Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:07 AM - Composite Gear (Hunt Malcolm)
2. 01:47 AM - Re: Composite Gear (Hunt Malcolm)
3. 03:31 AM - Re: Engine Choices for Zodiac XL (Phil Maxson)
4. 04:12 AM - Re: Engine Choices for Zodiac XL ()
5. 05:23 AM - Machine Shop (Rick R)
6. 05:55 AM - Re: Engine Choices for Zodiac XL (William Dominguez)
7. 07:31 AM - Re: 701 seat belt attach (doug kandle)
8. 07:44 AM - Re: 701 seat belt attach (N5SL)
9. 07:46 AM - Re: Polished Aluminum (Stanley Challgren)
10. 07:50 AM - Re: 701 seat belt attach (NYTerminat@aol.com)
11. 07:50 AM - 3D printers (Robert Schoenberger)
12. 08:10 AM - Re: 701 seat belt attach (doug kandle)
13. 08:19 AM - Re: 3D printers (John Marzulli)
14. 08:32 AM - Re: 3D printers (Bill Cardell)
15. 08:52 AM - Re: 3D/Skunk Wrks/etc (Zed Smith)
16. 09:03 AM - Re: Re: 3D/Skunk Wrks/etc ()
17. 09:23 AM - Re: 701 seat belt attach (TYA2)
18. 09:27 AM - Re: 3D printers (Paul Mulwitz)
19. 09:30 AM - Please, no more 3D!! (Zed Smith)
20. 09:42 AM - Re: 3D printers (Tom and Bren Henderson)
21. 12:30 PM - Re: 701 seat belt attach (Al Young)
22. 01:24 PM - Seat belt attachment (George Swinford)
23. 01:27 PM - Belt attachment (Zed Smith)
24. 07:17 PM - Re: Machine Shop (Rick R)
25. 10:12 PM - Re: Engine for 601XL (Gary Gower)
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 |
|
Threat Friends
On Monday I had all the steel components welded up and can now take
stock of the landing gear weights.
I have weighed the components, the two composite legs (supplied by CZAW
but look the same as the ACS) weighed total of 5.13 kg with the steel
gear chambers (6B11-5CZ) and the fuselage mounts (6B11-14CZ) weighing a
further 2.72kg.
So the grand total is 7.85kg or 17.31lb.
The CZAW plans show purpose made steel axles similar to the Grove 5012,
I would prefer to use the Grove Wheels set up but this would mean
cutting away the composite which I'm not keen on doing, so will probably
go with the purpose made CZAW axle units. The two axles would come out
at about 2kg or 4.4lb total.
There is some deepening of the gear channel 6B5-5 and its thickness goes
from .032" to .040" but this would not give much extra weight. Sundry
nuts bolts and washers not included in above as they will be very
similar to aluminium gear fittings.
Hope this of interest.
Malcolm Hunt
CH601XL Plans builder in England
***************************************************************************
************************************
The content of this email (and any attachment) is confidential. It may also
be legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.
This email should not be used by anyone who is not an original intended rec
ipient, nor may it be copied or disclosed to anyone who is
not an original intended recipient. If you have received this email by mist
ake please notify us by emailing the sender, and then
delete the email and any copies from your system.
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the send
ers own and not made on behalf of Network Rail.
***************************************************************************
************************************
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 |
|
David Wright has corrected me; I meant the salutation to read Thread
Friends. No reflection on inner thoughts!!!
Best wishes
Malcolm
________________________________
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hunt
Malcolm
Sent: 03 August 2006 09:03
Threat Friends
On Monday I had all the steel components welded up and can now take
stock of the landing gear weights.
I have weighed the components, the two composite legs (supplied by CZAW
but look the same as the ACS) weighed total of 5.13 kg with the steel
gear chambers (6B11-5CZ) and the fuselage mounts (6B11-14CZ) weighing a
further 2.72kg.
So the grand total is 7.85kg or 17.31lb.
