---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 08/11/06: 88 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:27 AM - Re: Re: 701 Oil Canning Stiffeners701 Oil Canning Stiffeners (Jean-Paul Roy) 2. 04:33 AM - FRAPPR Map (Rick R) 3. 05:14 AM - LSA training (Tim Perkins) 4. 05:28 AM - Number of 701 builders? (Zed Smith) 5. 05:59 AM - Re: LSA training (Paul Mulwitz) 6. 06:08 AM - Re: Number of 701 builders? (Paul Mulwitz) 7. 06:36 AM - Re: Steve Adams'Zenair Zodiac CH640 (steveadams) 8. 07:42 AM - Not Appollo 11 (Doug Sire) 9. 07:42 AM - Economical Low Pressure Air System (Doug Sire) 10. 07:57 AM - Homemade paint hood/booth (John Bolding) 11. 08:18 AM - Re: Introducing (Welded Parts) (Noel Loveys) 12. 08:29 AM - Re: Re: 701 Oil Canning Stiffeners701 Oil Canning Stiffeners (Randy L. Thwing) 13. 08:35 AM - Re: Number of 701 builders? (Tom and Bren Henderson) 14. 08:39 AM - Hinge less ailerons (John Hines) 15. 09:05 AM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Craig Payne) 16. 09:05 AM - Re: Re: 701 Oil Canning Stiffeners701 Oil Canning Stiffeners (Chuck Deiterich) 17. 09:12 AM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Tom and Bren Henderson) 18. 09:28 AM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Dave Austin) 19. 09:32 AM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Dave G.) 20. 09:36 AM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Paul Mulwitz) 21. 09:39 AM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Graham Kirby) 22. 09:56 AM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Randy Bryant) 23. 10:12 AM - Re: Re: 701 Oil Canning Stiffeners701 Oil Canning Stiffeners (Jean-Paul Roy) 24. 10:27 AM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Daniel Vandenberg) 25. 11:18 AM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (MacDonald Doug) 26. 11:39 AM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Gary Gower) 27. 11:43 AM - Re: Hinge less ailerons () 28. 11:48 AM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Gig Giacona) 29. 11:48 AM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (kevinbonds) 30. 11:51 AM - Paint booths and respirators (LarryMcFarland) 31. 11:59 AM - Re: Re: Hinge less ailerons (Tom and Bren Henderson) 32. 11:59 AM - Re: Re: Hinge less ailerons () 33. 12:07 PM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Craig Payne) 34. 12:16 PM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Randy Bryant) 35. 12:25 PM - Re: Re: Hinge less ailerons (Randy Bryant) 36. 12:41 PM - Re: Hinge less ailerons -Just The Facts Maam (N5SL) 37. 12:41 PM - Re: Re: Hinge less ailerons (Gary Boothe) 38. 12:48 PM - Re: Re: Hinge less ailerons (John Hines) 39. 12:50 PM - Re: Re: Hinge less ailerons (Jaybannist@cs.com) 40. 12:53 PM - Re: Hinge less ailerons -Just The Facts Maam (Craig Payne) 41. 01:04 PM - Hinge types (Zed Smith) 42. 01:42 PM - Re: Re: Hinge less ailerons (Ron Pizer) 43. 02:13 PM - Re: Re: Hinge less ailerons (Clyde Barcus) 44. 02:30 PM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Gig Giacona) 45. 02:41 PM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Edward Moody II) 46. 02:45 PM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Edward Moody II) 47. 03:01 PM - Re: Hinge less ailerons -Just The Facts Maam (Edward Moody II) 48. 03:12 PM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Tom and Bren Henderson) 49. 03:27 PM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (TxDave) 50. 03:30 PM - Hinge less ailerons (Robert L. Stone) 51. 03:51 PM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Zodie Rocket) 52. 03:56 PM - Re: Re: Hinge less ailerons (Randy Bryant) 53. 03:56 PM - Re: Re: Hinge less ailerons (Zodie Rocket) 54. 04:05 PM - Re: Rudder skin bending technique (Bill Naumuk) 55. 04:17 PM - Re: Re: Hinge less ailerons (NYTerminat@aol.com) 56. 04:20 PM - Clecos (Bill Naumuk) 57. 04:27 PM - Jim Pensinger (Zodie Rocket) 58. 04:32 PM - Re: Re: Hinge less ailerons (Tom and Bren Henderson) 59. 04:55 PM - Hinge less ailerons / Corvair - resale (Robin Bellach) 60. 04:58 PM - 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas (Bob Percival) 61. 05:08 PM - Re: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas (Ron Lendon) 62. 05:11 PM - Re: Clecos (Jim Hoak) 63. 05:11 PM - Re: Clecos (George Swinford) 64. 05:12 PM - Re: Re: Hinge less ailerons (LHusky@aol.com) 65. 05:24 PM - Re: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas (Jaybannist@cs.com) 66. 05:32 PM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Gary Boothe) 67. 05:35 PM - Re: Rudder skin bending technique (Ron Lendon) 68. 05:42 PM - RE : Re: Clecos (Carlos Sa) 69. 05:44 PM - Re: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas (kevinbonds) 70. 05:50 PM - Re: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas (TxDave) 71. 05:51 PM - Re: Rudder skin bending technique (lwinger) 72. 06:00 PM - Re: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas (lwinger) 73. 06:11 PM - Re: Re: Hinge less ailerons (Clyde Barcus) 74. 06:33 PM - Re: Hinge types (Paul Moore) 75. 06:50 PM - Re: Re: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas (Randy Bryant) 76. 07:35 PM - Re: Re: Hinge less ailerons (John Hines) 77. 07:43 PM - Re: Re: Hinge less ailerons (Peter Chapman) 78. 08:01 PM - Back inside cover of Kit Planes () 79. 08:07 PM - Re: Hinge less ailerons (Randy Stout) 80. 08:39 PM - Re: Back inside cover of Kit Planes (Chuck Deiterich) 81. 09:29 PM - Re: Re: Hinge less ailerons (NYTerminat@aol.com) 82. 09:42 PM - Re: Back inside cover of Kit Planes (NYTerminat@aol.com) 83. 09:43 PM - Re: Re: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas (Bob Percival) 84. 09:59 PM - sourcing .25" angle for Dave Clay's brake press (Bob Percival) 85. 10:02 PM - worktable-laminated I-beams (George Swinford) 86. 10:14 PM - Re: Back inside cover of Kit Planes (Bob Percival) 87. 11:02 PM - Re: sourcing .25" angle for Dave Clay's brake press (Larry Winger) 88. 11:57 PM - Re: sourcing .25" angle for Dave Clay's brake press (Tom and Bren Henderson) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:27:44 AM PST US From: "Jean-Paul Roy" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 701 Oil Canning Stiffeners701 Oil Canning Stiffeners --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jean-Paul Roy" Hello Randy, could you tell me what model of Tapco brake you have? Thanks Jean-Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy L. Thwing" Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 12:01 AM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 701 Oil Canning Stiffeners701 Oil Canning Stiffeners > Hello Tommy: > Here are a couple of more ways of looking at anti-oil-canning braces. > The first thing I did was to go out to the TAPCO brake with some of my > extensive .016 scrap inventory and bent up some really nice "Z" sections > which I then installed diagonally on the fuselage sides, bottom & top, > between the verticals. Since it was non-structural, I used #3 solid rivets > (cheaper) rather than Avex. This is shown in the attached picture before > riveting. I then proudly posted my results to the list and was immediately > talked out of using my newly formed "Z". I believe it was Chuck D who > advised that by using "L" rather than "Z", after installation, one could > make a trip back into the fuselage with their fluting pliers and slightly > flute the "L" which very gently "curves" each fuselage section outward, > thereby putting a bit of tension at each station. I thought this was > excellent advice, so much so that I scrapped all my newly formed "Z" and > made another trip to the brake with more .016 material from my extensive > stock of previously destroyed parts and formed the "L" section which is > shown in the photo. As this is non-structural, and as a "scrap-builder", I > used .016 material to save weight. Kit builders could easily use the > furnished .025 standard "L". I think the fluting operation has great value > and eliminates stringing wires across the rear fuse. > > Best Regards, > > Randy L. Thwing, Las Vegas > > > > Bruce do you have any pictures of the wire braces? > > > > Thanks, > > Tommy Walker in Alabama > > Do Not Archive > > > > > > bvthomas(at)bigpond.com wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > > I added diagonal "L" stiffeners in each panel on0 the sides and top & > bottom of my 701. > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:33:13 AM PST US From: Rick R Subject: Zenith-List: FRAPPR Map Wholly cow ! We're up to 205 701 builders worldwide! http://www.frappr.com/zenith701/map do not archive ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:14:08 AM PST US From: "Tim Perkins" Subject: Zenith-List: LSA training --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Tim Perkins" > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" > > While you can take your LSA training in a C-150 you can't do > the practical test in a C-150 because it doesn't qualify. You can take dual instruction in a non-LSA compliant aircraft (C-150), however you cannot solo, do the solo cross-country, or take the practical test unless the plane qualifies under LSA rules. Tim Perkins, VT ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 05:28:11 AM PST US From: Zed Smith Subject: Zenith-List: Number of 701 builders? --> Zenith-List message posted by: Zed Smith Rick, Couldn't pass this up......your post was positioned on my display such that there was a speck of something on the screen; looked like 205,701. That's a lot of STOL aircraft! Wiped the speck (comma) off. Made more sense that way. However, considering recent events, this may be the future. At least you could have carry-on bags. do not archive Zed/etc ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 05:59:17 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: LSA training --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz I think this statement is true if the student doesn't hold a medical certificate but is using a state driver's license for medical qualification as a student pilot. On the other hand, if the student has a standard 3'rd class medical and student pilot license then he can solo any class of trainer and still test for and receive a Sport Pilot certificate. At that point the medical will serve to qualify him for further training toward a Private Pilot certificate. Paul XL fuselage >You can take dual instruction in a non-LSA compliant aircraft (C-150), >however you cannot solo, do the solo cross-country, or take the practical >test unless the plane qualifies under LSA rules. ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:08:28 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Number of 701 builders? --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz Yeah, if I understand the bureaucratic (so called) thought process this means we will forever be banned from carrying toothpaste onto airliners for fear we might put it in our shoes and light it on fire using green Scotchbright for a fuse. Paul XL fuselage do not archive or squeal on me to the feds >However, considering recent events, this may be the future. >At least you could have carry-on bags. > >do not archive ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:36:43 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Steve Adams'Zenair Zodiac CH640 From: "steveadams" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "steveadams" Thanks. There is about a 10-11 month delay between submission and when you see your completion in the magazine. I have been flying the heck out of the plane, and now have about 235 hours in just over a year. My next milestone will be flying it for more hours than it took me to build. I just finished my first condition inspection and found no problems. My kit was #0052, ordered in May 2004. I think mine was the 3rd owner built 640 to fly. I believe there are 2 others that have since been completed and a number making serious progress toward finishing. The numbers are relatively small, but the 640 is a nice plane. If I was just now looking at buying a kit, I would make the same choice. Just a few thoughts from the perpective of flying your creation for a while. The process of building is a process of learning, with a series of milestones along the way. Each part you complete and each skill that you learn is a step toward the ultimate milestone; the first flight. We hear a lot about the building process, and of course we celebrate each first flight in anticipation of our own. We hear about the problems encountered after the first flight, and sadly we discuss the accidents that occur. But we rarely hear much more of what happens after that first flight. It also is a learning process every bit as challenging and rewarding as the actual building. The learning curve is steepest during those first few hours as you explore the characteristics of your new plane. To me that first power on full stall was almost as nerve wracking as the first flight, until it just mushed straight over and started flying again. With each characteristic and phase of flight you explore, you gain confidence and respect for the airplane you created. Later you start to refine things as you discover how to best fly the pattern and land, how it handles x-winds and different loadings. In essence you begin to know your airplane in flight every bit as well as you knew every bolt, rivet and wire as you were building. Then as you put in a few hours, your role changes from builder and test pilot to mechanic and aircraft owner, and there is a whole new set of skills to learn and tools to buy. You quickly learn that what was an easy thing to do during the build, turns you into a contortionist when you have to get back in to inspect, change or repair. You discover things that maybe you should have done a little differently, or some other addition that you would like to make to the airplane. I guess what I am saying is that what you started by drilling that first hole in the rudder spar, doesn't end with pulling the last rivet or the first flight. It's a continual challenge and source of enjoyment. Happy building and flying. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54076#54076 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:42:10 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Not Appollo 11 From: "Doug Sire" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Doug Sire" Sorry, should have been Appollo 13! Doug Sire Do Not Archive ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:42:11 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Economical Low Pressure Air System From: "Doug Sire" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Doug Sire" This just proves that you can't watch "Apollo 11" too many times! Doug Sire 601XL Do Not Archive ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:57:49 AM PST US From: "John Bolding" Subject: Zenith-List: Homemade paint hood/booth --> Zenith-List message posted by: "John Bolding" > From: LarryMcFarland > Subject: Zenith-List: Economical Low Pressure Air System > > Hi guys, > Ive been painting with Hangar 21 AFS water borne system and was getting > along very confidently with a 3M dual filter organic charcoal > respirator, but I made a mistake that could have gone very wrong. I > turned on the exhaust fans in my booth, but due to interference with am > radio reception, Id earlier unplugged the fans at the wall. I sprayed > the trim color on my stabilizer, which took no more than about > 5-minutes. Over spray build up was such that I was seriously worried > about effectiveness of my respirator. It has limits for heavy > concentrations. I couldnt smell the paint or fumes, but did feel a bit > dizzy later. That did it! I decided to put an air system in front of my > respirator. After checking what others have done, I made up a hood and > mask system that fits over the 3M Respirator that guarantees fresh air > is the only thing my respirator would have to deal with. > A hood was cut and sewn from a disposable Tyvex paint suit. The legs > were cut off in a radial pattern from the crotch to the armpits and sewn > shut. The zipper was oriented to place the shut-end at back center of my > head. I bought a new face shield and put 1/2-inch Velcro on the outer > edges of the clear shield and across the solid top edge. The Tyvex > face was placed tightly against the sticky side of the Velcro and the > Tyvex inside that perimeter was cut out. Integration of the mask and the > hood only took an hour and a half and the cost was well below equivalent > commercial parts. I also purchased a small portable vacuum and ordered > 50-foot of air hose. The hood combination face shield fits over the > respirator and inside the neck of my other Tyvex paint suit. An > accessory hose-fitting relieves excess pressure and reduces to a > 3/8-inch hose for inflating things. The small hose extends into the hood > and is supported at my belt. I use Saran wrap on the face shield and its > replaced as needed. The apparatus is comfortable, easily maintains > visibility and still allows a good range of motion for spraying in the > booth. Should have done this in the first place. > Couple of points before we get to the "meat" of this post. I'm sure that a lot of you will be using some sort of paint "booth" for your projects and I'll throw in my nickels worth of experience here in the hope that it might save someone's bacon. I've made this same post before a couple yrs ago but most folks don't go back thru the archives and we've a lot of new listers so hang with me for a min. To preface this let me first state that in my 35 yr career in the spray equipment industry I sold/ designed/ installed/ moved/ repaired over a thousand spray booths along the Texas Gulf Coast. They ranged in size from a bread box to the largest which housed a C5A. Not trying to impress anyone, I'm too old for that , just stating this ain't my first rodeo and it isn't "my opinion", you can take it to the bank. I have seen HUNDREDS of homemade booths , some of which were the equivalent of factory made but most scared the hell out of me. (I've also looked at a LOT of the remains of some of those after a fire/explosion and have testified as a witness during civil trials) The overwhelming number of homemade booths use some sort of fan designed for something BESIDES paint booth operation. A booth exhaust fan has a tunnel drive which puts the motor(no, it does NOT have to be explosion proof) outside the airstream, it also has a non sparking blade,usually alum but sometimes brass. Think about this , if you use a direct drive fan (with the blade mounted on the motor shaft)to EXHAUST your booth you are drawing the vapor laden fumes DIRECTLY over/thru your SPARKING motor. The ONLY reason it doesn't explode more often is it's too lean a mixture. BUT if you drop your gun or turn over a paint container or spray a LOT in a small area, or inadvertently point the gun in the fans direction you are asking for trouble, it makes a BIG explosion, trust me I've seen the aftermath lots of times. Oh yeah, it usually kills you. I'm sure that some of you will argue that you are using a Totally Enclosed or Explosion Proof (Explosion Proof means something different than what you might think)motor direct drive and you haven't had any problem and it works "fine". Yep ,it does 'till the outside of the motor reaches temp over ignition temp of your paint. It doesn't happen very often as everything has to be just right but it makes an impressive bang when all the stars line up. To get an idea how much air is required on a code rated booth to SAFELY keep the levels down please realize that an automotive booth (26'longx14'widex9'high)has a fan that completely changes the air every 15 SECONDS. 