butt that was sore for 6 months, sore neck
and SERIOUS bruises from the belts. NOTHING BROKE, no kissing of the
panel (it's pretty close on the "3" ), had the restraint system broken
Van would have FIXED it!
Whoever said that it's more dangerous to drive to the airport than to
fly an airplane was either kidding or doesn't know the facts and is just
shooting to hear the gun go off.
LOW&SLOW John
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: | Introduction and Fuel Systems (trying to keep it brief!) |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "zuluonecat" <easternflyingclub@hotmail.com>
Hi list, I've been quietly reading this great forum for a while now, time for me
to introduce myself! Name: Chris, Plane: Zodiac 601UL/912 where: Thailand,
Eastern Seaboard. As far as I and the Zenair man know, this is the only flying
601 in Thailand at the moment. I purchased this aircraft a few years ago, from
a closed airfield where it sat for 6 years unused, and freshened it up with
a new panel, cowl, and everything else to get it airworthy again, it flew on
August last year, and has been performing well. It's an early Czech built 'quick
build' kit I believe. (serial 7001)
My question regards the fuel system, I've read all the posts I can find about this,
but would like a bit of fresh advice if possible. Big centre tank (60L)
with flexible hose to a centre console on-off valve, and down to the firewall
mounted Zenair sump/drain, flexible hose up to a firewall mounted Facet boost
pump, up to an aircraft inline fuel filter, to the mechanical pump, back to a
'T' for the carbs (Rotax 912) with another 'T' to mechanical fuel pressure gauge
on the panel. All hose is 'Aeroquip' brand with fire-sleeve. When I park
it on the ramp after flying, the fuel pressure gauge rises to 10psi (engine, pumps
off) due to Vapour forming in the lines due to ambient heat from engine in
the cowl, it slowly bleeds away after a few hours. I've never had vapour lock
problems with it, but am very aware this is a dangerous scenario. I would
like to reconfigure the system to alleviate this danger if possible.
Open to any advice you gentlemen may have regarding this!
Best regards,
Chris
U-Z01
PS, here's a link that features the Zodiac on a recent Search and Rescue get together
in Central/North Thailand. Sorry, no English, but pix say most of it!
http://www.sportflyingthailand.com/index.php?lay=show&ac=article&Id=322952&Ntype=4
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=47596#47596
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: | 701 Seat Belt Attachment |
Has anyone thought of seeking Chris's opinion on the attachment point issue,
in light of Jon's current test results? Perhaps we can seek his advice at
Oshkosh...
Todd Henning
West Bend, WI
_____
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Bolding
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 8:34 AM
Now, about John's comment. Probably the belts could need a little more
attachment force.
But lets be honest that the human body can only take certain amount of "G"
forces before (fataly and serious) damaging the brain and vital organs...
Gary is correct in stating that there is a limit to what body can take in a
harness.
If memory serves, (50% chance of that) ultimate design strength of restraint
system on certified aircraft is 40G.
I guess that's with the standard 170# dude so us fat asses can assume less.
Or maybe I'm remembering the 40G's is the practical limit of
survivalibility. Someone that KNOWS please help me here.
MY point is (and I didn't get it across very well the first time) is that I
don't want a 20G system (pick whatever # here you feel is where Jon's system
failed) and leave additional protection of my tender pink body on the table.
We are saddled with the problem of having rather shallow fuselage depth and
seats with a vertical compression component can't be used but that was not
the MAIN issue here.
I have aircraft drawings from several well known designers of certified
aircraft (in addition to Chris) that have also entered the homebuilt field
at one time or another (C.G. Taylor, Dave Thurston, John Thorpe etc.) I'll
dig thru them and see if they have a different application of attach
fittings.
Some detailed pics of Jon's failure point might help a LOT here.
I have field tested the restraint system of an RV3 using a human (me) and
walked away with only a butt that was sore for 6 months, sore neck and
SERIOUS bruises from the belts. NOTHING BROKE, no kissing of the panel (it's
pretty close on the "3" ), had the restraint system broken Van would have
FIXED it!