The CZAW plans show purpose made steel axles similar to the Grove 5012,
I would prefer to use the Grove Wheels set up but this would mean
cutting away the composite which I'm not keen on doing, so will probably
go with the purpose made CZAW axle units. The two axles would come out
at about 2kg or 4.4lb total.
There is some deepening of the gear channel 6B5-5 and its thickness goes
from .032" to .040" but this would not give much extra weight. Sundry
nuts bolts and washers not included in above as they will be very
similar to aluminium gear fittings.
Hope this of interest.
Malcolm Hunt
CH601XL Plans builder in England
************************************************************************
***************************************
The content of this email (and any attachment) is confidential. It may
also be legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.
This email should not be used by anyone who is not an original intended
recipient, nor may it be copied or disclosed to anyone who is
not an original intended recipient. If you have received this email by
mistake please notify us by emailing the sender, and then
delete the email and any copies from your system.
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the
senders own and not made on behalf of Network Rail.
************************************************************************
***************************************
Your attention is drawn to the fact that this email originated from a
source external to Network Rail.
***************************************************************************
************************************
The content of this email (and any attachment) is confidential. It may also
be legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.
This email should not be used by anyone who is not an original intended rec
ipient, nor may it be copied or disclosed to anyone who is
not an original intended recipient. If you have received this email by mist
ake please notify us by emailing the sender, and then
delete the email and any copies from your system.
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the send
ers own and not made on behalf of Network Rail.
***************************************************************************
************************************
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: | Engine Choices for Zodiac XL |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Phil Maxson" <pmaxpmax@hotmail.com>
Tom,
Well said! I agree.
Phil Maxson
601XL/Corvair
Northwest New Jersey
Do Not Archive
>From: "Tom Farin" <tfarin@farin.com>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Zenith-List: Engine Choices for Zodiac XL
>Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 20:53:25 -0500
>
>Folks,
>
>First let me compliment the posters on this subject for not trashing each
>other's viewpoints and turning this discussion into a war.
>
<<SNIP>>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine Choices for Zodiac XL |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <davgray@sbcglobal.net>
Tom
Nice Post, This covers my point of view. I think you have the correct
approach.
Gary Ray
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 9:53 PM
Folks,
First let me compliment the posters on this subject for not trashing each
other's viewpoints and turning this discussion into a war.
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 |
|
Any Zenith listers with a machine shop? I need a chunk of metal. Will you contact
me off line?
thanks
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Rick
Sharpsburg, GA. USA
http://www.n701rr.com
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: Engine Choices for Zodiac XL |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
This is an excellent post, well said Tom. I enjoy the
topics on engine selection so much that it doesnt
bother me that much when it goes out of control. In my
case, I already have a Corvair core and that is the
path I would like to pursue. However, since Im still
years away from hanging an engine into my airframe, I
have the time in my favor and newer information will
hopefully confirm my current choice or will lead me to
look elsewhere.
That why Im trying to get as much information about
engines as possible and I really appreciate these
threads. This is also what motivated me to start
www.ea-report.com, to collect a good database of real
life experiences about engine reliability and
performance data that I will make available to the
community.
William Dominguez
Plans built Zodiac 601XL
Working on tail
www.ea-report.com
Do not archive
--- Tom Farin <tfarin@farin.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> First let me compliment the posters on this subject
> for not trashing each other's viewpoints and turning
> this discussion into a war.
>
> I'm a new builder and thought I'd share my thoughts
> on the subject. I'm working on the XL tail section
> and have three Corvair core engines I'm in the
> process of disassembling. But I also went up in the
> Jabiru equipped factory XL at the Romeoville, IL
> Sport Pilot fly in. And I just returned from
> Oshkosh.
>
> I haven't seen this posted to the list although many
> of you are aware of the fact the Zenith both had
> both a Jabiru equipped XL and a Corvair equipped XL.
> The Corvair equipped XL was WW's plane and he spent
> a fair amount of time in the Zenith booth.
