Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:20 AM - Re: total engine costs involved??? (Phil Maxson)
2. 06:39 AM - Changing face on LRI/AOA Gauge (Paul Moore)
3. 07:35 AM - Re: 701 seat belt attach (MacDonald Doug)
4. 07:38 AM - Re: Changing face on LRI/AOA Gauge (Al Young)
5. 07:41 AM - Re: total engine costs involved??? (Edward Moody II)
6. 08:18 AM - Re: 701 seat belt attach (Randy L. Thwing)
7. 08:52 AM - Re: Changing face on LRI/AOA Gauge (Paul Mulwitz)
8. 08:58 AM - Video has shipped (Jon Croke)
9. 09:54 AM - Re: 701 seat belt attach (Chuck Deiterich)
10. 10:23 AM - Re: Changing face on LRI/AOA Gauge (Paul Moore)
11. 11:11 AM - Re: total engine costs involved??? (Garrou, Douglas)
12. 12:21 PM - Re: total engine costs involved??? (Tom and Bren Henderson)
13. 12:27 PM - Re: total engine costs involved??? (Ron Butterfield)
14. 12:31 PM - Re: total engine costs involved??? (Tom and Bren Henderson)
15. 12:54 PM - Re: total engine costs involved??? (Dave Ruddiman)
16. 12:59 PM - Priming (Dave Ruddiman)
17. 01:26 PM - Re: Machine Shop (SMorgan52@aol.com)
18. 01:26 PM - Homebuilt Safety (Clyde Barcus)
19. 01:39 PM - RV-12 vs. CH601XL (Paul Mulwitz)
20. 02:10 PM - Re: RV-12 vs. CH601XL (Dave Ruddiman)
21. 02:42 PM - Re: total engine costs involved??? (Edward Moody II)
22. 02:52 PM - Re: RV-12 vs. CH601XL (David Mikesell)
23. 03:01 PM - Re: RV-12 vs. CH601XL (JOHN STARN)
24. 03:58 PM - Re: RV-12 vs. CH601XL (Paul Mulwitz)
25. 04:00 PM - Re: RV-12 vs. CH601XL (ihab.awad@gmail.com)
26. 04:50 PM - New Incoming Message Size Limit Implemented... (Matt Dralle)
27. 05:06 PM - Re: total engine costs involved??? (LarryMcFarland)
28. 05:13 PM - Jogging (Bill Naumuk)
29. 05:41 PM - Re: Jogging (Jeff)
30. 06:24 PM - Re: RV-12 vs. CH601XL (n801bh@netzero.com)
31. 06:24 PM - Re: RV-12 vs. CH601XL (kevinbonds)
32. 06:28 PM - Re: total engine costs involved??? (Gary Gower)
33. 07:31 PM - Re: total engine costs involved??? (B Johnson)
34. 07:40 PM - Re: RV-12 vs. CH601XL (Daniel Vandenberg)
35. 08:07 PM - Re: RV-12 vs. CH601XL (Randy Bryant)
36. 10:59 PM - Re: total engine costs involved??? (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 |
|
| Subject: | total engine costs involved??? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Phil Maxson" <pmaxpmax@hotmail.com>
I just opened up my spreadsheet that has all my engine rebuild and firewall
forward costs in it. I spent $6,010.00 on my firewall forward package.
This cost includes everything to install the engine, and the nose-bowl. It
does not include the cowling pieces, spinner, and various other parts for
the cowling. Remember, however, that I did most of the prep work to the
engine here in my house, and then went down to William Wynne's hangar to do
the engine build. The final assembly was done in 3 days with Kevin (one of
William's guys) looking over my shoulder and doing all the critical stages.
This is different from the full completed engine that you mention. Also, I
carted the whole plane down to the Flycorvair hangar again, and did the
critical engine installation under their watchful eyes (Gus Warren and I did
the electrical system, fuel plumbing and cowling). Gus and William have
built MANY planes and installed MANY corvairs. They know what they are
doing. This is the way to go.
The best reason to install a Corvair is the education and satisfaction you
get from doing the project yourself. (I've talked about this in many
previous posts)
Phil Maxson
601XL/Corvair
Northwest New Jersey
>From: <allpro2@bellsouth.net>
>Subject: Zenith-List: total engine costs involved???
>Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 08:04:01 -0400
>
>I am thinking out loud about a 601XL. Looking at engine choices.
>
>Looking at the Jabiru and comparing it to say the Corvair.
>
>On the Zenith price list, the Jabiru comes in at approximately $15000. plus
>$3350 for the firewall forward package.
<<SNIP>>
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: | Changing face on LRI/AOA Gauge |
Hey Team, I need some help.
I'm installing instruments. I need to change the face on my LRI gauge
and don't see how.
I have a Dwyer Minihelic II, pn 2-5002 that I'm hooking up to the probe
that Scott Laughlin so expertly machined for me months ago. The back
comes off the gauge but the diaphragm doesn't appear to come out without
destroying the gauge. The front lens appears to be glued on. Do I
separate the lens from the housing or go in from the back?
Once inside the gauge, there are two screws holding the existing face
solid. Do I take that off, or do I work between the needle and faceplate
to glue on the new face?
Details on or off list appreciated. Thanks!
Paul Moore
XL - O200
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: 701 seat belt attach |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: MacDonald Doug <dougsnash@yahoo.com>
I discussed Jon's seat belt bracket issues with the
CAN-ZAC boys at Oshkosh. They have looked at Jon's
plane and specifically looked at the seat belt issue.
They told me that the top shoulder belt attachment is
designed to allow some give (crumple zone). On Jon's
plane this function served well. They did suggest
beefing up the attachment point a bit on the tunnel
since this is what let go on Jon's plane.
I'm thinking an 040 doubler on the inside of the
tunnel might be the answer. I'm not to that point and
will be discussing further with CAN-ZAC when I start
to get close.
Doug MacDonald
CH-701 Scratch Builder
NW ONtario, Canada
__________________________________________________
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: Changing face on LRI/AOA Gauge |
Paul- I had the same problem. Put the guage in your palm and twist.
The face will unscrew with a good effort. Regards,
Al Young
601XL
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Moore
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 8:36 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Changing face on LRI/AOA Gauge
Hey Team, I need some help.
I'm installing instruments. I need to change the face on my LRI gauge
and don't see how.
I have a Dwyer Minihelic II, pn 2-5002 that I'm hooking up to the
probe that Scott Laughlin so expertly machined for me months ago. The
back comes off the gauge but the diaphragm doesn't appear to come out
without destroying the gauge. The front lens appears to be glued on. Do
I separate the lens from the housing or go in from the back?
Once inside the gauge, there are two screws holding the existing face
solid. Do I take that off, or do I work between the needle and faceplate
to glue on the new face?
Details on or off list appreciated. Thanks!
Paul Moore
XL - O200
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: total engine costs involved??? |
I'm sure that the RV-12 will be a fine plane and another example of what
great kits Van's puts out. But I would not be making any funeral
arrangements for the 601XL just yet. The RV-12's folding wing feature
may or may not be an asset depending on whether or not you care to
trailer the plane or need extra hangar space. Like a pool in the
backyard, it won't thrill every buyer. It doesn't interest me very much,
for instance, but to each his own as we have said many times.
We'll have to wait and see if one can get that "RV feel" at modest
speeds. Remember that a lot of that feel has derived from 200mph airflow
over the control surfaces.
On the individuality issue, the RV-12 loses to the 601XL on the issue of
engine choice. If you have read what the Corvair guys have been saying,
can you imagine one of them getting all gushy about a kit that only
accepts a Rotax 912S? What about the guys who are twitching to rebuild
and install Lycoming or Continental mills? There are also quite a few
folks out there flying behind Jabirus who would not accept the statement
about their engines not being proven yet. The cabin space looks cramped
too but that may be a false impression I got form the drawings on the
Vans site. Vangrunsven is definitely not a lightweight but there are
other valid opinions that won't go away just because he brings a
competing plane to the market. It is likely that ZAC will continue to
add more CAN punched matched hole convenience to future kits which will
further dilute some of the Van's advantage.