Whoever said that it's more dangerous to drive to the airport than to fly an
airplane was either kidding or doesn't know the facts and is just shooting
to hear the gun go off.
LOW&SLOW John
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Back in the saddle Seat Belt Attachments. |
ZENITH OFFERS SEAT BELTS THAT HAVE AN AIR BAG ATTACHED. I WOULD THINK THIS WOULD
GIVE YOU A LOT OF PROTECTION.
DO NOT ARCHIEVE
CHARLES
-------------- Original message --------------
Now, about John's comment. Probably the belts could need a little more attachment
force.
But lets be honest that the human body can only take certain amount of "G" forces
before (fataly and serious) damaging the brain and vital organs...
Gary is correct in stating that there is a limit to what body can take in a harness.
If memory serves, (50% chance of that) ultimate design strength of restraint system
on certified aircraft is 40G.
I guess that's with the standard 170# dude so us fat asses can assume less. Or
maybe I'm remembering the 40G's is the practical limit of survivalibility. Someone
that KNOWS please help me here.
MY point is (and I didn't get it across very well the first time) is that I don't
want a 20G system (pick whatever # here you feel is where Jon's system failed)
and leave additional protection of my tender pink body on the table. We are
saddled with the problem of having rather shallow fuselage depth and seats with
a vertical compression component can't be used but that was not the MAIN issue
here.
I have aircraft drawings from several well known designers of certified aircraft
(in addition to Chris) that have also entered the homebuilt field at one time
or another (C.G. Taylor, Dave Thurston, John Thorpe etc.) I'll dig thru them
and see if they have a different application of attach fittings.
Some detailed pics of Jon's failure point might help a LOT here.
I have field tested the restraint system of an RV3 using a human (me) and walked
away with only a butt that was sore for 6 months, sore neck and SERIOUS bruises
from the belts. NOTHING BROKE, no kissing of the panel (it's pretty close
on the "3" ), had the restraint system broken Van would have FIXED it!
Whoever said that it's more dangerous to drive to the airport than to fly an airplane
was either kidding or doesn't know the facts and is just shooting to hear
the gun go off.
LOW&SLOW John
<html><body>
<DIV>ZENITH OFFERS SEAT BELTS THAT HAVE AN AIR BAG ATTACHED. I WOULD THINK THIS
WOULD GIVE YOU A LOT OF PROTECTION.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>DO NOT ARCHIEVE</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: "John Bolding"
<jnbolding1@teleshare.net> <BR>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1555" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT:
5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=ggower_99@yahoo.com href="mailto:ggower_99@yahoo.com">Gary Gower</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B></B> </DIV>
<DIV>Now, about John's comment. Probably the belts could need a little more
attachment force. </DIV>
<DIV>But lets be honest that the human body can only take certain amount of
"G" forces before (fataly and serious) damaging the brain and vital organs... </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Gary is correct in stating that there is a limit to
what body can take in a harness.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If memory serves, (50% chance of that) ultimate design
strength of restraint system on certified aircraft is 40G.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I guess that's with the standard 170# dude so us fat
asses can assume less. Or maybe I'm remembering the 40G's is the practical
limit of survivalibility. Someone that KNOWS please help me here.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>MY point is (and I didn't get it across very well
the first time) is that I don't want a 20G system (pick whatever # here you feel
is where Jon's system failed) and leave additional protection of my tender
pink body on the table. We are saddled with the problem of having rather
shallow fuselage depth and seats with a vertical compression component can't be
used but that was not the MAIN issue here. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I have aircraft drawings from several well known designers
of certified aircraft (in addition to Chris) that have also entered
the homebuilt field at one time or another (C.G. Taylor, Dave Thurston, John
Thorpe etc.) I'll dig thru them and see if they have a different application
of attach fittings. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Some detailed pics of Jon's failure point might help
a LOT here.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I have field tested the restraint system of an RV3 using
a human (me) and walked away with only a butt that was sore for 6
months, sore neck and SERIOUS bruises from the belts. NOTHING BROKE,
no kissing of the panel (it's pretty close on the "3" ), had the restraint
system broken Van would have FIXED it!</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Whoever said that it's more dangerous to drive to
the airport than to fly an airplane was either kidding or doesn't know the facts
and is just shooting to hear the gun go off.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>LOW&SLOW John</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Oil Temperature |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Ronnie Koonce" <rlk@granderiver.net>
We had oil temp problems with our 701 on the 110+ South Texas days. Had to
replace factory cooler with a larger one.