>
> I sat through two WW presentations and talked
> extensively with William and Gus from the WW
> operation and with the Zenith factory reps. One of
> the factory reps (who I won't mention by name) told
> me if he was to build an XL personally, he'd build
> one with a Corvair engine. Do I consider any of
> this to be a formal endorsement of Corvair power by
> Zenith? No. But It does make me feel better about
> the direction in which I am headed.
>
> One of the posters indicated he felt some folks
> doing automotive conversions were doing so for the
> wrong reasons. I'm not sure which auto conversions
> he was discussing. And I'm not sure which reasons
> were the "wrong reason". Here are the three most
> common reasons I can think of for doing a Corvair
> conversion.
>
> 1. Cost - there is no question an auto conversion
> is going to be cheaper than a new Jabiru or Rotax.
> It is highly probable that a Corvair conversion will
> also be cheaper than a rebuild of an O-200. I'm
> aware some are claiming an O-200 build can be done
> for $4,000. I've been watching prices of O-200s on
> eBay. Based on what I've seen, coming in
> significantly under $12,000 for a rebuilt engine
> (without starting with a core) would be an
> accomplishment.
>
> 2. Education/Maintenance - There is no question in
> my mind I will learn a whole lot more building an
> engine myself than taking delivery of a new or
> rebuilt engine in a crate. In turn, I'm going to be
> in much better shape to do maintenance and repairs
> myself including field repairs.
>
> 3. Satisfaction - Isn't this one of the reasons
> many of us are building Zodiacs, either from kits or
> from scratch? In fact, couldn't the same three
> reasons be given for our decisions to build kits or
> scratchbuild the airframe itself.
>
> Here are the reasons I've heard given for not doing
> an auto conversion. I've added my reactions to the
> arguments.
> 1. Ignition system redundancy - Because much of the
> WW conversion offers redundancy for almost the
> entire ignition system, a large point is made of the
> fact there are not two spark plugs per cylinder. An
> inoperative spark plug is a big issue on a 4
> cylinder engine. It is much less so on a six.
> There is at least one ducumented case of a Corvair
> landing without any particular drama with one of the
> spark plug totally out of the head.
>
> 2. Inappropriate Design for aviation - Most of the
> discussion relating to corvairs relates to
> crankshaft issues. Corvairs have been flying in
> aircraft since the Corvair was introduced in 1960.
> Only recently have crank issues surfaced, for the
> most part on engines with increased horespower, or
> extended cranks, and non-nitrided cranks. I've read
> every piece of material on Corvair crank failures I
> can lay my hands on. There is no history I can find
> of crank failures on Corvairs with nitrided cranks
> built to produce 100 hp without crank extensions.
> The other problems I've heard aout with Corvair
> powered Experimentals involve components that are
> also found on aviation purposed engines that appear
> to be subject to the same problems.
>
> 3. Parts availability in the field (Podunk, NE) and
> field maintenance - This may be a valid point if
> looking for parts or maintenance if the alternative
> is a Continental or Lycoming engine. But I'd bet It
> would be easier to come up with a Corvair part than
> a Jabiru or Rotax part in a remote location. If
> A&Es don't like to work on experimentals, would they
> feel good about and be qualified to work on a Roitax
> or Jabiru engine? I'm asking. I don't know the
> answer.
>
> 4. Resale value - Given that only a few Corvair
> powered XLs are flying, I'm not sure anyone knows
> the answer to this question. There is a strong
> Corvair community. And I've seen partially complete
> WW Corvair conversions go on eBay for more than the
> builder had in the engine.
>
> 5. Safety - Some have claimed that building an auto
> conversion adds to the crash statistics. I suppose
> that is likely to be a correct statement although
> I've seen no statistics to support it. But couldn't
> the same be said for scratch building or kit
> building an airframe? Someone said they cringe
> every time they read about a crash of an auto
> conversion. I cringed when I read the FAA report
> about the Zodiac whos wings folded up killing both
> the flight instructor and the owner. My son really
> cringed when he close up witnessed what a WW2 dive
> bomber can do to a Vans RV on the taxiway at Oshkosh
> last week. Let's face it. Flying is risky.