12,000 Cubic feet per min. plus or minus a little. To build a SAFER booth, keep ALL the lights outside the walls shinning thru the plastic (the surface of the bulb is WAY over the ignition temp of the paint ,unless TOTALLY waterborn) but MOST importantly install the fan to blow INTO the booth, forcing the dirty air out an opening that is floor level (nearly all solvents are heavier than air) at the other end. Every time that Kitplanes or SportAviation publishes an article on homemade booths I give them this missive and they pee down both legs when they realize what they wrote, then in a couple yrs they publish another, crazy. On the paint hood issue I use one a lot now that the paints are so obnoxious. Used to when you started to smell the solvent (if using a mask)it was time to change the cartridges but now a lot of the nasty stuff has poor or no warning qualities so change them OFTEN. I sold a hood for many yrs that had no eyeshield, all the air spilled out the front opening ,better view, no contamination as the overspray wasn't going to swim upstream and enter the hood but OSHA killed it, typical "Big Brother" mentality. Easy enought to make one however. OK ,I've stirred the pot enough in the last 2 weeks, back to lurking. LOW&SLOW John Bolding ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 08:18:51 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Introducing (Welded Parts) --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" May I echo Mark's remarks on asking questions. The question that you may consider "silly" to ask may not only end up saving your life but also the life of some one else who doesn't have the courage to ask. Keep it up. The other side of the coin is just as valid. If in your building you see something that can be improved on discuss it with every one. The folks at ZAC will be happy to improve their product and other builders will have the opportunity to make constructive changes. Those with built aircraft will have additional items to check to make their aircraft safer. Note I didn't suggest that you start making changes willy nilly but openly discuss any changes/improvements you perceive. As for the "Hardware Store" nuts and bolts.... I've seen them on everything from Ultralites to DHC Beavers. I've seen them in structural areas and I still have a problem with any one who owns an expensive aircraft held together with Canadian Tire (Canada's hardware store) specials. Believe me it does happen! Most of the aircraft I've worked on have regular inspections and these things get caught but the fact is they should never have been installed in the first place. Noel > > Paul, keep making all the mistakes you want! Also, don't ever stop > asking questions. There are many on this list afraid to ask a "stupid" > question so they just plug on without really knowing what > they are doing > or they get frustrated and stop work. This goes for all of you! Ask > questions, that's why the people flying stick around this > list to answer > the same questions they asked someone else 2 years earlier. As for the > not having seen any wielded parts I just took it that you > didn't see any > parts of which you need to wield yourself, and being a kit > builder their > is not a single piece you would need to wield as they are all done for > you. > > Here is the ultimate "Stupid" question I get on a regular basis. " Why > can't I use standard hardware store nuts and bolts?" To many of us the > answer is simple and we would never consider using such a low grade of > hardware. But I thank god every time someone asks me that question > because if they didn't know that there was such a huge difference in > quality then they would likely have run out to the Home depot and > install grade 3 or 4 bolts into the spars. > > Mark Townsend > Can-Zac Aviation Ltd. > president@can-zacaviation.com > www.can-zacaviation.com > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 08:29:23 AM PST US From: "Randy L. Thwing" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 701 Oil Canning Stiffeners701 Oil Canning Stiffeners --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy L. Thwing" I think it's a "pro-14", It's ten feet long and rated for .032 Al max. They make one (pro-14 HD) that's rated for .040 Al. You have to build up the nose for the proper ZA radius, see my pic. I bent all parts for the 701 EXCEPT the .040 longerons. The web site shows what are probably improved models over mine which I bought used locally. When you go to the site, there are links to download pdf manuals for each model. I have since bought a Roper-Whitney 8' shop brake rated for .062 steel so I can bend all but the gear. I still use the Tapco for most "thin" jobs as the nose is permanently set up for the ZA radius and it works fine. http://www.tapcotools.com/pro14.php Regards, Randy L. Thwing, Las Vegas > Hello Randy, could you tell me what model of Tapco brake you have? > > Thanks > > Jean-Paul ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 08:35:01 AM PST US From: Tom and Bren Henderson Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Number of 701 builders? I don't know about you guys, but I'm completely embarrassed at the way our government reacts to a few bad guys. Yes, they kill innocent people without notice and without thought. But COME ON! We're running around like the sky is falling here! I'd much rather run a little higher risk of (questionably) being attacked than be forced to give up the liberties our fathers and grandfathers fought so hard to protect. The day I can't fly my airplane from A to B because some old lady is afraid I might be Osama ready to crash into her house, is the day I move to France. (Yeah, I know they whine a lot, but so do we lately.) Whatever happened to the brave, stoic attitude our grandfathers had? Please tell me I'm not alone in this thought! lol I'm about half a step from sending a toothpaste laden sheet of scotch-bright to Bush himself! Do Not Archive Tom Henderson 601XL Fuselage Looking forward to flying from A to B and NOT crashing into ANYONE'S home... Paul Mulwitz wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz Yeah, if I understand the bureaucratic (so called) thought process this means we will forever be banned from carrying toothpaste onto airliners for fear we might put it in our shoes and light it on fire using green Scotchbright for a fuse. Paul XL fuselage do not archive or squeal on me to the feds >However, considering recent events, this may be the future. >At least you could have carry-on bags. > >do not archive ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 08:39:55 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons From: "John Hines" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "John Hines" I had an interesting conversation with Jim Younkin over the weekend about the Zenith 601. For those that don't know, Jim Younkin is credited with inventing the autopilot and he is the president of Trutrak. When I told him I was building a 601XL, he rather gruffly asked what kind of aileron hinge I was using. We then launched into the normal conversation about how Zenith claims they last longer than a piano hinge... He then said that questions of reliability weren't then only reason he didn't like them. He said that flexing metal is not a hinge, it is a spring. A spring requires more force to move than a hinge. He talked about the CT2K having spring balanced ailerons and how even though it was an LSA it required a bigger autopilot servo than a Bonanza. After talking to him I thought back to my flight in the demo plane. The elevator motion was very smooth, but the aileron motion was stiff. But you need so little aileron motion to maneuver that it didn't bother me. Does the piano hinge give it better motion? How much weight does it add? All I know is that I'm a guy with no pilot's license and a completed tail kit. Jim Younkin is a hell of a lot smarter than I am. It's hard to argue with a guy with his credentials. What do you guys think? John www.johnsplane.com John R. Hines IT Manager Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. 901 N. 47th Street, Suite 200 Rogers, AR 72756 Office: 479-878-2449 Mobile: 479-366-4783 Fax: 479-631-6224 John.Hines@craftontull.com www.craftontull.com Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. exists to anticipate and understand the needs of our clients and provide them with successful solutions. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 09:05:20 AM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" If you look in the file archive for this list you can see examples of AP servos installed in 601's: www.matronics.com/photoshare/craig@craigandjean.com.02.11.2006/ These include servos from Navaid and Treo. I assume at least one of these planes uses the "skin" hinges. Any of the owners should be able to comment on their servo performance: Jeff Small, Tony Graziano or Pat Safford. >From my point of view I would bet that the force of the wind on the ailerons generates much more counterforce than the "skin" hinge. -- Craig ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 09:05:24 AM PST US From: "Chuck Deiterich" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 701 Oil Canning Stiffeners701 Oil Canning Stiffeners --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Chuck Deiterich" Randy and Tommy, Not only did I flute the .016 diagonal stiffeners I also fluted the horizontal and vertical .025 "L's" that make up the frames in the rear fuselage. Seems to work fine. Chuck D. N701TX ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy L. Thwing" Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:01 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 701 Oil Canning Stiffeners701 Oil Canning Stiffeners > Hello Tommy: > Here are a couple of more ways of looking at anti-oil-canning braces. > The first thing I did was to go out to the TAPCO brake with some of my > extensive .016 scrap inventory and bent up some really nice "Z" sections > which I then installed diagonally on the fuselage sides, bottom & top, > between the verticals. Since it was non-structural, I used #3 solid rivets > (cheaper) rather than Avex. This is shown in the attached picture before > riveting. I then proudly posted my results to the list and was immediately > talked out of using my newly formed "Z". I believe it was Chuck D who > advised that by using "L" rather than "Z", after installation, one could > make a trip back into the fuselage with their fluting pliers and slightly > flute the "L" which very gently "curves" each fuselage section outward, > thereby putting a bit of tension at each station. I thought this was > excellent advice, so much so that I scrapped all my newly formed "Z" and > made another trip to the brake with more .016 material from my extensive > stock of previously destroyed parts and formed the "L" section which is > shown in the photo. As this is non-structural, and as a "scrap-builder", I > used .016 material to save weight. Kit builders could easily use the > furnished .025 standard "L". I think the fluting operation has great value > and eliminates stringing wires across the rear fuse. > > Best Regards, > > Randy L. Thwing, Las Vegas > > > > Bruce do you have any pictures of the wire braces? > > > > Thanks, > > Tommy Walker in Alabama > > Do Not Archive > > > > > > bvthomas(at)bigpond.com wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > > I added diagonal "L" stiffeners in each panel on0 the sides and top & > bottom of my 701. > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 09:12:57 AM PST US From: Tom and Bren Henderson Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons I'm definitely going with the hinged aileron, for all of the reasons you mention. Bottom line is, it adds less than two pounds, it's smoother, and there are no negative side effects to the conversion. It was kind of a no-brainer. It helped my decision having moved the stick on both hinged and 'spring' ailerons. The hinged were what you would expect, smooth. The extended skin 'spring' was noticeably stiffer. John Hines wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted by: "John Hines" I had an interesting conversation with Jim Younkin over the weekend about the Zenith 601. For those that don't know, Jim Younkin is credited with inventing the autopilot and he is the president of Trutrak. When I told him I was building a 601XL, he rather gruffly asked what kind of aileron hinge I was using. We then launched into the normal conversation about how Zenith claims they last longer than a piano hinge... He then said that questions of reliability weren't then only reason he didn't like them. He said that flexing metal is not a hinge, it is a spring. A spring requires more force to move than a hinge. He talked about the CT2K having spring balanced ailerons and how even though it was an LSA it required a bigger autopilot servo than a Bonanza. After talking to him I thought back to my flight in the demo plane. The elevator motion was very smooth, but the aileron motion was stiff. But you need so little aileron motion to maneuver that it didn't bother me. Does the piano hinge give it better motion? How much weight does it add? All I know is that I'm a guy with no pilot's license and a completed tail kit. Jim Younkin is a hell of a lot smarter than I am. It's hard to argue with a guy with his credentials. What do you guys think? John www.johnsplane.com John R. Hines IT Manager Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. 901 N. 47th Street, Suite 200 Rogers, AR 72756 Office: 479-878-2449 Mobile: 479-366-4783 Fax: 479-631-6224 John.Hines@craftontull.com www.craftontull.com Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. exists to anticipate and understand the needs of our clients and provide them with successful solutions. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 09:28:05 AM PST US From: "Dave Austin" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave Austin" I've had both the bending aileron and the hinged on my 601. The only diff. is slightly less effort on the stick for normal turns. If you want to roll the a/c the ailerons are to my mind quite heavy in either format - not much difference. Dave Austin 601HDS - 912, Spitfire Mk VIII ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 09:32:21 AM PST US From: "Dave G." Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave G." ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hines" Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 12:38 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons > After talking to him I thought back to my flight in the demo plane. The > elevator motion was very smooth, but the aileron motion was stiff. But > you need so little aileron motion to maneuver that it didn't bother me. > Does the piano hinge give it better motion? How much weight does it > add? In my single flight aboard a Zenith I noticed the same thing, very light pitch and very heavy roll inputs. The owner seems to adapted well and I didn't comment on it as it wasn't my plane. If replacing the "hinges" with hinges would resolve the difference I'd probably make the change. ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 09:36:04 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz Hi John, I think the choice between hingeless and piano hinge on the ailerons is one that can go either way with little impact. I agree with you that the actual design of the Zodiac XL works without much movement of the ailerons. This is probably because the actual aileron size is large enough that it doesn't need to move much to create the roll moment we need for flight. I think of it as the aileron translating force from the control stick to the airplane without actually moving a great deal. It is the force rather than the control surface movement that counts. This may be different for an autopilot than a human pilot. There isn't a force feedback system that tells the autopilot how hard it is pushing on the flight control surface. That leaves actual motion as the medium it uses to control the plane unlike the human pilot who uses force. One impact of the hingeless design is it forms a perfect "Gap Seal" between the aileron and wing. This is highly desirable and shows up greatly in the low speed control that works so well on the Zodiac. Again, this has nothing to do with autopilot function which is primarily used at cruise speeds. For me the decision is easy. I don't want to give up the fun of flying to a computer. I am not installing an autopilot in my plane. That means the hingeless design works best for me. Best regards, Paul XL fuselage At 08:38 AM 8/11/2006, you wrote: >--> Zenith-List message posted by: "John Hines" > >I had an interesting conversation with Jim Younkin over the weekend >about the Zenith 601. For those that don't know, Jim Younkin is >credited with inventing the autopilot and he is the president of >Trutrak. When I told him I was building a 601XL, he rather gruffly >asked what kind of aileron hinge I was using. We then launched into the >normal conversation about how Zenith claims they last longer than a >piano hinge... He then said that questions of reliability weren't then >only reason he didn't like them. He said that flexing metal is not a >hinge, it is a spring. A spring requires more force to move than a >hinge. He talked about the CT2K having spring balanced ailerons and how >even though it was an LSA it required a bigger autopilot servo than a >Bonanza. > >After talking to him I thought back to my flight in the demo plane. The >elevator motion was very smooth, but the aileron motion was stiff. But >you need so little aileron motion to maneuver that it didn't bother me. >Does the piano hinge give it better motion? How much weight does it >add? > >All I know is that I'm a guy with no pilot's license and a completed >tail kit. Jim Younkin is a hell of a lot smarter than I am. It's hard >to argue with a guy with his credentials. What do you guys think? > >John >www.johnsplane.com > > -- ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 09:39:09 AM PST US From: "Graham Kirby" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Graham Kirby" Regarding the bendy metal hinge design, does anyone know if there a significant difference in aileron force between the XL and HD/HDS? The HD/HDS design has full length ailerons, the XL does not. Do you need more aileron deflection on the XL? Graham Kirby 601HD ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 09:56:47 AM PST US From: "Randy Bryant" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy Bryant" I had all the same thoughts when I built my ailerons... My final determination on the hingeless ailerons came down to drag. This set up is more streamline and essentially have gap seals built in... Seems everyone is concerned about weight, but no one is concerned about drag...?? Randy XL Wings - Plans Only http://www.n344rb.com Do Not Archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave G." Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 12:31 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave G." > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Hines" > To: > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 12:38 PM > Subject: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons >> After talking to him I thought back to my flight in the demo plane. The >> elevator motion was very smooth, but the aileron motion was stiff. But >> you need so little aileron motion to maneuver that it didn't bother me. >> Does the piano hinge give it better motion? How much weight does it >> add? > > In my single flight aboard a Zenith I noticed the same thing, very light > pitch and very heavy roll inputs. The owner seems to adapted well and I > didn't comment on it as it wasn't my plane. If replacing the "hinges" with > hinges would resolve the difference I'd probably make the change. > > > ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 10:12:44 AM PST US From: "Jean-Paul Roy" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 701 Oil Canning Stiffeners701 Oil Canning Stiffeners --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jean-Paul Roy" Thanks for the info Regards Jean-Paul do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy L. Thwing" Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:29 AM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 701 Oil Canning Stiffeners701 Oil Canning Stiffeners > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy L. Thwing" > > I think it's a "pro-14", It's ten feet long and rated for .032 Al max. > They make one (pro-14 HD) that's rated for .040 Al. You have to build up > the nose for the proper ZA radius, see my pic. I bent all parts for the 701 > EXCEPT the .040 longerons. The web site shows what are probably improved > models over mine which I bought used locally. When you go to the site, > there are links to download pdf manuals for each model. I have since bought > a Roper-Whitney 8' shop brake rated for .062 steel so I can bend all but the > gear. I still use the Tapco for most "thin" jobs as the nose is permanently > set up for the ZA radius and it works fine. > > http://www.tapcotools.com/pro14.php > > Regards, > > Randy L. Thwing, Las Vegas > > > > Hello Randy, could you tell me what model of Tapco brake you have? > > > > Thanks > > > > Jean-Paul > > ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 10:27:14 AM PST US From: Daniel Vandenberg Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons William Wynne,et al commented on this some time ago, as they had removed the hinge-less ailerons on their 601XL taildragger in favor of hinges. As I recall, their conclusion after this was that the roll forces were slightly lower (slightly improved) in slow flight...but the same at cruise speeds. In the end they concluded that the benefit was minimal. You can read about this here...about 1/3rd of the way down the page: http://www.flycorvair.com/hangar1105.html Dan John Hines wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted by: "John Hines" I had an interesting conversation with Jim Younkin over the weekend about the Zenith 601. For those that don't know, Jim Younkin is credited with inventing the autopilot and he is the president of Trutrak. When I told him I was building a 601XL, he rather gruffly asked what kind of aileron hinge I was using. We then launched into the normal conversation about how Zenith claims they last longer than a piano hinge... He then said that questions of reliability weren't then only reason he didn't like them. He said that flexing metal is not a hinge, it is a spring. A spring requires more force to move than a hinge. He talked about the CT2K having spring balanced ailerons and how even though it was an LSA it required a bigger autopilot servo than a Bonanza. After talking to him I thought back to my flight in the demo plane. The elevator motion was very smooth, but the aileron motion was stiff. But you need so little aileron motion to maneuver that it didn't bother me. Does the piano hinge give it better motion? How much weight does it add? All I know is that I'm a guy with no pilot's license and a completed tail kit. Jim Younkin is a hell of a lot smarter than I am. It's hard to argue with a guy with his credentials. What do you guys think? John www.johnsplane.com John R. Hines IT Manager Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. 901 N. 47th Street, Suite 200 Rogers, AR 72756 Office: 479-878-2449 Mobile: 479-366-4783 Fax: 479-631-6224 John.Hines@craftontull.com www.craftontull.com Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. exists to anticipate and understand the needs of our clients and provide them with successful solutions. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 11:18:52 AM PST US From: MacDonald Doug Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: MacDonald Doug As a CH-701 builder I'm asking this question out of complete ignorance. Would there not be a tendancy for the aluminum of a hingless aileron to work harden at the flex point? Admittedly I have not looked closely at the aileron attachment on a CH-601 so I can't picture how it works. I'm just basing my question on the descriptions you guys have given. Doug MacDonald NW Ontario, Canada CH-701 Scratch Builder __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 11:39:41 AM PST US From: Gary Gower Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons All I can comment is that the 601 XL , even with the flexing metal "spring" is lighter in control than most of the airplanes I have flown (from the right seat), so I dont thing it will need a bigger servo. I have Navaid autopilot not installed yet... Maybe Navaid is better :-) The other way I will be scared to move a lighter stick to any side and make an inadverted roll like flying a Pitts :-) :-) Saludos Gary Gower. Do not archive. John Hines wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted by: "John Hines" I had an interesting conversation with Jim Younkin over the weekend about the Zenith 601. For those that don't know, Jim Younkin is credited with inventing the autopilot and he is the president of Trutrak. When I told him I was building a 601XL, he rather gruffly asked what kind of aileron hinge I was using. We then launched into the normal conversation about how Zenith claims they last longer than a piano hinge... He then said that questions of reliability weren't then only reason he didn't like them. He said that flexing metal is not a hinge, it is a spring. A spring requires more force to move than a hinge. He talked about the CT2K having spring balanced ailerons and how even though it was an LSA it required a bigger autopilot servo than a Bonanza. After talking to him I thought back to my flight in the demo plane. The elevator motion was very smooth, but the aileron motion was stiff. But you need so little aileron motion to maneuver that it didn't bother me. Does the piano hinge give it better motion? How much weight does it add? All I know is that I'm a guy with no pilot's license and a completed tail kit. Jim Younkin is a hell of a lot smarter than I am. It's hard to argue with a guy with his credentials. What do you guys think? John www.johnsplane.com John R. Hines IT Manager Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. 901 N. 47th Street, Suite 200 Rogers, AR 72756 Office: 479-878-2449 Mobile: 479-366-4783 Fax: 479-631-6224 John.Hines@craftontull.com www.craftontull.com Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. exists to anticipate and understand the needs of our clients and provide them with successful solutions. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. --------------------------------- Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out. ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 11:43:29 AM PST US From: Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: I've only flown the 601XL so my opinion is pure conjecture, but I've found with my UL that aileron surface close to the fuselage is as useless as a screen door on a submarine. The air flow is not as smooth there and the result is more drag than roll reaction. Flaps work well there but the ailerons return more roll for effort out near the wingtips. Ed Moody II ---- Graham Kirby wrote: > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Graham Kirby" > > Regarding the bendy metal hinge design, does anyone know if there a > significant difference in aileron force between the XL and HD/HDS? The > HD/HDS design has full length ailerons, the XL does not. Do you need more > aileron deflection on the XL? > > Graham Kirby > 601HD ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 11:48:01 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons From: "Gig Giacona" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" I feeling on this is we all trusted CH with the design of the aircraft we are flying and I, for one, am going to trust him with the design of the way the aileron is hinged. That said. I've flown in the factory plane and if the force required to roll the plane is too much for you to do all day on a long cross country you are going to have a lot of trouble picking up individual rivets to build the thing. -------- W.R. "Gig" Giacona 601XL Under Construction See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54183#54183 ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 11:48:10 AM PST US From: "kevinbonds" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: "kevinbonds" I doubt you will ever deflect the ailerons far enough to work-harden them. The "hinge" does not actually bend (ie stretch). I think it is more akin to the kind of flex you might get when rolling up your aluminum for storage. Kevin Bonds Nashville TN 601XL Plans building. http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of MacDonald Doug Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 1:15 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: MacDonald Doug As a CH-701 builder I'm asking this question out of complete ignorance. Would there not be a tendancy for the aluminum of a hingless aileron to work harden at the flex point? Admittedly I have not looked closely at the aileron attachment on a CH-601 so I can't picture how it works. I'm just basing my question on the descriptions you guys have given. Doug MacDonald NW Ontario, Canada CH-701 Scratch Builder __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 11:51:05 AM PST US From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Zenith-List: Paint booths and respirators --> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland Thank you John, I totally agree on the need to be careful when youre painting and it is necessary to put some pre-thought into fans, vents and filters for painting an aircraft. Ive done engineering on only 3 commercial standard booths and they were for companies that required high volume constant production painting. If you do your own booth specifically for water-borne paint and adhere to good filters, there should be no color leaks outside the booth, and you shouldnt have to be afraid of the task. Progressively painting one aircraft doesnt have to be dangerous if you take your time and dont over load the air in exchange. Clear the booth and place intervals for your painting to avoid concentrations. Use a HVLP gun or the latest equivalent from DeVilbiss and above all, stay attentive to what is going on. My overlooking the fans at a critical time points out human error and under worse conditions, even the best respirator has limits for your safety if its overloaded. This is a point that cannot be emphasized enough, and the reason I suggested you consider a cheap home made low-pressure air hood ahead of the respirator. With a little bit of research youd find there are no remedies for paint damaged lungs, and you may have difficulty with breathing 24 hours after youve sucked in chemicals from the paint. From there, you can be dead within 72 hours, so its certainly not something to be casual about. Do sweat the small stuff! Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 11:59:03 AM PST US From: Tom and Bren Henderson Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons The hinged aileron is his design as well... Gig Giacona wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" I feeling on this is we all trusted CH with the design of the aircraft we are flying and I, for one, am going to trust him with the design of the way the aileron is hinged. That said. I've flown in the factory plane and if the force required to roll the plane is too much for you to do all day on a long cross country you are going to have a lot of trouble picking up individual rivets to build the thing. -------- W.R. "Gig" Giacona 601XL Under Construction See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54183#54183 ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 11:59:03 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: Good point..... one lister is expressing hesitance to contradict an experienced flyer who doesn't like the design but seems totally okee dokee with not trusting Chris Heintz's design and testing experience. Go figure, Ed ---- Gig Giacona wrote: > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" > > I feeling on this is we all trusted CH with the design of the aircraft we are flying and I, for one, am going to trust him with the design of the way the aileron is hinged. > > That said. I've flown in the factory plane and if the force required to roll the plane is too much for you to do all day on a long cross country you are going to have a lot of trouble picking up individual rivets to build the thing. > > -------- > W.R. "Gig" Giacona > 601XL Under Construction > See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54183#54183 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 12:07:19 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" Zenith actually did a life test with a motor flexing a sample. It went tens of thousands of cycles before short cracks appeared at the ends. I think they then drilled two stop holes and continued the test. You will die of old age before this is a real problem. -- Craig ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 12:16:09 PM PST US From: "Randy Bryant" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy Bryant" I agree... I'm not sure what the radius of the bend would be from stop to stop, but I'd bet it's several feet... Randy XL Wings - Plans Only Do Not Archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "kevinbonds" Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 2:45 PM Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "kevinbonds" > > I doubt you will ever deflect the ailerons far enough to work-harden them. > The "hinge" does not actually bend (ie stretch). I think it is more akin > to > the kind of flex you might get when rolling up your aluminum for storage. > > Kevin Bonds > > Nashville TN > > > 601XL Plans building. > > > http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds > > > do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of MacDonald > Doug > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 1:15 PM > To: zenith-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: MacDonald Doug > > As a CH-701 builder I'm asking this question out of > complete ignorance. > > Would there not be a tendancy for the aluminum of a > hingless aileron to work harden at the flex point? > Admittedly I have not looked closely at the aileron > attachment on a CH-601 so I can't picture how it > works. I'm just basing my question on the > descriptions you guys have given. > > Doug MacDonald > NW Ontario, Canada > CH-701 Scratch Builder > > > __________________________________________________ > > > ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 12:25:07 PM PST US From: "Randy Bryant" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy Bryant" Here's what Chris Heinz says about the hingeless ailerons: Whereas a hinge has rotating parts (friction, wear and the need to be lubricated), the "hingeless hinge" has no parts with relative motion because the deflection is provided by flexing part 'a' (which is an extension of the aileron skin). If the length 'a' is of the order of 3/4" to 1", the thickness of the flexing metal being .016", the metal being 6061-T6, and the deflection of the aileron a maximum of +/- 15 degrees, we can, using available deflection statistics for recreational airplanes, calculate the fatigue life of the metal. It is some 120,000 hours, which, reduced by the safety factor of 8 (usual when analysis is performed), amounts to 15,000 hours flying time. Now to be absolutely sure, we also performed fatigue tests. It was easy to replace the aileron bellcrank with an electric motor and an eccentric moving the rod and aileron. We had 3 eccentrics for 3 stages of deflection to reproduce the above mentioned statistics and, knowing that the motor's RPM is 1700, we get 100,000 cycles per hour (CPM). In a relatively short period, the cycles from the statistics could be applied to the deflection of the aileron for an aircraft utilization of 10,000 flying hours. No crack (not even chipped paint) was noticed. After that, and just to know if by any bad luck it did crack, do I have to repair it in the field, or can I fly safely home and fix it in the shop? I cut a 1/8" notch at both inboard and outboard ends of the flex area with snips and restarted running the tests. After the equivalent of another 3 hours, the notch had developed into a crack reaching on one end the