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Back in the saddle Seat Belt Attachments. |
When I built my 701, I did not feel comfortable with the aluminum seat
belt attachment that was riveted to the tunnel. In fact, somewhere 4 or
5 years ago, on this forum, I read where the bolt between the seat belt
and the aluminum attachment pulled a slot through the attachment. So I
made my attachment from 0.40" 4031 steel instead of 0.40" 6061 aluminum.
I then used the 0.40" 6061 as a doubler on the inside of the tunnel to
give more thickness to keep the rivets from pulling through. I did not
ask ZAC about this, but I feel that this is a stronger anchor which
actually gets pulled by both the lap and shoulder straps.
Jon, you are an inspiration to all of us. Especially, in testing the
crash survivability of our aircraft :-). Glad to see you are up and
around.
Chuck D.
N701TX
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: RE: Sun Shade - Night VFR |
Steve-
I could care less about night flying, too, as well as IFR. What I'm
really interested to find out is what kind of performance you get out of
65hp as opposed to the CH recommended 80hp, or the kick of a 120hp Jab.
Keep us all posted.
Going through the "Name change game" of Alltel to Windstream. The
new main server won't be up and running correctly until tomorrow.
Regardless of what comes up as a return address, my new address really
is naumuk@windstream.net.
True to form, I ran out of vacation before I ran out of work on the
garanger. 1 sq of siding and 2 sides of soffit/fascia to go, and of
course, they're up at the max reach of my ladders. I feel like someone
beat me with a 2x4. Once I'm back at work tomorrow, I'll know they have!
Bill Naumuk
40%HDS being relocated to new shop
Townville, Pa
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: Back in the saddle Seat Belt Attachments. |
I mean 4130 steel. That was 4 years ago.
----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Deiterich
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Back in the saddle Seat Belt Attachments.
When I built my 701, I did not feel comfortable with the aluminum seat
belt attachment that was riveted to the tunnel. In fact, somewhere 4 or
5 years ago, on this forum, I read where the bolt between the seat belt
and the aluminum attachment pulled a slot through the attachment. So I
made my attachment from 0.40" 4031 steel instead of 0.40" 6061 aluminum.
I then used the 0.40" 6061 as a doubler on the inside of the tunnel to
give more thickness to keep the rivets from pulling through. I did not
ask ZAC about this, but I feel that this is a stronger anchor which
actually gets pulled by both the lap and shoulder straps.
Jon, you are an inspiration to all of us. Especially, in testing the
crash survivability of our aircraft :-). Glad to see you are up and
around.
Chuck D.
N701TX
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Sun Shade - Night VFR |
Hi Bill,
I know the soreness feeling all too well. I am just finishing
installing a front opening canopy on my 601HD. Ref 65 horse eng; I had a
Jabiru 2200 on an Avid Aerobat and it compared favorably with a
Revmaster 75 horse on my 601HD. The Revmaster direct drive had a Culver
60 X 36 wood prop and seemed a little stronger and a lot quieter. Both
burned about 3 gph. Both planes had acceptable performance. I now have
an 0235 Lycoming on the 601 HD. It is a very strong "0" time engine and
I feel it is overkill. I really like it except for the 5 or 6 gph fuel
burn. I probably would not change for the bigger engine with the
experience I now have. I let the waste of the small high reving prop on
a direct drive engine influence me too much. Do not let me mislead you,
I think the Lycoming is the best engine for the 601, I just think the
price and lack of economy is too high.