The Zodiac will continue to flourish because of its anachronistic
character..... it accepts the desire of some to experiment and offers a
successful track record to others. The RV-12 will likely do very well as
all Van's other kits have.... I don't see either one on an endangered
species list anytime soon.
Just my opinion,
Ed Moody II
Rayne, LA
601XL / Jab 3300
Allen wrote:
By the way, the RV12 factory workmanship is beautiful, and it's pushrod
control so it will have that "RV" feeling. The wings are also a
relatively quick fold. I think Zenith will have a tough time selling
kits when the -12 comes out. The only disadvantage I see it the fuel
tank behind the seats. The fuel tank was put behind the seats to make
the wing folding easier.
Allen Ricks
Zodiac XL builder
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: 701 seat belt attach |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v@mindspring.com>
Lister Chuck Dietrich identified this concern, came up with a fix, and
installed it on his 701 before he flew. He has posted about it and I'm sure
it's in the archives. I'm sure he'd comment again if asked.
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing, Las Vegas do not archive
> I'm thinking an 040 doubler on the inside of the
> tunnel might be the answer. I'm not to that point and
> will be discussing further with CAN-ZAC when I start
> to get close.
>
> Doug MacDonald
> CH-701 Scratch Builder
> NW ONtario, Canada
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: Changing face on LRI/AOA Gauge |
Hi Paul,
The front lens unscrews with a bit of effort. Then you unscrew the
two little screws and the face falls off. I painted mine with
artist's acrylic paint and then put it all back together. I also
made a big scratch in the lens and ordered another one from the
manufacturer for a few dollars.
Good luck,
Paul
XL fuselage
At 06:36 AM 8/6/2006, you wrote:
>Hey Team, I need some help.
>
>I'm installing instruments. I need to change the face on my LRI
>gauge and don't see how.
>
>I have a Dwyer Minihelic II, pn 2-5002 that I'm hooking up to the
>probe that Scott Laughlin so expertly machined for me months ago.
>The back comes off the gauge but the diaphragm doesn't appear to
>come out without destroying the gauge. The front lens appears to be
>glued on. Do I separate the lens from the housing or go in from the back?
>
>Once inside the gauge, there are two screws holding the existing
>face solid. Do I take that off, or do I work between the needle and
>faceplate to glue on the new face?
>
>Details on or off list appreciated. Thanks!
>
>Paul Moore
>XL - O200
--
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: | Video has shipped |
For those of you who already sent me their mailing address, I have
shipped your copy of the Zenith builder's Dinner DVD to you... let me
know if you dont receive it in the next few days.
Interesting enough: many who were at the dinner and appeared in the
video have not requested a copy... no one kept tabs on the attendees at
the dinner nor possess your mailing addresses - so dont think you're
automaticlly getting a copy if you didnt email me your mailing address!
And for anyone else on the list that wants a copy - I'll make this a
last call for the half - hour long DVD presentation of builder
'interviews' and misc other comments from the Osh ZAC builder's dinner.
Just email me your mailing address and I'll send one out in Monday's
mail! (remember, email me jon@joncroke.com , NOT the zenith-list!)
Jon
back to the workshop
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: 701 seat belt attach |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Chuck Deiterich" <cffd@pgrb.com>
Doug,
Here is what I wrote.
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" 4130 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.
Chuck D.
N701TX
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 10:16 AM
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy L. Thwing"
<n4546v@mindspring.com>
>
> Lister Chuck Dietrich identified this concern, came up with a fix, and
> installed it on his 701 before he flew. He has posted about it and I'm
sure
> it's in the archives. I'm sure he'd comment again if asked.
>
> Regards,
> Randy L. Thwing, Las Vegas do not archive
>
>
> > I'm thinking an 040 doubler on the inside of the
> > tunnel might be the answer. I'm not to that point and
> > will be discussing further with CAN-ZAC when I start
> > to get close.
> >
> > Doug MacDonald
> > CH-701 Scratch Builder
> > NW ONtario, Canada
>
do not archive
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: Changing face on LRI/AOA Gauge |
Thanks everyone. Problem solved in record time!
Paul
----- Original Message -----
The front lens unscrews with a bit of effort.
Do Not Archive
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: total engine costs involved??? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Garrou, Douglas" <dgarrou@hunton.com>
Are you saying that auto conversions and certified engines generally experience
roughly the same number of in-flight power failures? I've never seen data either
way, so you may be right. But I am pretty confident that the insurance companies
don't have this view.
What leads you to this conclusion?
-----Original Message-----
Time: 09:27:39 AM PST US
--> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
[snip]
That's why the margin between engine problems of the conversion and the production
commercial types are so close.
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: total engine costs involved??? |
Not to mention the #1 reason I chose the 601XL: I can built it from plans.
If Van's offered the plans for an RV-7, I'd have half of an RV in the garage
instead of a Zodiac. Take a look at the number of plans built vs kit built Zeniths
out there. There's a surprising number of them being built from $5K worth
of aluminum, rather than paying $15K for a partially built airframe.
So will my next airplane be a Van's? Heck no. Yeah, I still LOVE the RVs,
but I discovered I love building something from nothing a little bit more.
Do Not Archive
Edward Moody II <dredmoody@cox.net> wrote: I'm sure that the RV-12 will
be a fine plane and another example of what great kits Van's puts out. But I
would not be making any funeral arrangements for the 601XL just yet. The RV-12's
folding wing feature may or may not be an asset depending on whether or not
you care to trailer the plane or need extra hangar space. Like a pool in the
backyard, it won't thrill every buyer. It doesn't interest me very much, for
instance, but to each his own as we have said many times.
We'll have to wait and see if one can get that "RV feel" at modest speeds. Remember
that a lot of that feel has derived from 200mph airflow over the control
surfaces.
On the individuality issue, the RV-12 loses to the 601XL on the issue of engine
choice. If you have read what the Corvair guys have been saying, can you imagine
one of them getting all gushy about a kit that only accepts a Rotax 912S?
What about the guys who are twitching to rebuild and install Lycoming or
Continental mills? There are also quite a few folks out there flying behind
Jabirus who would not accept the statement about their engines not being proven
yet. The cabin space looks cramped too but that may be a false impression
I got form the drawings on the Vans site. Vangrunsven is definitely not a lightweight
but there are other valid opinions that won't go away just because
he brings a competing plane to the market. It is likely that ZAC will continue
to add more CAN punched matched hole convenience to future kits which will
further dilute some of the Van's advantage.
The Zodiac will continue to flourish because of its anachronistic character.....
it accepts the desire of some to experiment and offers a successful track
record to others. The RV-12 will likely do very well as all Van's other kits
have.... I don't see either one on an endangered species list anytime soon.
Just my opinion,
Ed Moody II
Rayne, LA
601XL / Jab 3300
Allen wrote:
By the way, the RV12 factory workmanship is beautiful, and it's pushrod control
so it will have that "RV" feeling. The wings are also a relatively quick
fold. I think Zenith will have a tough time selling kits when the -12 comes
out. The only disadvantage I see it the fuel tank behind the seats. The fuel
tank was put behind the seats to make the wing folding easier.
Allen Ricks
Zodiac XL builder
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: total engine costs involved??? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Ron Butterfield <rbutterfield@mebtel.net>
At 10:40 AM 8/6/2006, Edward Moody II wrote:
>I'm sure that the RV-12 will be a fine plane and another example of
>what great kits Van's puts out. But I would not be making any
>funeral arrangements for the 601XL just yet.
>
>On the individuality issue, the RV-12 loses to the 601XL on the
>issue of engine choice.
To add a bit of detail to this, if you look at the side view about
halfway down the page
http://vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int.htm
you can see that the pilot & passenger's feet are actually partway
_under_ the back of the Rotax engine. They did this in order to get
the people _in_front_ of the spar instead of the normal _on_top_ of
the spar. This is why the concrete limitation of using only the
Rotax engine; because of it's physical package it's probably the only
100hp engine that will fit and keep an acceptable CG.