first rivet, and on the other end the second rivet through the wing skin and rear channel. The test was then continued for the equivalent of another 10,000 flying hours with no further deterioration. The conclusions are: The "flex hinge" is adequate for the intended use (10,000 flying hours, which is an awful lot of time considering that most of us fly about 50 hours per year; it's 200 years!). Also, if a (very unlikely) crack would be discovered at the preflight check, you can safely fly home and then repair it! I know of at least two Zodiacs having logged over 1600 and 2100 hrs. respectively without any problem, so it definitely works! A conventional hinged aileron adds weight and does not "look as good" as the maintenance-free hingeless aileron - with its smooth surface and completely sealed gap. You can also read this article online at: http://www.zenithair.com/kit-data/ht-aileron.html Thanks, Randy XL Wings - Plans Only http://www.n344rb.com Do Not Archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gig Giacona" Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" > > I feeling on this is we all trusted CH with the design of the aircraft we > are flying and I, for one, am going to trust him with the design of the > way the aileron is hinged. > > That said. I've flown in the factory plane and if the force required to > roll the plane is too much for you to do all day on a long cross country > you are going to have a lot of trouble picking up individual rivets to > build the thing. > > -------- > W.R. "Gig" Giacona > 601XL Under Construction > See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54183#54183 > > > ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 12:41:19 PM PST US From: N5SL Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons -Just The Facts Maam --> Zenith-List message posted by: N5SL Good Afternoon Zen-brothers. Let's all sit around in a circle, hold hands, and take long, deep breaths (Dr. Ed if you want to sit by me you will have to clean the wet amalgam off your hands) and study this sacred Zen-Document written by our leader Chris Heintz: http://www.zenithair.com/kit-data/ht-aileron.html It even has a cool, moving-aileron graphic. Scott Laughlin Official Zen-Brother/Builder Omaha, Nebraska http://www.cooknwithgas.com/8_10_06_Cowl.JPG DO (breath) NOT (breath) ARCHIVE --- MacDonald Doug wrote: > As a CH-701 builder I'm asking this question out of > complete ignorance. > > Would there not be a tendancy for the aluminum of a > hingless aileron to work harden at the flex point? __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 12:41:19 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gary Boothe" I'm making a note in my Palm, "Year 2206 - check ailerons." Thanks Randy! Gary Boothe Cool, CA 601 HDSTD, WW Conversion Tail done, wings almost done....(with hingeless ailerons) Do Not Archive Here's what Chris Heinz says about the hingeless ailerons: ...The conclusions are: The "flex hinge" is adequate for ... 200 years!. Randy XL Wings - Plans Only http://www.n344rb.com Do Not Archive ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 12:48:45 PM PST US Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons From: "John Hines" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "John Hines" I never said I didn't trust the design. If you look back at my original post I asked 2 questions. 1. Does the piano hinge give it better motion? 2. How much weight does it add? In the demo plane there was definitely a different amount of force needed for roll compared to pitch. I never said it was excessive, just that it was different. I'm just asking if the hinge makes a more uniform feel of the controls. Now I suppose this will go on and on like scotch brite and Corvair discussions. If you don't have or have never flown a 601 with a hinge then it is impossible to answer the first question. John John R. Hines IT Manager Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. 901 N. 47th Street, Suite 200 Rogers, AR 72756 Office: 479-878-2449 Mobile: 479-366-4783 Fax: 479-631-6224 John.Hines@craftontull.com www.craftontull.com Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. exists to anticipate and understand the needs of our clients and provide them with successful solutions. -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dredmoody@cox.net Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 1:57 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: Good point..... one lister is expressing hesitance to contradict an experienced flyer who doesn't like the design but seems totally okee dokee with not trusting Chris Heintz's design and testing experience. Go figure, Ed ---- Gig Giacona wrote: > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" > > I feeling on this is we all trusted CH with the design of the aircraft we are flying and I, for one, am going to trust him with the design of the way the aileron is hinged. > > That said. I've flown in the factory plane and if the force required to roll the plane is too much for you to do all day on a long cross country you are going to have a lot of trouble picking up individual rivets to build the thing. > > -------- > W.R. "Gig" Giacona > 601XL Under Construction > See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54183#54183 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 12:50:40 PM PST US From: Jaybannist@cs.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons FWIW, I have installed hinges on my ailerons. However, it had nothing to do with the realtive merits of hinged versus hingless. I had already decided to go with the Zenith design. However, when I went to install the first aileron, a problem popped up. If I aligned the aileron with the flap, using the pre-drilled holes in the wing skin, I had about 2mm edge distance on the aileron skin. I even considered riveting a strip to the aileron edge to stay with the "flex" hinge. That just didn't sit well with me. In the end, it still required extra wide hinges to solve the problem. Jay in Dallas, working on XL fuselage ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 12:53:32 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons -Just The Facts Maam --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" BUT: - what if you paint it? - what if you polish it? - what if you Scotch-Brite it? - what if there is a Corvair engine near by? -- Craig it ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 01:04:30 PM PST US From: Zed Smith Subject: Zenith-List: Hinge types --> Zenith-List message posted by: Zed Smith All, Just did a Google for "hinge". Found out the exact type Heintz is using.....it is called the "rising butt hinge". Makes sense. PLEASE do not archive Zed ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 01:42:55 PM PST US From: "Ron Pizer" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Ron Pizer" I have a factor built 601 with hinged ailerons and notice a bend of the ailerons on the attachment point of the hinge and aileron in flight. I would beef up this area if someone was going to use the hinge design. The aircraft has 150 hours on it and I do fly over the sierras and encounter rough weather which places a lot of stress on the ailerons. -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Bryant Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:22 AM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy Bryant" Here's what Chris Heinz says about the hingeless ailerons: Whereas a hinge has rotating parts (friction, wear and the need to be lubricated), the "hingeless hinge" has no parts with relative motion because the deflection is provided by flexing part 'a' (which is an extension of the aileron skin). If the length 'a' is of the order of 3/4" to 1", the thickness of the flexing metal being .016", the metal being 6061-T6, and the deflection of the aileron a maximum of +/- 15 degrees, we can, using available deflection statistics for recreational airplanes, calculate the fatigue life of the metal. It is some 120,000 hours, which, reduced by the safety factor of 8 (usual when analysis is performed), amounts to 15,000 hours flying time. Now to be absolutely sure, we also performed fatigue tests. It was easy to replace the aileron bellcrank with an electric motor and an eccentric moving the rod and aileron. We had 3 eccentrics for 3 stages of deflection to reproduce the above mentioned statistics and, knowing that the motor's RPM is 1700, we get 100,000 cycles per hour (CPM). In a relatively short period, the cycles from the statistics could be applied to the deflection of the aileron for an aircraft utilization of 10,000 flying hours. No crack (not even chipped paint) was noticed. After that, and just to know if by any bad luck it did crack, do I have to repair it in the field, or can I fly safely home and fix it in the shop? I cut a 1/8" notch at both inboard and outboard ends of the flex area with snips and restarted running the tests. After the equivalent of another 3 hours, the notch had developed into a crack reaching on one end the first rivet, and on the other end the second rivet through the wing skin and rear channel. The test was then continued for the equivalent of another 10,000 flying hours with no further deterioration. The conclusions are: The "flex hinge" is adequate for the intended use (10,000 flying hours, which is an awful lot of time considering