In my experience I would think 65 HP would not give acceptable
performance in a 601.
By the way, I am probably going to build HDS wings this fall. I bet
that will help the economy of my plane on trips.
CUL,
John Alabama
Do not archive
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Sun Shade - Night VFR |
Bill,
If my brain cooperates, I will send one or two pictures of the airplane
after I get home tomorrow. I get off at 06:00 and will stop by DMAFB to hit
a bucket of golf balls (practicing for a tournament in Oct), then to the
airport to work on the airplane for two hours or so. Breakfast at the
airport around 9 or 9:30 and then home.
I have been taxing the airplane around the airport and find the ground
handling very nice - although it is easy to break the tail wheel loose and
make a quick circle if I attempt to turn to tight. But have learned not to
do that. Starting is the biggest issue since I have to find someone *trained
* and willing to assist. Hand propping is pretty easy most times. If I do
not get the engine going on the first attempt, it often takes a pretty long
second, third, fourth ......... attempt in the heat. I can tie the tail down
by hitching to the tow-release before starting to hold the airplane. Then I
add a second nylon cord (like parachute cord) to the tie-down ring in the
ground and attached to the kill switch. If the airplane does move this cord
will pull the kill switch out and stop the engine. The kill switch is a
telephone type jack and cuts the electric current from magneto to stop the
engine.
Works very well. It is easy to hold the airplane after the start. Always
making sure only left mag, fuel off and throttle cracked less than 1/16 th
inch or so. That is after turning fuel on, letting fuel fill gasolator and
enter carbs, having everything off, airplane tail tied down properly and
pulling though 5 blades. Then master (kill switch) on, throttle cracked,
fuel off, left mag on, recheck tie-down and pull prop. This almost always
gets engine running. Walk around behind wing, reach in and turn right mag
on, fuel on, check throttle at idle, move to tail and unhook cord, roll up
cord on plastic handle until short enough to enter cockpit. Get in airplane,
sit down with feet on brakes and carefully unclip cord from kill switch (if
not careful one will pull kill switch out and engine will stop = Ha), buckle
up four point harness, release tow hook and the airplane will start moving
forward at an idle - but very very slow. May switch to a C85 or something
with a starter next year. That would entail elongating the engine
compartment because of a slightly longer engine mount. But would eliminate
the hand propping - which I enjoy, but many do not.
Gotta go and wash the fire trucks - Sunday chore for the crew.
Do Not Archive
--
Semper Fi,
Steven R. Hulland
CH 600 Taildragger
Amado, AZ
This and all other incoming/outgoing email, attachments and replies scanned
prior to opening/sending and uses an external firewall to help insure virus
free email and attachments.
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Stratus access panel |
On a Stratus-powered Zodiac, what is the best location and size for the
oil filler /dipstick access panel in the upper cowl? Any
recommendations?
George
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Airplane insurance. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Garrou, Douglas" <dgarrou@hunton.com>
I'm from Missouri when it comes to this claim. Take a look at the provocative
comments here:
http://www.kingschools.com/news/BigLie.htm
Certainly you wouldn't want to compare driving with using green Scotchbrite.
-----Original Message-----
After all, even with experimental home built airplanes (the
most dangerous kind) the most dangerous portion of each flight will
be driving your car to the airport.
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: Stratus access panel |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
George,
I wasn't too happy with the oil filler being on the opposite side, so I
modified the filler tube to go left and placed a dipstick access
right above it. Very pleased with the result. The access is copied
right out of one of Bingelis's books and would work either side,
but it is better with both filler and dipstick on the same side..