>
> So here's where I'm at. I'm building a Zodiac XL
> knowing full well the risk is higher that I'll crash
> with a plane I build myself than if I bought a
> factory built airplane. The same is true of the
> engine. I'm going to begin building a Corvair
> engine and a Zodiac XL. Actually I'm about half way
> through the XL's tail. Along the way I'm going to
> learn a hell of a lot about building both planes and
> engines. As I proceed I'm going to keep asking
> myself two questions. Do you feel good enough about
> the job you are doing in building this airframe to
> bet your life on your skills? Do you feel good
> enough about the the job you are doing building this
> engine and what else you have learned about its
> safety to bet your life on your skills and
> knowledge?
>
> In a few years from now when both are nearly
> complete I'll have to make a decision. It will come
> down to three choices.
> 1. Don't fly the plane or the engine. I'll have
> learned a hell of a lot about both and I'm likely to
> recover most of my investment. If I don't get it
> all back, I'll consider the difference as an
> investment in my education and an enjoyable hobby.
> Probably a whole lot cheaper than owning a boat or
> playing golf.
>
> 2. Buy an aviation purposed engine and fly the
> Zodiac. I'll either sell the Corvair engine for
> close to what I have in it or drop it in a Corvair
> automobile. And I'll be much better prepared to
> maintain my aviation purposed engine.
>
> 3. Fly a Corvair powered Zodiac and take the risk.
> But it will be a calculated risk. And in my mind
> that's what Experimental aviation is all about.
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Tom Farin
>
>
>
>
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: 701 seat belt attach |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "doug kandle" <d_kandle@velocitus.net>
I don't watch this thread all of the time and so I am not familiar with the incident
with Jon. Could you say what basically happened or point me to the thread
with that discussion.
Thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=52048#52048
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: 701 seat belt attach |
John:
As usual you bring up a very good point. I talked to
Jon Croke at Oshkosh and saw his scars. Thanks for
the post. I'm attaching a portion of a scan from my
601XL drawings showing the 601XL seat belt attachment.
Here is a picture of mine installed since I followed
the drawings while building.
http://www.cooknwithgas.com/3_02_06_ELT.jpg
As you can see in the photo it is not used and I
attached mine further back using AN3 bolts into a 3/4"
thick longeron.
I did this for peace of mind. Thanks again,
Scott Laughlin
http://www.cooknwithgas.com/
working on Engine Cowl
--- John Bolding <jnbolding1@teleshare.net> wrote:
> I have no clue if the 601 is the same design as I
> don't have those drawings (somebody help me here)
__________________________________________________
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: Polished Aluminum |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Stanley Challgren <challgren@mac.com>
Robin:
I used one pound of each of the three Nuvite polishes recommended in
the 5 years of polishing my 601. Almost all of that was for the
initial polishing. I would recommend at least one pound of each.
I do not know of any polisher that is a reasonable alternative to the
Cyclo. It costs a lot of money and works great.
Stan
On Aug 1, 2006, at 9:38 AM, Robin Bellach wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Robin Bellach"
> <601zv@ritternet.com>
>
> For those who have been there, would 1/2 lb of Nuvite C and 1/2 lb.
> of S be appropriate for a 601? And is there any reasonable
> alternative to the Cyclo 5 polisher for final finishing?
>
> ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 10:00 AM
>
>
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: 701 seat belt attach |
Was it the shoulder or seat tunnel attachment that let go?
In a message dated 8/3/2006 10:46:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
nfivesl@yahoo.com writes:
John:
As usual you bring up a very good point. I talked to
Jon Croke at Oshkosh and saw his scars. Thanks for
the post. I'm attaching a portion of a scan from my
601XL drawings showing the 601XL seat belt attachment.
Here is a picture of mine installed since I followed
the drawings while building.
http://www.cooknwithgas.com/3_02_06_ELT.jpg
As you can see in the photo it is not used and I
attached mine further back using AN3 bolts into a 3/4"
thick longeron.