Regards,
RonB
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: total engine costs involved??? |
Insurance companies will charge extra for anything they can charge extra for.
Give them a reason not to cover something, and it won't be covered. You'll
find that most of them don't care for homebuilt aircraft at all, regardless
of what engine you're running. If I ever start basing my decision on recommendations
from the insurance company, please, just shoot me. I don't deserve to
live.
There doesn't exist much data on certified failures vs conversion failures,
but if you search the NTSB archives, you can get a good feel for it. Be carefull
though. There's no data as to whether the failure was a design flaw, or
because Joe Idiot decided he could build an engine.
There have been an awful lot of homebuilts I wouldn't plant my butt in, while
others looked as thought the skunkworks had cooked them up behind closed doors.
They were simply beautiful. I'm sure the same goes for engines. Are you
a mechanic? Do you trust your skills? Have you researched your engine choice?
Then by all means go for it. If the answer to any of those questions is
no, then plant your butt behind a Lycosaur with the rest of the spam can jockies
and be happy. You're still flying an airplane that you built!
"Garrou, Douglas" <dgarrou@hunton.com> wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted by:
"Garrou, Douglas"
Are you saying that auto conversions and certified engines generally experience
roughly the same number of in-flight power failures? I've never seen data either
way, so you may be right. But I am pretty confident that the insurance companies
don't have this view.
What leads you to this conclusion?
-----Original Message-----
Time: 09:27:39 AM PST US
--> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland
[snip]
That's why the margin between engine problems of the conversion and the production
commercial types are so close.
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: total engine costs involved??? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave Ruddiman" <pacificpainting@comcast.net>
What's the price of the RV-12 supposed to be?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 12:08 PM
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Ron Butterfield
> <rbutterfield@mebtel.net>
>
> At 10:40 AM 8/6/2006, Edward Moody II wrote:
>>I'm sure that the RV-12 will be a fine plane and another example of what
>>great kits Van's puts out. But I would not be making any funeral
>>arrangements for the 601XL just yet.
>>
>>On the individuality issue, the RV-12 loses to the 601XL on the issue of
>>engine choice.
>
> To add a bit of detail to this, if you look at the side view about halfway
> down the page
> http://vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int.htm
> you can see that the pilot & passenger's feet are actually partway _under_
> the back of the Rotax engine. They did this in order to get the people
> _in_front_ of the spar instead of the normal _on_top_ of the spar. This is
> why the concrete limitation of using only the Rotax engine; because of
> it's physical package it's probably the only 100hp engine that will fit
> and keep an acceptable CG.
>
>
> Regards,
> RonB
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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 |
|
I'm thinking about epoxy priming my various parts and assemblies as I
complete them. Then probably painting later on before major assembly. I
don't really want to paint now as I don't know what color I want and
would rather do it in stages anyway. With all the vast experience out
there, what are the pros and cons. I can't remember if I use epoxy
primer if it needs to be, or can be sanded before final paint.
Dave in Salem
801
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: Machine Shop |
please remove me from list
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: | Homebuilt Safety |
I just got the September issue of Kitplanes and there is a great
article on homebuilt safety. The article compares homebuilt versus
Cessna accident causes, 2002-2004. The writer breaks it down into
several categories, for instance, engine failures are listed as
internal, fuel and ignition failures. It covers a lot of what has been
discussed in recent posts.
Clyde Barcus
601 XL, Corvair Powered
Wings, Tail & Engine Complete
Working on Fuselage
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: | RV-12 vs. CH601XL |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
I just did a quick comparison between the RV-12 and the Zodiac XL. I
used the primary web site for each model for information as well as a
little I have picked up from the real world.
For starters, Zodiac has been flying for a number of years but the
RV-12 is still an infant. If no other differences existed that would
make me lean heavily toward the XL. Any new design will have growing
pains for the first few years, and even Van's can't avoid this
problem. Van's might have an advantage if the same designer did the
RV-12 as the other models, but Richard has retired and I don't think
he had much of anything to do with the RV-12 design process. There
are competent engineers at Van's who I am sure did a fine job, but
the master isn't the one who did it. This is similar to the fact
that Chris Heintz has also retired which leads me to believe the
future of the Zodiac and ZAC/Zenair lines is subject to great uncertainty.
Both planes claim maximum performance for a Light Sport Airplane, but
the RV has 10 percent less wing area and weighs over 50 pounds more
empty. It also holds only 20 gallons of fuel while the XL offers the
choice of 24 or 30 gallons.
The RV-12 offers folding wings. I consider this a negative feature
rather than a positive one. It sounds like you can keep your plane
in your garage instead of renting tie down space or a hangar at the
airport. This may be true, but I think history has shown this option
doesn't really work well for anyone. It becomes such a problem to
tow the plane to the airport and set it up for each flight that the
amount of flying you do becomes very small. I understand it is a
common choice for people with this option on their plane to keep it
at the airport anyway and just carry around the extra weight and
hardware rather than using the folding wings as anticipated.
Now for the stuff that wasn't in the web promotion pages. This is
the first time Van's has designed a plane to use blind rivets instead
of the standard solid ones. This is a big change, and I am a little
concerned that they may have made a few little mistakes because of
it. I am not concerned over actual structural integrity, but rather
a little concerned that the build process might need tuning up. I
don't know which rivets they chose to use but this is another area
where Zenair/ZAC experience and custom batch testing might give them
a leg up. I also have no idea how Van's will handle the rivet head
question, but I like the custom riveter heads designed by Heintz and
offered by the companies. In the past, Van's has opted for dimpled
countersunk rivet heads. This is one of the many factors that makes
it take around three times as much labor to build an RV as a
Zodiac. Whether the RV-12 uses a new approach or the old dimpled
approach it is an area of concern.
I don't personally like the Rotax engine choice. It is a fine
engine, but it requires a PSRU and radiator for the water cooling. I
also feel it is over-worked to produce 100 HP with significantly
smaller displacement than all(?) of its competitors. While this
engine is an option on the Zodiac, it is forced on builders of the
RV-12. One more point in favor of the Zodiac.
I know that all the previous RVs have free castoring nose wheels. I
don't know if the RV-12 has incorporated nose wheel steering like the
Zodiac already has. I think this is the biggest weakness in the RV
line. It means you must stand on one of the brakes while trying to
take off in a cross wind. I think the nose gear steering is a great
benefit for this situation. If nothing else, this could mean a great
advantage for the Zodiac in take off distance - particularly if there
is a crosswind. I am not entirely sure, but I think a crosswind
might actually reduce the Zodiac take off distance while it would
increase the RV distance required.
Given all that, I don't see any particular advantages to the RV-12
over the Zodiac XL. Perhaps the RV name will help it get some sales,
but anyone who really compares the two designs would be likely to
choose the Zodiac. This could change if the RV-12 gains some years
of experience and large sales numbers, but I am afraid it will never
get off the starting block. By the time it is offered for sale there
will be over 40 S-LSA models to choose from and a significant number
of kits and E-LSA choices which can all offer the same performance.
Paul
XL fuselage
At 12:20 PM 8/6/2006, you wrote:
> Not to mention the #1 reason I chose the 601XL: I can built it
> from plans. If Van's offered the plans for an RV-7, I'd have half
> of an RV in the garage instead of a Zodiac. Take a look at the
> number of plans built vs kit built Zeniths out there. There's a
> surprising number of them being built from $5K worth of aluminum,
> rather than paying $15K for a partially built airframe.
> So will my next airplane be a Van's? Heck no. Yeah, I still
> LOVE the RVs, but I discovered I love building something from
> nothing a little bit more.