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/subaruengine/small/oilfilltubes.gif
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/subaruengine/full/oilfillleftside.gif
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/cowling/full/cowloilaccessopen2.gif
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/cowling/full/cowloilaccess2.gif
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/cowling/full/cowlsideaccess.gif
Hope this is helpful,
Larry McFarland
George Swinford wrote:
> On a Stratus-powered Zodiac, what is the best location and size for
> the oil filler /dipstick access panel in the upper cowl? Any
> recommendations?
>
> George
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: Aviation Safety |
Doug,
I have been flying GA since 1956, controlled airplanes from 1967 until 1983,
helped operate a variety of military and civil airports from 1968 until 1989
and continue to fly on a very regular basis. Between 1967 and 1983, military
aviation was also a big part of my life. I have a Masters in Aviation
Management (does not mean much) and long ago acknowledged that aviation was
and is a part of my life - I would be truly sad without aviation.
But, I Have Never Said or even thought that driving a car to the airport
was less dangerous than flying the type GA aircraft most of us fly. It
simply is not and never has been. I have always thought that pilots who
thought that way were either very good at managing their risk or not very
knowledgeable about a good deal of GA flying.
Mr. John King, in the article you attached, said a good number of things
about safety and risk management that are very true. In fact, as I start on
a mentoring project for a new pilot, he will get to read John's article and
then discuss it with me several times throughout his training towards a
pilot certificate - no matter what level he chooses.
The most important thing I can impart to him revolves around managing the
risk he will take while flying. Doing so will help ensure that he and his
loved ones continue to enjoy aviation throughout the remainder of his life
and that his life is not cut short by an "accident".
Bottom line, thanks for the article, it should be read and heeded by all of
us. GA is not and never has been less dangerous than driving a car on our
nations (or the world's) public streets. But it can be if we all learn to
manage the risk and practice what we learned every time we fly or
contemplate flying.
--
Semper Fi,
Steven R. Hulland
CH 600 Taildragger
Amado, AZ
This and all other incoming/outgoing email, attachments and replies scanned
prior to opening/sending and uses an external firewall to help insure virus
free email and attachments.
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Back in the saddle |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Carlos Sa <carlosfsa@yahoo.com>
Hooray for Jon !!!!
Great to hear you are getting back in shape!
Carlos
Ch601-HD, plans
Montreal, Canada
do not archive
_____
>
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jon Croke
> Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 4:53 PM
>
>
>
>
>
> It is time for me to come out from hiding... My body has repaired itself to
> the point I can function quite normally (off the crutches!) and so I want
> to share some pictures of a rugged plane that has been thru a 'fender
> bender' of sorts. And time to thank the many whose words and acts of
> support and kindness make getting back to normal possible..!
...
> Thanks again to everyone on the list for their support! I already have a
> stack of reusable parts for the rebuild... ! Reminds me of groundhog day,
> the movie...
>
>
>
> Jon
>
> the definitive aluminum butcher from Brussels, WI
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________
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: Stratus access panel |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "George Swinford" <grs-pms@comcast.net>
Very helpful! Thanks Larry.
George
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 1:50 PM
Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Riveted fuel tank - test |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Carlos Sa <carlosfsa@yahoo.com>
Hello, listers
Some time ago I was asked whether I had tested my fuel tanks.
I did, today. They have been full of water for the last 2 or 3 hours, and the only
leak detected
so far is at the cork I used to plug the fuel exit flange.
Construction pics here:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/c.sa/tank.html
Cheers
Carlos
CH601-HD, plans (assembling wings)
Montreal, Canada
__________________________________________________________
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: | Introduction and Fuel Systems (trying to keep it brief!) |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "george may" <gfmjr_20@hotmail.com>
Chris--
It sounds like you have the typical Czech fuel installation. I just
installed their FWF on a 601XL. The only difference (other than wing tanks
versus the fuse tank) appears to be a return line in my FWF system. The
return line (as suggested in the rotax information) is to alleviate vapor
lock. You might want to also put another T in you main line feed with a
.3mm restriction return line to the main tank. That should reduce your
pressure increase and potential vapor lock
George May
601XL 912s
>From: "zuluonecat" <easternflyingclub@HOTMAIL.COM>
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Introduction and Fuel Systems (trying to keep it
>brief!)
>Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 07:21:50 -0700
>
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "zuluonecat"
><easternflyingclub@hotmail.com>
>
>Hi list, I've been quietly reading this great forum for a while now, time
>for me to introduce myself! Name: Chris, Plane: Zodiac 601UL/912 where:
>Thailand, Eastern Seaboard. As far as I and the Zenair man know, this is
>the only flying 601 in Thailand at the moment. I purchased this aircraft a
>few years ago, from a closed airfield where it sat for 6 years unused, and
>freshened it up with a new panel, cowl, and everything else to get it
>airworthy again, it flew on August last year, and has been performing well.
> It's an early Czech built 'quick build' kit I believe. (serial 7001)
>My question regards the fuel system, I've read all the posts I can find
>about this, but would like a bit of fresh advice if possible. Big centre
>tank (60L) with flexible hose to a centre console on-off valve, and down to
>the firewall mounted Zenair sump/drain, flexible hose up to a firewall
>mounted Facet boost pump, up to an aircraft inline fuel filter, to the
>mechanical pump, back to a 'T' for the carbs (Rotax 912) with another 'T'
>to mechanical fuel pressure gauge on the panel. All hose is 'Aeroquip'
>brand with fire-sleeve. When I park it on the ramp after flying, the fuel
>pressure gauge rises to 10psi (engine, pumps off) due to Vapour forming in
>the lines due to ambient heat from engine in the cowl, it slowly bleeds
>away after a few hours. I've never had vapour lock problems with it, but
>am very aware this is a dangerous scenario. I would like to reconfigure
>the system to alleviate this danger if possible.
>
>Open to any advice you gentlemen may have regarding this!
>
>Best regards,
>
>Chris
>U-Z01
>
>PS, here's a link that features the Zodiac on a recent Search and Rescue
>get together in Central/North Thailand. Sorry, no English, but pix say
>most of it!
>
>http://www.sportflyingthailand.com/index.php?lay=show&ac=article&Id=322952&Ntype=4
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=47596#47596
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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: Riveted fuel tank - test |
The best way to test your tank is to use a balloon and very low pressure....
Fuel will leak before water. I think I heard somewhere that fuel has no
resistance but water does.
Jeff
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Airplane insurance. |
Nice link Douglas....
do not archive
On 7/16/06, Garrou, Douglas <dgarrou@hunton.com> wrote:
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Garrou, Douglas" <dgarrou@hunton.com>
>
> I'm from Missouri when it comes to this claim. Take a look at the
> provocative comments here:
>
> http://www.kingschools.com/news/BigLie.htm
>
> Certainly you wouldn't want to compare driving with using green
> Scotchbrite.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> After all, even with experimental home built airplanes (the
> most dangerous kind) the most dangerous portion of each flight will
> be driving your car to the airport.
>
>
--
Christopher W. E. Smith
fly1m1
http://ch-601xl.com
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aviation Safety |
Steve (And all)-
1. Kudos to Alltel/Windstream as an ISP. Everything up and running a
day ahead of schedule and noticably faster.
2. Re: starting/groundloop- About 12 years back there was a guy at a
local airport who did a credible aerobatic act in his '39 T-Craft. The
compression ratio must have been down to about 2:1, because he gave the
prop a half-hearted flip while walking back to the cabin and it started
right up. Same guy taxiied after his routine tail up in front of the
grandstand using nothing but rudder, cut the engine and dropped the tail
on cue. Sounds like just the guy you need to talk to.
3.The main advantage driving has over flying is unintentional entry
into IMC. You can always pull over if you can't see.