I did this for peace of mind. Thanks again,
Scott Laughlin
http://www.cooknwithgas.com/
working on Engine Cowl
--- John Bolding <jnbolding1@teleshare.net> wrote:
> I have no clue if the 601 is the same design as I
> don't have those drawings (somebody help me here)
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 |
|
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article today entitled "3D
Printers Reshape World of Copying". The article is hopefully attached.
Excuse the quality. The short and sweet is that there are printers out
there which build up a 3D part or object from the computer feed. I can
see all kinds of applications for our aircraft building. Making vents,
special trial curved pieces, inspection covers, etc. The price isn't
there yet, but it will be. Some of the listers probably have or will
have these 3D printers at their real job. Robert Schoenberger 701 60%
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: 701 seat belt attach |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "doug kandle" <d_kandle@velocitus.net>
We had a tragic accident at an airport here that shows just how difficult it is
to know how to attach the seat belts. A Long EZ went off the runway and broke
off the main gear. The pilot died because as the gear came off it yanked down
on the shoulder harness (which was apparently attached to or near the gear).
He appeared OK but died as they were loading him into the ambulance. This
just goes to show that you don't want the belts attached to the strongest part
of the plane, if it is at all possible for that part to be separated from your
seat.
I have some worry about the attachment on the side if the 701. If the gear were
to be hit very hard (like by a ditch on a forced landing), then they might twist
off. In that case if they don't break free, they would wind up the side
of the 701 (which is exactly where the seat belt is attached). I just hope that
the design has the gear retaining bolts breaking before the airframe deforms
significantly.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=52063#52063
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 |
|
The technique is called rapid prototyping, and the Skunk Works recently
showed an aircraft that was built using this technology.
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article.ns?id=dn9602&feedId=online-news_rss20
On 8/3/06, Robert Schoenberger <hrs1@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article today entitled "3D
> Printers Reshape World of Copying". The article is hopefully attached.
> Excuse the quality. The short and sweet is that there are printers out
> there which build up a 3D part or object from the computer feed. I can
> see all kinds of applications for our aircraft building. Making vents,
> special trial curved pieces, inspection covers, etc. The price isn't
> there yet, but it will be. Some of the listers probably have or will
> have these 3D printers at their real job. Robert Schoenberger 701 60%
>
>
--
John Marzulli
http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bill Cardell" <Bill@flyinmiata.com>
I first one of these in action at a trade show last year, since then
we've used one for three different parts. Very cool technology. They now
have ones that spray a ceramic and can actually print a usable
investment casting mold for a foundry. Draw a part and have a usable
metal proto within a day or two. Haven't tried that one yet, very
pricey.
Not airplane parts, but you can see a few of the 3d parts here:
http://www.flyinmiata.com/projects/new_turbos.php
Do not archive
Bill Cardell (TurboDog's Dad)
www.flyinmiata.com
1-800-FLY-MX5S
tech 970-242-3800
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: 3D/Skunk Wrks/etc |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Zed Smith <zsmith3rd@earthlink.net>
UAV? I have one.
I'm just trying to finish my 701 project so it'll be a MAV (Manned Aerial Vehicle).
do not archive
Zed/the usual.........
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: 3D/Skunk Wrks/etc |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <dredmoody@cox.net>
Nope Zed, what you have there is an Unmanned Flightless Object.
Ed Moody II
---- Zed Smith <zsmith3rd@earthlink.net> wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Zed Smith <zsmith3rd@earthlink.net>
>
>
> UAV? I have one.
> I'm just trying to finish my 701 project so it'll be a MAV (Manned Aerial Vehicle).
>
> do not archive
>
> Zed/the usual.........
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 seat belt attach |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: TYA2 <tya2@4-fly.net>
Dear List,
The issue with seat belt attachment points and their strength is not just
a homebuilt aircraft problem, it exists with real commercial aircraft as
well. Last week 5 people were seriously injured then their seat belt
attachment points failed in a Dash 8 turboprop aircraft flying over
Manitoba Canada. The Canadian Transportation Safety Board is
investigating. The seat belt attachment points failed in turbulence and
not in a CRASH!!.