>
> Do Not Archive
>
--
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: RV-12 vs. CH601XL |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave Ruddiman" <pacificpainting@comcast.net>
Paul,
I've worked on Van's planes and ZAC planes. I'm not necessarily for or
against either one. A couple of advantages in the building process. Van's
plans are much better and if they pilot drill the 12 as much as they do the
RV9 then that would also give it an advantage in build time. I think. If you
didn't have any knowledge of the build process, were a new builder and
looked at the real numbers, then the ZAC planes would probably be the one I
would choose. I'm sure they will rely on reputation in selling the initial
kits. After that, who knows.
Dave in Salem
801
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 1:37 PM
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz
> <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
>
> I just did a quick comparison between the RV-12 and the Zodiac XL. I used
> the primary web site for each model for information as well as a little I
> have picked up from the real world.
>
> For starters, Zodiac has been flying for a number of years but the RV-12
> is still an infant. If no other differences existed that would make me
> lean heavily toward the XL. Any new design will have growing pains for
> the first few years, and even Van's can't avoid this problem. Van's might
> have an advantage if the same designer did the RV-12 as the other models,
> but Richard has retired and I don't think he had much of anything to do
> with the RV-12 design process. There are competent engineers at Van's who
> I am sure did a fine job, but the master isn't the one who did it. This
> is similar to the fact that Chris Heintz has also retired which leads me
> to believe the future of the Zodiac and ZAC/Zenair lines is subject to
> great uncertainty.
>
> Both planes claim maximum performance for a Light Sport Airplane, but the
> RV has 10 percent less wing area and weighs over 50 pounds more empty. It
> also holds only 20 gallons of fuel while the XL offers the choice of 24 or
> 30 gallons.
>
> The RV-12 offers folding wings. I consider this a negative feature rather
> than a positive one. It sounds like you can keep your plane in your
> garage instead of renting tie down space or a hangar at the airport. This
> may be true, but I think history has shown this option doesn't really work
> well for anyone. It becomes such a problem to tow the plane to the
> airport and set it up for each flight that the amount of flying you do
> becomes very small. I understand it is a common choice for people with
> this option on their plane to keep it at the airport anyway and just carry
> around the extra weight and hardware rather than using the folding wings
> as anticipated.
>
> Now for the stuff that wasn't in the web promotion pages. This is the
> first time Van's has designed a plane to use blind rivets instead of the
> standard solid ones. This is a big change, and I am a little concerned
> that they may have made a few little mistakes because of it. I am not
> concerned over actual structural integrity, but rather a little concerned
> that the build process might need tuning up. I don't know which rivets
> they chose to use but this is another area where Zenair/ZAC experience and
> custom batch testing might give them a leg up. I also have no idea how
> Van's will handle the rivet head question, but I like the custom riveter
> heads designed by Heintz and offered by the companies. In the past, Van's
> has opted for dimpled countersunk rivet heads. This is one of the many
> factors that makes it take around three times as much labor to build an RV
> as a Zodiac. Whether the RV-12 uses a new approach or the old dimpled
> approach it is an area of concern.
>
> I don't personally like the Rotax engine choice. It is a fine engine, but
> it requires a PSRU and radiator for the water cooling. I also feel it is
> over-worked to produce 100 HP with significantly smaller displacement than
> all(?) of its competitors. While this engine is an option on the Zodiac,
> it is forced on builders of the RV-12. One more point in favor of the
> Zodiac.
>
> I know that all the previous RVs have free castoring nose wheels. I don't
> know if the RV-12 has incorporated nose wheel steering like the Zodiac
> already has. I think this is the biggest weakness in the RV line. It
> means you must stand on one of the brakes while trying to take off in a
> cross wind. I think the nose gear steering is a great benefit for this
> situation. If nothing else, this could mean a great advantage for the
> Zodiac in take off distance - particularly if there is a crosswind. I am
> not entirely sure, but I think a crosswind might actually reduce the
> Zodiac take off distance while it would increase the RV distance required.
>
> Given all that, I don't see any particular advantages to the RV-12 over
> the Zodiac XL. Perhaps the RV name will help it get some sales, but
> anyone who really compares the two designs would be likely to choose the
> Zodiac. This could change if the RV-12 gains some years of experience and
> large sales numbers, but I am afraid it will never get off the starting
> block. By the time it is offered for sale there will be over 40 S-LSA
> models to choose from and a significant number of kits and E-LSA choices
> which can all offer the same performance.
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
>
>
> At 12:20 PM 8/6/2006, you wrote:
>> Not to mention the #1 reason I chose the 601XL: I can built it from
>> plans. If Van's offered the plans for an RV-7, I'd have half of an RV in
>> the garage instead of a Zodiac. Take a look at the number of plans built
>> vs kit built Zeniths out there. There's a surprising number of them
>> being built from $5K worth of aluminum, rather than paying $15K for a
>> partially built airframe.
>> So will my next airplane be a Van's? Heck no. Yeah, I still LOVE
>> the RVs, but I discovered I love building something from nothing a little
>> bit more.
>>
>> Do Not Archive
>>
>
> --
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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: total engine costs involved??? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Edward Moody II" <dredmoody@cox.net>
It's still in developement so I don't know if anyone has a fix on price yet.
Ed
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Ruddiman" <pacificpainting@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: total engine costs involved???
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave Ruddiman"
> <pacificpainting@comcast.net>
>
> What's the price of the RV-12 supposed to be?
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: RV-12 vs. CH601XL |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "David Mikesell" <skyguynca@skyguynca.com>
I don't comment alot on here but Paul you are under a bit of a misconception
as far as a castoring nose wheel operations. I personaly own and fly several
different aircraft with castoring nose wheels and steerable nose wheels. The
castoring nose wheel does not require you to stand on the brake while making
a cross wind take off. On my airport just about every takeoff I do is cross
wind from 6 to 20mph crosswinds. I never stand on the brake, I may tap it
quickly once or twice and the rudder takes over after 5 to 6 mph...and this
is either in my Rans S4 that I modified into a tricycle gear with a
castoring nose wheel, or my KB2 gyrocopter, or my modified Benson Gyrocopter
and even in a Gruman Tiger I fly from time to time. Don't think a castoring
nose wheel as a negative point, just a different one. I like castoring nose
wheels because I can turn around in my own wingspan or rotorspan, and I have
not noticed any higher brake wear between my nose wheel steering airplanes
or my castoring ones.
David Mikesell
23597 N. Hwy 99
Acampo, CA 95220
209-609-8774
skyguynca@skyguynca.com
www.skyguynca.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 1:37 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: RV-12 vs. CH601XL
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz
<p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
>
> I just did a quick comparison between the RV-12 and the Zodiac XL. I
> used the primary web site for each model for information as well as a
> little I have picked up from the real world.
>
> For starters, Zodiac has been flying for a number of years but the
> RV-12 is still an infant. If no other differences existed that would
> make me lean heavily toward the XL. Any new design will have growing
> pains for the first few years, and even Van's can't avoid this
> problem. Van's might have an advantage if the same designer did the
> RV-12 as the other models, but Richard has retired and I don't think
> he had much of anything to do with the RV-12 design process. There
> are competent engineers at Van's who I am sure did a fine job, but
> the master isn't the one who did it. This is similar to the fact
> that Chris Heintz has also retired which leads me to believe the
> future of the Zodiac and ZAC/Zenair lines is subject to great uncertainty.
>
> Both planes claim maximum performance for a Light Sport Airplane, but
> the RV has 10 percent less wing area and weighs over 50 pounds more
> empty. It also holds only 20 gallons of fuel while the XL offers the
> choice of 24 or 30 gallons.
>
> The RV-12 offers folding wings. I consider this a negative feature
> rather than a positive one. It sounds like you can keep your plane
> in your garage instead of renting tie down space or a hangar at the
> airport. This may be true, but I think history has shown this option
> doesn't really work well for anyone. It becomes such a problem to
> tow the plane to the airport and set it up for each flight that the
> amount of flying you do becomes very small. I understand it is a
> common choice for people with this option on their plane to keep it
> at the airport anyway and just carry around the extra weight and
> hardware rather than using the folding wings as anticipated.