About 10 years ago I took off in 4 and 6 and by the time I was
done setting my radios and Loran fog had rolled in and I couldn't see
anywhere but down. Been there, done that, scared the S__t out of myself,
don't want to go back.
do not archive
Bill Naumuk
40%HDS being relocated to new shop
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Hulland
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Aviation Safety
But, I Have Never Said or even thought that driving a car to the
airport was less dangerous than flying the type GA aircraft most of us
fly. It simply is not and never has been.
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: | Where can I buy Cortec 373? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
I want to use Cortec 373 for corrosions protection but
Ive been unable to find a place that will sell it,
neither on line nor local. Ive searched the archives
and couldnt find a message that mention where to buy
it. I checked the Cortec web site and no list of
distributors. Did a search in Yahoo and Google and I
got a lot of hits about Cortec but no one from a
store. Checked some local stores and nothing. Does
anyone know the secret place where I can buy this
product?
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
www.ea-report.com
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Where can I buy Cortec 373? |
In a message dated 7/16/2006 6:26:25 PM Central Daylight Time,
bill_dom@yahoo.com writes:
I want to use Cortec 373 for corrosions protection but
I=99ve been unable to find a place that will sell it,
Bill, contact Zenith Aircraft. They will sell you Cortec 373 in one-quart
quantity. I think it runs about $25 a quart, but when diluted per directio
ns
a quart will cover about one airplane's worth of rivet lines.
Regards,
Larry Wood
(N701LW someday)
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: Riveted fuel tank - test |
ABSOLUTLY good advice, it's a surface tension thing. Balloon and NO
water in the tank and soapy water to check for leaks . Air has the LEAST
resistance to flowing thru those microscopic holes Checked 15-20 tanks
that way and it's flawless. JB
----- Original Message -----
From: Afterfxllc@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Riveted fuel tank - test
The best way to test your tank is to use a balloon and very low
pressure.... Fuel will leak before water. I think I heard somewhere that
fuel has no resistance but water does.
Jeff
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: Where can I buy Cortec 373? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Robin Bellach" <601zv@ritternet.com>
Is the price now too high from ZAC? (I'm just curious, as I think I still
have enought left from waht originally came from them.)
Robin in AR
601XL w/Wynne-Vair 2900
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 6:22 PM
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>
> I want to use Cortec 373 for corrosions protection but
> I've been unable to find a place that will sell it,
> neither on line nor local. I've searched the archives
> and couldn't find a message that mention where to buy
> it. I checked the Cortec web site and no list of
> distributors. Did a search in Yahoo and Google and I
> got a lot of hits about Cortec but no one from a
> store. Checked some local stores and nothing. Does
> anyone know the secret place where I can buy this
> product?
>
> William Dominguez
> Zodiac 601XL Plans
> www.ea-report.com
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuels with alcohol added in Rotax engines |
Does anyone know if Rotax 912 series engines can use gasoline/ethanol
mixes? In my area the fuel has up to 10% ethanol added in the summer to
reduce pollution and I am wondering if those engines tolerate the mix.
I have looked at the Rotax documentation available and it does not seem
to address the issue. Thanks in advance.
Chuck Kyle
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 |
|
I need some advice. I have been drilling my Fuselage side skins. I
accidentally drilled into the bend radius of the longeron splice--not the
longeron itself. Because the splice sits inside the longeron the bend starts
to crowd the edge distance. It's kind of a fine line. I got sloppy after a
long day. I'm thinking of replacing the splice but I would have to drill new
holes in the longeron-leaving the present ones open. Would this would be
acceptable. Assuming I am able to follow the 3x diameter between rivet holes
and still maintain edge distance. Any other ideas? I am consulting AC 43.13
for a cure.
Kevin Bonds
Nashville TN
601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.
Empennage done; working on wings and engine.
<http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds> http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Airplane insurance. |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
I guess the Kings know something the government statistics people don't know.
I did a little hunting on the Internet for accident statistics. Here
are the results:
GA accident rate last year was 6.83 accidents per 100,000 hours.