Remember we don't have a 40 g body.
Rocky
1995 CH2000
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
Hi Bob,
This sort of equipment has been around for decades. Mechanical
engineers have used them for prototyping parts to prove their designs
are correct. In that sort of application, there is little interest
in the mechanical strength of the parts, and the cost is only
compared to hand machining costs for the same part.
Alas, there are no free rides for those of us building airplanes in
our garages.
Paul
XL fuselage
At 07:49 AM 8/3/2006, you wrote:
>The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article today entitled
>"3D Printers Reshape World of Copying". The article is hopefully attached.
>Excuse the quality. The short and sweet is that there are printers
>out there which build up a 3D part or object from the computer
>feed. I can see all kinds of applications for our aircraft
>building. Making vents, special trial curved pieces, inspection
>covers, etc. The price isn't there yet, but it will be. Some of
>the listers probably have or will have these 3D printers at their
>real job. Robert Schoenberger 701 60%
>
>
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: | Please, no more 3D!! |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Zed Smith <zsmith3rd@earthlink.net>
Ed,
I stand corrupted.
Zed
do not archive, tilt, fold, spindle or mutilate
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 |
|
We use one of these at work for small, intricate assemblies. They're fantastic
for visualization and design work. We picked it up for less than $10k, but
each "part" runs us about $50 in medium (resin).
Robert Schoenberger <hrs1@frontiernet.net> wrote: The Wall Street Journal has an
interesting article today entitled "3D
Printers Reshape World of Copying". The article is hopefully attached.
Excuse the quality. The short and sweet is that there are printers out
there which build up a 3D part or object from the computer feed. I can
see all kinds of applications for our aircraft building. Making vents,
special trial curved pieces, inspection covers, etc. The price isn't
there yet, but it will be. Some of the listers probably have or will
have these 3D printers at their real job. Robert Schoenberger 701 60%
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: 701 seat belt attach |
John- I can't speak to the 701 seat belt situation, but I can from
first hand speak to the 601XL seat belt. A year ago, I nosed into a
concrete runway in my 601XL, crushed nose wheel, bent back up into the
cabin floor, prop shattered, etc etc. I didn't have a scratch as the
seat belt held as it was designed to do. Last month I bounced a C-172 on
a grass strip and bent the rear fuselage enough that I lost all control
of rudder and elevator.(Cables loosened), End result, broken nose wheel,
totaled the Cessna. I was thrown into the right side window, breaking
it and my nose, head etc. The only difference in these two incidents
were the Cessna didn't have a shoulder belt and the 601XL did. The seat
belt on the Cessna held or I would have been a stat for the NTSB. I've
got much faith in the 601XL seat belt system. As I re-build, I noticed
that the 601XL seatbelt attachment points were not harmed, not even
bent.
Al Young
601XL
----- Original Message -----
From: John Bolding
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:44 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: 701 seat belt attach
What DIFFERENCE does it make if some dimension on the seat belt attach
fitting does not match a drawing when the WHOLE DAMN FITTING pulls out
in an accident and lets you kiss the panel ??? This is NOT green vs.
maroon scotchbrite, this is the restraint system on your aircraft which
some of us on this list (and/or our friends and loved ones)will one day
need and test to its limits. The 701 seat belt attach has been shown
recently that it is probably/possibly (you choose)not up to the task .
I have no clue if the 601 is the same design as I don't have those
drawings (somebody help me here) but if it does hopefully enough folks
will bug Zenith for an analysis of the failure(MAYBE it was an anamoly)
and a fix, if warranted. Since Jon's accident I have looked thru my
collection of about 35 homebuilt aircraft drawings (too many airplanes,
not enough time) and NONE of the seat belt fittings are secured with a
row of 5 pulled rivets into a single thickness of .025 aluminum. Not
even close. Maybe Chris has figured out something that Thorpe,
Thurston,C.G. Taylor,Van, and others didn't......If a seat belt attach
fitting pulled out of a Ford and some cute 10yr old went thru a
windshield you would hear about it on CNN.and 1,678 personal injury
lawyers would have a collective orgasm. The engineers would be all over
it NOW.