>
> Now for the stuff that wasn't in the web promotion pages. This is
> the first time Van's has designed a plane to use blind rivets instead
> of the standard solid ones. This is a big change, and I am a little
> concerned that they may have made a few little mistakes because of
> it. I am not concerned over actual structural integrity, but rather
> a little concerned that the build process might need tuning up. I
> don't know which rivets they chose to use but this is another area
> where Zenair/ZAC experience and custom batch testing might give them
> a leg up. I also have no idea how Van's will handle the rivet head
> question, but I like the custom riveter heads designed by Heintz and
> offered by the companies. In the past, Van's has opted for dimpled
> countersunk rivet heads. This is one of the many factors that makes
> it take around three times as much labor to build an RV as a
> Zodiac. Whether the RV-12 uses a new approach or the old dimpled
> approach it is an area of concern.
>
> I don't personally like the Rotax engine choice. It is a fine
> engine, but it requires a PSRU and radiator for the water cooling. I
> also feel it is over-worked to produce 100 HP with significantly
> smaller displacement than all(?) of its competitors. While this
> engine is an option on the Zodiac, it is forced on builders of the
> RV-12. One more point in favor of the Zodiac.
>
> I know that all the previous RVs have free castoring nose wheels. I
> don't know if the RV-12 has incorporated nose wheel steering like the
> Zodiac already has. I think this is the biggest weakness in the RV
> line. It means you must stand on one of the brakes while trying to
> take off in a cross wind. I think the nose gear steering is a great
> benefit for this situation. If nothing else, this could mean a great
> advantage for the Zodiac in take off distance - particularly if there
> is a crosswind. I am not entirely sure, but I think a crosswind
> might actually reduce the Zodiac take off distance while it would
> increase the RV distance required.
>
> Given all that, I don't see any particular advantages to the RV-12
> over the Zodiac XL. Perhaps the RV name will help it get some sales,
> but anyone who really compares the two designs would be likely to
> choose the Zodiac. This could change if the RV-12 gains some years
> of experience and large sales numbers, but I am afraid it will never
> get off the starting block. By the time it is offered for sale there
> will be over 40 S-LSA models to choose from and a significant number
> of kits and E-LSA choices which can all offer the same performance.
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
>
>
> At 12:20 PM 8/6/2006, you wrote:
> > Not to mention the #1 reason I chose the 601XL: I can built it
> > from plans. If Van's offered the plans for an RV-7, I'd have half
> > of an RV in the garage instead of a Zodiac. Take a look at the
> > number of plans built vs kit built Zeniths out there. There's a
> > surprising number of them being built from $5K worth of aluminum,
> > rather than paying $15K for a partially built airframe.
> > So will my next airplane be a Van's? Heck no. Yeah, I still
> > LOVE the RVs, but I discovered I love building something from
> > nothing a little bit more.
> >
> > Do Not Archive
> >
>
> --
>
>
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: RV-12 vs. CH601XL |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Hate to be sour grapes BUT. The RV-12 will have a steerible nose gear, a
more upright seating position and RV's have lost a lot less canopies in
flight & the -12 design (tip forward) would harder to dislodge. I too
dislike the extra "folding" wing idea, extra weight & one I doubt I'll ever
use. Yes I'm waiting with cash in hand just as soon as Van's starts taking
orders. Have work on, about the RV's thus far and built an HRII. Every RV
thus far has been an improvement over the older ones & I would think that
this will be that case with the RV-12. Would rather have a 3300 up front,
never considered a Corvair as I owned one of them for ground transportation.
It worked great until the belt broke or came off, I always carried a spare
belt but it was less of a problem to solve on the ground.
KABONG Do Not Archive HRII N561FS (GBA & GWB)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 1:37 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: RV-12 vs. CH601XL
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: RV-12 vs. CH601XL |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
Hi David,
Thanks for the comments on cross-wind takeoff with castoring nose
wheels. I guess my experience is limited on this subject. The only
plane I have flown with this configuration was an AA5. In that case,
it took a lot more than 5 or 10 mph to get the rudder working enough
to counter the crosswind I faced. Of course this was only one flight
and my own training was minimal, so maybe I am being too negative on
this point. It guess the amount of braking needed would depend on
how hard the cross wind was blowing and which direction it was blowing.
I don't really think the castoring nose wheel plays much role in
small turning radius. It is the differential brakes that are
necessary with this configuration that really help in this
trick. Most of the planes I have flown were Cessnas with
differential brakes, and they all turn in a very small space when you
use both the brakes and nose gear steering..
I still think there is some value to using steering to counter a
cross-wind rather than differential brakes, but I can be convinced
the difference is trivial in at least some aircraft.
Best regards,
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 02:57 PM 8/6/2006, you wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "David Mikesell" <skyguynca@skyguynca.com>
>
>I don't comment alot on here but Paul you are under a bit of a misconception
>as far as a castoring nose wheel operations. I personaly own and fly several
>different aircraft with castoring nose wheels and steerable nose wheels. The
>castoring nose wheel does not require you to stand on the brake while making
>a cross wind take off. On my airport just about every takeoff I do is cross
>wind from 6 to 20mph crosswinds. I never stand on the brake, I may tap it
>quickly once or twice and the rudder takes over after 5 to 6 mph...and this
>is either in my Rans S4 that I modified into a tricycle gear with a
>castoring nose wheel, or my KB2 gyrocopter, or my modified Benson Gyrocopter
>and even in a Gruman Tiger I fly from time to time. Don't think a castoring
>nose wheel as a negative point, just a different one. I like castoring nose
>wheels because I can turn around in my own wingspan or rotorspan, and I have
>not noticed any higher brake wear between my nose wheel steering airplanes
>or my castoring ones.
>
>
>David Mikesell
>23597 N. Hwy 99
>Acampo, CA 95220
>209-609-8774
>skyguynca@skyguynca.com
>www.skyguynca.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: RV-12 vs. CH601XL |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: ihab.awad@gmail.com
On 8/6/06, Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I just did a quick comparison between the RV-12 and the Zodiac XL. I
> used the primary web site for each model for information as well as a
> little I have picked up from the real world.
The main question I would ask would be about the L/D of the airframe
as a whole, and its effect on fuel burn.
Ihab
--
Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
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: | New Incoming Message Size Limit Implemented... |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
Due to a number of requests to limit the size of incoming posts to the Lists because
of the recently added enclosure feature, I have add a new filter that will
limit the total size of any given message posted to the List. I have initially
set the limit to 2MB
and we'll see how everyone likes that.
If a member attempts to post a message that is greater than the set limit, they
will receive an email back indicating that their message wasn't posted to the
List and why. Also included in the message will be the current size limit and
how large their message
was.
Some might say that 2MB is still too large, but its a place to start...
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
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: total engine costs involved??? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
Hi Doug,
Under ideal conditions, if everyone was an engine guy, the automotive
conversions would not be considered problematic or present a fear factor
for so many builders. If you stack engine failures specifically tied to
names like Ford, Subaru, Corvair, Allison or Merlin Rolls Royce, youll
find that, they hold up as well as Continental, Lycoming, Pratt &
Whitney, Franklin etc. The failures are pretty much the same.
Builders skew failure statistics with odd carburetion, poorly done
ignition, long prop extensions, imbalanced propellers, improper fuels,
poor cooling, lubrication and every manner of non-standard rebuild or
assembly. This does change perspective but not the failure rate for the
original engine (aircraft engine or automotive conversion). True, there
are more items to be responsible for with a conversion.
Insurance companies are only interested in long track records and
statistics for Type Certified engines to minimize their own risk. Few
conversions have STC track records or many aircraft applications that
connect with data that proves theyre safe. That doesnt say anything
about whether they are safe. It just scares some people when they
contemplate use of an engine that isnt certifiably standard or safe
regardless of the cost.
Sorry for the rant, but Im comfortable with either kind of engine and
fly both.