Automobile accident rate (1999) was 235 accidents per 100 million
miles. Dividing that by 50 mph average (my number) you get 117
accidents per 2 million hours or 58 per million hours.
This translates to 5.8 per 100,000 hours or approximately the same
rate per hour as general aviation.
In their piece the Kings claim GA accident rates are 7 times that of
autos. Perhaps I am wrong, or perhaps it is the Kings that are
telling the Big Lie.
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
>I'm from Missouri when it comes to this claim. Take a look at the
>provocative comments here:
-
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: | Insurance & Night Flight VFR |
I have been flying my 701, completed in November 2004, N987PD, at night
as it meets the requirements of FAR 91.209. These are the GA
requirements for VFR night flight aircraft. If you have registered your
aircraft as GA experimental and it meets these requirements it can be
flown at night regardless of your engine. It is an experimental
aircraft. You may flight a GA aircraft as a light sport aircraft if it
meets the requirements of a light sport aircraft and the FAA recognizes
it as such. If you are a light sport pilot or flying with a private
certification as a light sport pilot (non-current medical) you cannot
legally fly the aircraft at night.
Insurance is limited by the policy, my current policy with Falcon does
not prohibit my aircraft from being flown during night VRF conditions.
I have a 912ULS in my 701.
Dan Yeast
Frankfort, Ky
Sec. 91.209 - Aircraft lights.
No person may:
(a) During the period from sunset to sunrise (or, in Alaska, during the
period a prominent unlighted object cannot be seen from a distance of 3
statute miles or the sun is more than 6 degrees below the horizon) --
(1) Operate an aircraft unless it has lighted position lights;
(2) Park or move an aircraft in, or in dangerous proximity to, a night
flight operations area of an airport unless the aircraft --
(i) Is clearly illuminated;
(ii) Has lighted position lights; or
(iii) is in an area that is marked by obstruction lights;
(3) Anchor an aircraft unless the aircraft --
(i) Has lighted anchor lights; or
(ii) Is in an area where anchor lights are not required on vessels; or
(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
interest of safety to turn the lights off.
[Doc. No. 27806, 61 FR 5171, Feb. 9, 1996]
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: Airplane insurance. |
The comparison cited, while interesting, misses a fundamental difference
between the word "accident" when applied to cars and light aricraft.
The chances of walking away from that oft-mentioned auto accident "on the
way to the airport" are presumably greater than the kind of "accident" you
may have after leaving terra firma in a light airplane.
While not every GA accident is fatal (thankfully), it would be more
appropriate to consider the relevant statistics for "Fatalities Per 100
Million Vehicle Miles Driven." An interpolation between the rate of overall
accidents (235 per 100 million miles) and that of fatal accidents in autos (
1.44 per 100 million miles) is probably more realistic. In that light, the
numbers strongly indicate -- as the Kings have said --that driving your
Honda Pilot to the airport looks a whole lot safer than your activities when
you become the pilot of your small plane.
Check out http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ for the fuller picture.
Larry Winger
Scratch building 601XL
do not archive
On 7/16/06, Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <
> p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
>
> I guess the Kings know something the government statistics people don't
> know.
>
> I did a little hunting on the Internet for accident statistics. Here
> are the results:
>
> GA accident rate last year was 6.83 accidents per 100,000 hours.
>
> Automobile accident rate (1999) was 235 accidents per 100 million
> miles. Dividing that by 50 mph average (my number) you get 117
> accidents per 2 million hours or 58 per million hours.
> This translates to 5.8 per 100,000 hours or approximately the same
> rate per hour as general aviation.
>
> In their piece the Kings claim GA accident rates are 7 times that of
> autos. Perhaps I am wrong, or perhaps it is the Kings that are
> telling the Big Lie.
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
> do not archive
>
>
> >I'm from Missouri when it comes to this claim. Take a look at the
> >provocative comments here:
>
> -
>
>
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! --
|