This was brought up right after Jon was gracious enough to allow us
post mortum pictures and the interest level was almost non-existent but
since then there has been hundreds of posts of mostly fluff when
compared to the importance of this (in my deranged mind anyway). If I'm
playing left field without a glove somebody tell me to sit down and keep
quiet. When you do, gently explain to me how 5 "poprivets" into a sheet
of alum slightly thicker than a beer can is going to keep me in place at
40 G's. It didn't work with Jon.
I REALLY shouldn't write stuff at 1:30 AM but I'm thick skinned so
fire away!! LOW&SLOW John
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: | Seat belt attachment |
Rocky writes "Remember, we don't have a 40g body."
As Col Stapp's rocket sled tests proved 50 years ago, when properly
restrained, we do have a 40g body. I believe current ag plane cockpit
design reflects this. For many years, the standard for FAR Part 23
aircraft was 9g forward and (I believe) 4&1/2g down. Airliner passenger
seats were designed to the same limits. For airliners, these values
have been increased. I have not used FAR 23 in several years, so I
can't quote the current values for crew restraint in light aircraft.
The point is, we can benefit from increased restraint capability. My
personal compromise is to get a capability for 20g forward on a 200
pound occupant, assuming the forward crash load to be equally divided
between shoulder harness and seat belt. I modified my 601 restraints to
realize this level of protection.
It's encouraging to hear that some 601 restraints have survived certain
accidents intact. Obviously, some 701 restraints have not. "You pays
your money and you takes your choice". If you are satisfied with what
Chris has provided, I'll be the last to criticize you. No need to start
a flame war over this issue.
I'll be happy to share my mods off-list with anyone who is interested.
George
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Zed Smith <zsmith3rd@earthlink.net>
List,
This isn't intended to prolong or enliven the aforementioned subject......however,
With all the talent present on this and related Lists surely there is somebody
who knows something about automobiles and the designed-in "crumple zones". Possibly
some of that expertise might apply here.
Obviously there are two extremes; nearly nothing and too much. We're all probably
seeking something in between.
I would speculate that none of us wishes to BE the crumple zone.....we'd rather
walk away like Jon even if it did include some scratches.
A previous post mentioned the wise addition of a shoulder strap as an augmentation
to the lap strap to preclude head-banging.
I'm going to stick my neck out on this one.....maybe if the belt attach brackets
hold (don't jerk loose from whence they're fastened) then the remainder of the
assembly (the airplane) will bend and distort while the aircraft decelerates.
This accordion feature might be one of the cat's nine lives.
If memory serves, a certain designer of ag aircraft intended that big parts (engine,
hopper, wings, tail, etc) begin shedding themselves while the box containing
the pilot stayed intact when the entire assembly unintentionally came into
contact with the ground.
Seems like a logical approach.
Okay, slide rule jockeys, jump in any time.
Maybe its the heat,
Regards,
Zed
do not archive
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: Machine Shop |
Thanks for all the replies. Hopefully my dilemma is solved. Thanks again.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Rick
Sharpsburg, GA. USA
http://www.n701rr.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: Engine for 601XL |
There are two things that has changed since those photos of the cracks in the empenage:
The newer 912 engines has a clutch that almost ended with that shaking, I have
one of this engines
The newer 701 SP conversion has thicker empenage supports,
Another note, that airplane was 582 powered...
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Flying From Chapala, Mexico
701 912S
Building a 601 XL (no engine choise yet).
Milburn Reed <milreed@directcon.net> wrote: I too have tentatively selected
a ch 701- jabiru 2200 combination-I would welcome input so related, guided
or otherwise. I have observed a hi powered ch 701 (912 Hi compression engine?)
start up and shut down and it shook like a wet dog as well as emitting a large
tin shed sound. I didn't think too much about the consequences until someone
reported they had cracks in the empennage from such shivering.
Mil Reed
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.
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! --
|