Larry McFarland 601HDS (Subaru power, originally an aircraft engine
converted to automobiles)
do not archive
Garrou, Douglas wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Garrou, Douglas" <dgarrou@hunton.com>
>
>Are you saying that auto conversions and certified engines generally experience
roughly the same number of in-flight power failures? I've never seen data either
way, so you may be right. But I am pretty confident that the insurance
companies don't have this view.
>
>What leads you to this conclusion?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>Time: 09:27:39 AM PST US
>
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
>
>[snip]
>
>That's why the margin between engine problems of the conversion and the production
>commercial types are so close.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
All-
Just noticed a pneumatic tool from Aircraft Tool that jogs your
edges to allow a flush fit on (Normally) overlapping skins. I'm past the
point where I can use it, but it sounds new builders might want to
investigate.
Just curious- does anyone have experience with this technique?
do not archive
Bill Naumuk
40%HDS
Townville, Pa
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 |
|
The RV folks have a similar tool made from a pair of vice grips with rollers
attached to give edges a slight bend. I used it on my 601 skin edges but
don't tell the folks at Cleaveland Aircraft Tool and Material where I bought
it please.
Jeff Davidson
CH601 HD
Herndon, Virginia
PS: A request made at the Zenair dinner was to put a physical location on
list posts.
_____
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Naumuk
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 8:13 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Jogging
All-
Just noticed a pneumatic tool from Aircraft Tool that jogs your edges to
allow a flush fit on (Normally) overlapping skins. I'm past the point where
I can use it, but it sounds new builders might want to investigate.
Just curious- does anyone have experience with this technique?
please archive
Bill Naumuk
40%HDS
Townville, Pa
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-12 vs. CH601XL |
I had a pretty indepth conversation with the Vans folks years ago down a
t Sun&Fun when Iwas deciding which plane to build. They went on and on
about the silly ideas of Zenith's, like using pulled rivets and hingele
ss ailerons. Needless to say they drove me to buy a Zenith 801. Seems ki
nda funny now they now think pulled rivets are kool....<G>
do not archive
List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
I just did a quick comparison between the RV-12 and the Zodiac XL. I
used the primary web site for each model for information as well as a
little I have picked up from the real world.
For starters, Zodiac has been flying for a number of years but the
RV-12 is still an infant. If no other differences existed that would
make me lean heavily toward the XL. Any new design will have growing
pains for the first few years, and even Van's can't avoid this
problem. Van's might have an advantage if the same designer did the
RV-12 as the other models, but Richard has retired and I don't think
he had much of anything to do with the RV-12 design process. There
are competent engineers at Van's who I am sure did a fine job, but
the master isn't the one who did it. This is similar to the fact
that Chris Heintz has also retired which leads me to believe the
future of the Zodiac and ZAC/Zenair lines is subject to great uncertaint
y.
Both planes claim maximum performance for a Light Sport Airplane, but
the RV has 10 percent less wing area and weighs over 50 pounds more
empty. It also holds only 20 gallons of fuel while the XL offers the
choice of 24 or 30 gallons.
The RV-12 offers folding wings. I consider this a negative feature
rather than a positive one. It sounds like you can keep your plane
in your garage instead of renting tie down space or a hangar at the
airport. This may be true, but I think history has shown this option
doesn't really work well for anyone. It becomes such a problem to
tow the plane to the airport and set it up for each flight that the
amount of flying you do becomes very small. I understand it is a
common choice for people with this option on their plane to keep it
at the airport anyway and just carry around the extra weight and
hardware rather than using the folding wings as anticipated.
Now for the stuff that wasn't in the web promotion pages. This is
the first time Van's has designed a plane to use blind rivets instead
of the standard solid ones. This is a big change, and I am a little
concerned that they may have made a few little mistakes because of
it. I am not concerned over actual structural integrity, but rather
a little concerned that the build process might need tuning up. I
don't know which rivets they chose to use but this is another area
where Zenair/ZAC experience and custom batch testing might give them
a leg up. I also have no idea how Van's will handle the rivet head
question, but I like the custom riveter heads designed by Heintz and
offered by the companies. In the past, Van's has opted for dimpled
countersunk rivet heads. This is one of the many factors that makes
it take around three times as much labor to build an RV as a
Zodiac. Whether the RV-12 uses a new approach or the old dimpled
approach it is an area of concern.
I don't personally like the Rotax engine choice. It is a fine
engine, but it requires a PSRU and radiator for the water cooling. I
also feel it is over-worked to produce 100 HP with significantly
smaller displacement than all(?) of its competitors. While this
engine is an option on the Zodiac, it is forced on builders of the
RV-12. One more point in favor of the Zodiac.
I know that all the previous RVs have free castoring nose wheels. I
don't know if the RV-12 has incorporated nose wheel steering like the
Zodiac already has. I think this is the biggest weakness in the RV
line. It means you must stand on one of the brakes while trying to
take off in a cross wind. I think the nose gear steering is a great
benefit for this situation. If nothing else, this could mean a great
advantage for the Zodiac in take off distance - particularly if there
is a crosswind. I am not entirely sure, but I think a crosswind
might actually reduce the Zodiac take off distance while it would
increase the RV distance required.
Given all that, I don't see any particular advantages to the RV-12
over the Zodiac XL. Perhaps the RV name will help it get some sales,
but anyone who really compares the two designs would be likely to
choose the Zodiac. This could change if the RV-12 gains some years
of experience and large sales numbers, but I am afraid it will never
get off the starting block. By the time it is offered for sale there
will be over 40 S-LSA models to choose from and a significant number
of kits and E-LSA choices which can all offer the same performance.
Paul
XL fuselage
At 12:20 PM 8/6/2006, you wrote:
> Not to mention the #1 reason I chose the 601XL: I can built it
> from plans. If Van's offered the plans for an RV-7, I'd have half
> of an RV in the garage instead of a Zodiac. Take a look at the
> number of plans built vs kit built Zeniths out there. There's a
> surprising number of them being built from $5K worth of aluminum,
> rather than paying $15K for a partially built airframe.
> So will my next airplane be a Van's? Heck no. Yeah, I still
> LOVE the RVs, but I discovered I love building something from
> nothing a little bit more.
>
> Do Not Archive
>
--
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
<html><P>I had a pretty indepth conversation with the Vans folks years a
go down at Sun&Fun when Iwas deciding which plane to build. &nb
sp;They went on and on about the silly ideas of Zenith's, like using pul
led rivets and hingeless ailerons. Needless to say they drove me t
o buy a Zenith 801. Seems kinda funny now they now think pulled rivets a
re kool....<G></P>
<P>do not archive<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>List message
posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.n
et><BR><BR>I just did a quick comparison&nbs
p;between the RV-12 and the Zodiac XL.&nbs
p; I <BR>used the primary web site fo
r each model for information as well
as a <BR>little I have picked up from
the real world.<BR><BR>For starters, Zodiac&nb
sp;has been flying for a number of ye
ars but the <BR>RV-12 is still an inf
ant. If no other differences existed 
;that would <BR>make me lean heavily towar
d the XL. Any new design will h
ave growing <BR>pains for the first few&nb
sp;years, and even Van's can't avoid this&
nbsp;<BR>problem. Van's might have an adv
antage if the same designer did the <
BR>RV-12 as the other models, but Richard&
nbsp;has retired and I don't think <BR>he&
nbsp;had much of anything to do with
the RV-12 design process. There <BR>are&n
bsp;competent engineers at Van's who I am&
nbsp;sure did a fine job, but <BR>the 
;master isn't the one who did it. &nb
sp;This is similar to the fact <BR>that&nb
sp;Chris Heintz has also retired which lea
ds me to believe the <BR>future of th
e Zodiac and ZAC/Zenair lines is subject&n
bsp;to great uncertainty.<BR><BR>Both planes claim&n
bsp;maximum performance for a Light Sport
Airplane, but <BR>the RV has 10 percent&nb
sp;less wing area and weighs over 50
pounds more <BR>empty. It also holds 
;only 20 gallons of fuel while the XL
offers the <BR>choice of 24 or 30&nb
sp;gallons.<BR><BR>The RV-12 offers folding wings.&n
bsp; I consider this a negative feature&nb
sp;<BR>rather than a positive one. It&nbs
p;sounds like you can keep your plane 
;<BR>in your garage instead of renting tie
down space or a hangar at the <
BR>airport. This may be true, but I&
nbsp;think history has shown this option <
BR>doesn't really work well for anyone. &n
bsp;It becomes such a problem to <BR>tow&n
bsp;the plane to the airport and set
it up for each flight that the <BR>am
ount of flying you do becomes very sm
all. I understand it is a <BR>common
choice for people with this option o
n their plane to keep it <BR>at the&n
bsp;airport anyway and just carry around t
he extra weight and <BR>hardware rather th
an using the folding wings as anticipated.
<BR><BR>Now for the stuff that wasn't in&n
bsp;the web promotion pages. This is 
;<BR>the first time Van's has designed a&n
bsp;plane to use blind rivets instead <BR>
of the standard solid ones. This is&
nbsp;a big change, and I am a little&
nbsp;<BR>concerned that they may have made 
;a few little mistakes because of <BR>it.&
nbsp; I am not concerned over actual
structural integrity, but rather <BR>a little&n
bsp;concerned that the build process might 
;need tuning up. I <BR>don't know wh
ich rivets they chose to use but this
is another area <BR>where Zenair/ZAC expe
rience and custom batch testing might give
them <BR>a leg up. I also have
no idea how Van's will handle the&nb
sp;rivet head <BR>question, but I like the
custom riveter heads designed by Heintz&n
bsp;and <BR>offered by the companies. In&
nbsp;the past, Van's has opted for dimpled
<BR>countersunk rivet heads. This is&nbs
p;one of the many factors that makes
<BR>it take around three times as much&nbs
p;labor to build an RV as a <BR>Zodia
c. Whether the RV-12 uses a new 
;approach or the old dimpled <BR>approach
it is an area of concern.<BR><BR>I don't&n
bsp;personally like the Rotax engine choice.&nb
sp; It is a fine <BR>engine, but it&n
bsp;requires a PSRU and radiator for the&n
bsp;water cooling. I <BR>also feel it&nbs
p;is over-worked to produce 100 HP with&nb
sp;significantly <BR>smaller displacement than all(?
) of its competitors. While this <BR
>engine is an option on the Zodiac, i
t is forced on builders of the <BR>RV
-12. One more point in favor of 
;the Zodiac.<BR><BR>I know that all the pr
evious RVs have free castoring nose wheels
. I <BR>don't know if the RV-12 
;has incorporated nose wheel steering like 
;the <BR>Zodiac already has. I think 
;this is the biggest weakness in the
RV <BR>line. It means you must stand
on one of the brakes while trying&nb
sp;to <BR>take off in a cross wind. &
nbsp;I think the nose gear steering is&nbs
p;a great <BR>benefit for this situation.
If nothing else, this could mean a&n
bsp;great <BR>advantage for the Zodiac in
take off distance - particularly if there&
nbsp;<BR>is a crosswind. I am not en
tirely sure, but I think a crosswind
<BR>might actually reduce the Zodiac take
off distance while it would <BR>increase t
he RV distance required.<BR><BR>Given all that,
I don't see any particular advantages&nbs
p;to the RV-12 <BR>over the Zodiac XL.&nbs
p; Perhaps the RV name will help it&n
bsp;get some sales, <BR>but anyone who rea
lly compares the two designs would be 
;likely to <BR>choose the Zodiac. This&nb
sp;could change if the RV-12 gains some&nb
sp;years <BR>of experience and large sales 
;numbers, but I am afraid it will nev
er <BR>get off the starting block. B
y the time it is offered for sale&nbs
p;there <BR>will be over 40 S-LSA models&n
bsp;to choose from and a significant numbe
r <BR>of kits and E-LSA choices which 
;can all offer the same performance.<BR><BR>Pau
l<BR>XL fuselage<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>At 12:20 PM 8/6/
2006, you wrote:<BR>> Not 
;to mention the #1 reason I chose the
601XL: I can built it <BR>> 
;from plans. If Van's offered the pl
ans for an RV-7, I'd have half <BR>&g
t; of an RV in the garage instead&nbs
p;of a Zodiac. Take a look at t
he <BR>> number of plans built vs
kit built Zeniths out there. There's 
;a <BR>> surprising number of them bein
g built from $5K worth of aluminum, <
BR>> rather than paying $15K for a 
;partially built airframe.<BR>> &nbs
p;So will my next airplane be a Van's
? Heck no. Yeah, I still <BR>&
gt; LOVE the RVs, but I discovered I&
nbsp;love building something from <BR>> noth
ing a little bit more.<BR>><BR>> &n
bsp; Do Not Archive<BR>><BR><BR>-- <BR><BR>
========================
sp; - The Zenith-List
;the many List utilities such as the
========================
========================
sp; - NEW MATRONICS LI
nbsp; &
nbsp; &
nbsp; &
========================
=======================<BR
- List Contribution Web Site -<BR>_
-= Thank you for your generous&nb
p; &nbs
p; -Matt Drall
========================
===================<BR><BR><BR><BR
> <BR> <BR> <BR><BR><BR><BR></P></html>
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: | RV-12 vs. CH601XL |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "kevinbonds" <kevinbonds@comcast.net>
Corvair flight engines have no belts. You don't need a blower on top when
you have a huge one up front.
Kevin Bonds
Nashville TN
601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.
Empennage done; working on wings and engine.
http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE
never considered a Corvair as I owned one of them for ground transportation.
It worked great until the belt broke or came off, I always carried a spare
belt but it was less of a problem to solve on the ground.
KABONG Do Not Archive HRII N561FS (GBA & GWB)
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: total engine costs involved??? |
Hello Douglas,
We as builders cant take insurance co point of view as a eficiency parameter for
the auto conversions "messure", they handle cold statitics,
Same happens with certified parameters, as an example: The only cerfified glue
for wood is (or used to be) Resorcinol, well epoxy is better, but will not
be accepted in a certfied airplane because is not certified (yet)...
Back with conversions: for a insurance co is the same (as a engine failure) a
X engine hanged directly from the junkyard that has more chances and have failed
in the past,, or a carefully converted by the instructions of a professional
as WW or Great Plains or RAM or Raven... for mention a few.
For us builders there are two diferent engines (the X and the "Converted") and
the way we build our airplane, our engine is going to be assembled the correct
way... We are professional Amateurs :-)
Or some one of us can assemble a Lyco or Cont and fprget to torque a rod for example...
and the engine looses a rod.
The insurance co will accept it, because is a Cert engine, file the case and will
pay the insurance (if you win).
Also lets remember that they have two goals: Sell the insurance and Fight not
to pay it....
Also is very dificult for a builder pilot to "build hours" in his airplane, so
few hours a year we can fly, for any valid reason... so is not easy to find
several 100 hrs in an engine very easy...
As you say in USA, Oof my soap box.
Saludos
Gary Gower
Do not archive.
"Garrou, Douglas" <dgarrou@hunton.com> wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted by:
"Garrou, Douglas"
Are you saying that auto conversions and certified engines generally experience
roughly the same number of in-flight power failures? I've never seen data either
way, so you may be right. But I am pretty confident that the insurance companies
don't have this view.
What leads you to this conclusion?
-----Original Message-----
Time: 09:27:39 AM PST US
--> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland
[snip]
That's why the margin between engine problems of the conversion and the production
commercial types are so close.
---------------------------------
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: | total engine costs involved??? |
Funny,
Van thought the Jabiru was good enough for the RV11=85..
-Bruce
_____
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Allen Ricks
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 6:13 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: total engine costs involved???
Bill,
Just so you're aware. When I asked Van's about the RV-12 at their open
house, I was told there was NO WAY they would be interested in putting
together a FWF for the Jabiru engine either,
as they (Van's) did not consider the Jabiru to be either proven, or a
mainstream engine. At this time they will support no engine other than
the
Rotax 912, as it has been used in certified aircraft.
As an aside, the cost of a rebuilt to factory new limits O-235 and a
Jabiru
or Rotax is roughly the same. The O-235 is probably a little lower.
The
problem is the O-325 will eat about 90 lb's of your
gross weight.
By the way, the RV12 factory workmanship is beautiful, and it's pushrod
control so it will have that "RV" feeling. The wings are also a
relatively
quick fold. I think Zenith will have a tough time selling
kits when the -12 comes out. The only disadvantage I see it the fuel
tank
behind the seats. The fuel tank was put behind the seats to make the
wing
folding easier.
Allen Ricks
Zodiac XL builder
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
--
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-12 vs. CH601XL |
Kevin...
Actually, I believe there is a belt used for the alternator on WW's standard 601
setup. Watch the first few sequences of the video of Phil Maxson's XL here
and you will see it:
http://www.zenithair.com/video/601mxvid.wmv
Dan Vandenberg
Chicago
Do Not Archive
kevinbonds <kevinbonds@comcast.net> wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted by: "kevinbonds"
Corvair flight engines have no belts. You don't need a blower on top when
you have a huge one up front.
Kevin Bonds
Nashville TN
601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.
Empennage done; working on wings and engine.
http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE
never considered a Corvair as I owned one of them for ground transportation.
It worked great until the belt broke or came off, I always carried a spare
belt but it was less of a problem to solve on the ground.
KABONG Do Not Archive HRII N561FS (GBA & GWB)
---------------------------------
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
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: RV-12 vs. CH601XL |
Yep.. It's amazing what market share will make some do! :-)
Randy
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: n801bh@netzero.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: RV-12 vs. CH601XL
I had a pretty indepth conversation with the Vans folks years ago down
at Sun&Fun when Iwas deciding which plane to build. They went on and on
about the silly ideas of Zenith's, like using pulled rivets and
hingeless ailerons. Needless to say they drove me to buy a Zenith 801.
Seems kinda funny now they now think pulled rivets are kool....<G>
do not archive
List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
I just did a quick comparison between the RV-12 and the Zodiac XL. I
used the primary web site for each model for information as well as a
little I have picked up from the real world.
For starters, Zodiac has been flying for a number of years but the
RV-12 is still an infant. If no other differences existed that would
make me lean heavily toward the XL. Any new design will have growing
pains for the first few years, and even Van's can't avoid this
problem. Van's might have an advantage if the same designer did the
RV-12 as the other models, but Richard has retired and I don't think
he had much of anything to do with the RV-12 design process. There
are competent engineers at Van's who I am sure did a fine job, but
the master isn't the one who did it. This is similar to the fact
that Chris Heintz has also retired which leads me to believe the
future of the Zodiac and ZAC/Zenair lines is subject to great
uncertainty.
Both planes claim maximum performance for a Light Sport Airplane, but
the RV has 10 percent less wing area and weighs over 50 pounds more
empty. It also holds only 20 gallons of fuel while the XL offers the
choice of 24 or 30 gallons.
The RV-12 offers folding wings. I consider this a negative feature
rather than a positive one. It sounds like you can keep your plane
in your garage instead of renting tie down space or a hangar at the
airport. This may be true, but I think history has shown this option
doesn't really work well for anyone. It becomes such a problem to
tow the plane to the airport and set it up for each flight that the
amount of flying you do becomes very small. I understand it is a
common choice for people with this option on their plane to keep it
at the airport anyway and just carry around the extra weight and
hardware rather than using the folding wings as anticipated.
Now for the stuff that wasn't in the web promotion pages. This is
the first time Van's has designed a plane to use blind rivets instead
of the standard solid ones. This is a big change, and I am a little
concerned that they may have made a few little mistakes because of
it. I am not concerned over actual structural integrity, but rather
a little concerned that the build process might need tuning up. I
don't know which rivets they chose to use but this is another area
where Zenair/ZAC experience and custom batch testing might give them
a leg up. I also have no idea how Van's will handle the rivet head
question, but I like the custom riveter heads designed by Heintz and
offered by the companies. In the past, Van's has opted for dimpled
countersunk rivet heads. This is one of the many factors that makes
it take around three times as much labor to build an RV as a
Zodiac. Whether the RV-12 uses a new approach or the old dimpled
approach it is an area of concern.
I don't personally like the Rotax engine choice. It is a fine
engine, but it requires a PSRU and radiator for the water cooling. I
also feel it is over-worked to produce 100 HP with significantly
smaller displacement than all(?) of its competitors. While this
engine is an option on the Zodiac, it is forced on builders of the
RV-12. One more point in favor of the Zodiac.
I know that all the previous RVs have free castoring nose wheels. I
don't know if the RV-12 has incorporated nose wheel steering like the
Zodiac already has. I think this is the biggest weakness in the RV
line. It means you must stand on one of the brakes while trying to
take off in a cross wind. I think the nose gear steering is a great
benefit for this situation. If nothing else, this could mean a great
advantage for the Zodiac in take off distance - particularly if there
is a crosswind. I am not entirely sure, but I think a crosswind
might actually reduce the Zodiac take off distance while it would
increase the RV distance required.
Given all that, I don't see any particular advantages to the RV-12
over the Zodiac XL. Perhaps the RV name will help it get some sales,
but anyone who really compares the two designs would be likely to
choose the Zodiac. This could change if the RV-12 gains some years
of experience and large sales numbers, but I am afraid it will never
get off the starting block. By the time it is offered for sale there
will be over 40 S-LSA models to choose from and a significant number
of kits and E-LSA choices which can all offer the same performance.
Paul
XL fuselage
At 12:20 PM 8/6/2006, you wrote:
> Not to mention the #1 reason I chose the 601XL: I can built it
> from plans. If Van's offered the plans for an RV-7, I'd have half
> of an RV in the garage instead of a Zodiac. Take a look at the
> number of plans built vs kit built Zeniths out there. There's a
> surprising number of them being built from $5K worth of aluminum,
> rather than paying $15K for a partially built airframe.
> So will my next airplane be a Van's? Heck no. Yeah, I still
> LOVE the RVs, but I discovered I love building something from
> nothing a little bit more.
>
> Do Not Archive
>
--
========================s
p; - The Zenith-List;the many List utilities such as the
=========================
=======================sp;
- NEW MATRONICS LInbsp;
&========================
Thank you for your generous&nbp; -Matt
Drall=======================
===================
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: total engine costs involved??? |
There has been no price set as of yet, but severl of the Van's staff have commented
it wouldn't be significantly cheaper than the current 2 seat line. I'm
not sure how, or even if, they justify that, but that's the word I've heard
as of now...
Do Not Archive
Dave Ruddiman <pacificpainting@comcast.net> wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted
by: "Dave Ruddiman"
What's the price of the RV-12 supposed to be?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 12:08 PM
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Ron Butterfield
>
>
> At 10:40 AM 8/6/2006, Edward Moody II wrote:
>>I'm sure that the RV-12 will be a fine plane and another example of what
>>great kits Van's puts out. But I would not be making any funeral
>>arrangements for the 601XL just yet.
>>
>>On the individuality issue, the RV-12 loses to the 601XL on the issue of
>>engine choice.
>
> To add a bit of detail to this, if you look at the side view about halfway
> down the page
> http://vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int.htm
> you can see that the pilot & passenger's feet are actually partway _under_
> the back of the Rotax engine. They did this in order to get the people
> _in_front_ of the spar instead of the normal _on_top_ of the spar. This is
> why the concrete limitation of using only the Rotax engine; because of
> it's physical package it's probably the only 100hp engine that will fit
> and keep an acceptable CG.
>
>
> Regards,
> RonB
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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! --
|