that most of us fly about 50 hours per year; it's 200 years!). Also, if a (very unlikely) crack would be discovered at the preflight check, you can safely fly home and then repair it! I know of at least two Zodiacs having logged over 1600 and 2100 hrs. respectively without any problem, so it definitely works! A conventional hinged aileron adds weight and does not "look as good" as the maintenance-free hingeless aileron - with its smooth surface and completely sealed gap. You can also read this article online at: http://www.zenithair.com/kit-data/ht-aileron.html Thanks, Randy XL Wings - Plans Only http://www.n344rb.com Do Not Archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gig Giacona" Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" > > I feeling on this is we all trusted CH with the design of the aircraft we > are flying and I, for one, am going to trust him with the design of the > way the aileron is hinged. > > That said. I've flown in the factory plane and if the force required to > roll the plane is too much for you to do all day on a long cross country > you are going to have a lot of trouble picking up individual rivets to > build the thing. > > -------- > W.R. "Gig" Giacona > 601XL Under Construction > See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54183#54183 > > > ________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 02:13:54 PM PST US From: "Clyde Barcus" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Clyde Barcus" I have flown both and I really don't think there is much difference. I bought the hingeless kit but decided to convert it so I discussed this with Chris Heinz at Sun-N-Fun. I ask Chris about using .025 angle to change it over, after review he gave it his blessing. Chris is a great guy to talk to, he understands the different preferences and that is why he offers both options. I was never concerned about the design, my reason was simple, I know the day will come when I will sell my plane and move on to land based toys. I think there is far more potential buyers that would be more comfortable with the typical hinge type versus hingeless. The controls are a little heavy but not excessive, but you need to consider most of my flight time was in a Grumman Tiger which has very light, responsive controls. Clyde Barcus 601 XL, Corvair Powered barcusc@comcast.net DO NOT ARCHIVE ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gig Giacona" Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" > > I feeling on this is we all trusted CH with the design of the aircraft we > are flying and I, for one, am going to trust him with the design of the > way the aileron is hinged. > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54183#54183 > > > ________________________________ Message 44 ____________________________________ Time: 02:30:37 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons From: "Gig Giacona" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" The answer to #2 is yes not much but some. The answer to #1 is Maybe it does now but what about 4 years from now? John.Hines(at)craftontull wrote: > I never said I didn't trust the design. If you look back at my original > post I asked 2 questions. > > 1. Does the piano hinge give it better motion? > 2. How much weight does it add? > > -------- W.R. "Gig" Giacona 601XL Under Construction See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54228#54228 ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 02:41:07 PM PST US From: "Edward Moody II" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Edward Moody II" I may be mistaken but I believe that in the test of the hingeless system, no cracks developed after 10,000 cycles of 15 degree deflections. They decided at that point to make a small v-shaped cut in the inboard and outboard edges of the test piece and run another 10,000 cycles to see if that wold induce any cracks. That was when the two cracks occured. Ed Moody II ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Payne" Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 2:05 PM Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" > > Zenith actually did a life test with a motor flexing a sample. It went > tens > of thousands of cycles before short cracks appeared at the ends. I think > they then drilled two stop holes and continued the test. You will die of > old > age before this is a real problem. > > -- Craig > > > ________________________________ Message 46 ____________________________________ Time: 02:45:16 PM PST US From: "Edward Moody II" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Edward Moody II" Oops. My mistake. It was 10,000 simulated flying hours in the test, not 10,000 cycles. I apologize. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Payne" Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 2:05 PM Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" > > Zenith actually did a life test with a motor flexing a sample. It went > tens > of thousands of cycles before short cracks appeared at the ends. I think > they then drilled two stop holes and continued the test. You will die of > old > age before this is a real problem. > > -- Craig > > > ________________________________ Message 47 ____________________________________ Time: 03:01:38 PM PST US From: "Edward Moody II" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons -Just The Facts Maam --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Edward Moody II" Will it dissolve when exposed to ETHANOL???? Ed Do Not Archive Do Not Continue This Thread Any Longer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Payne" Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 2:52 PM Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons -Just The Facts Maam > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" > > BUT: > > - what if you paint it? > - what if you polish it? > - what if you Scotch-Brite it? > - what if there is a Corvair engine near by? > > -- Craig it ________________________________ Message 48 ____________________________________ Time: 03:12:36 PM PST US From: Tom and Bren Henderson Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons Damn, let it go!!!! Both options will work acceptably well in these airplanes. Let's get back to the scotch brite. Which color should I be using??? ________________________________ Message 49 ____________________________________ Time: 03:27:51 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons From: "TxDave" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "TxDave" Isn't it odd that ZAC uses piano hinges on their own "Quick-Build" kits. I saw a kit up close and personal today. Makes you wonder, doesn't it. Just check out this photo from the ZAC website. Looks like a piano hinge to me. http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/construction/qbk1.jpg Dave Clay Temple, TX Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54241#54241 ________________________________ Message 50 ____________________________________ Time: 03:30:17 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Stone" Subject: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons I have heard that the type hinge that is simply a strip of metal that flexes is as safe as the regular piano hinge however, so many people expressed doubt and fear as to it's reliability, the ZodiacXL now has the piano aileron hinge as standard in the kit. I heard the same complaint about the first Pulsar with the Rotax 582 engine. Most of us have used an out board engine and had to pull the plugs, clear and reset them very often and the feeling was that this would be the same in an airplane with the exception being that if the motor stops in an outboard, you use the oars and row to shore. If this happens when you are flying along fat, dumb, and happy......Well need I say more. Bob Stone, Harker Heights, Tx ZodiacXL ________________________________ Message 51 ____________________________________ Time: 03:51:31 PM PST US From: "Zodie Rocket" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons I wish to offer a small opinion on this issue. Both the hinged and hingless systems work well, both have merit to their use. When confronted with this question by a builder I simply ask what do you envision doing with your plane. Is it primarily for evening use flying to local fly-ins then opt for the hinged system for a more responsive snappy system. If you envision going on trips with your Zodiac then stick to the hingless system. Their really is little deflection necessary in most flight situations with the Zodiac and often it just comes down to pressure on the stick for course correction. The hingless system wishes to remain in a non deflected state allowing for prolonged hands off flying that you do not get with hinged systems, see why this is a benefit for longer trips? It allows the pilot more free time to unfold a paper map in his lap and draw out the flight plan and corrections( OK now that your all laughing your ass of with the vision of anyone still using paper maps in a cockpit and not just tuning in the GPS) But you get the point, distance flight =hingless Local flight = hinged This is just my recommendation and it is just a rule of thumb, neither is truly better then the other when compared over the whole community of builders it just depends on what you want to do with the plane that makes the difference to your choice. Mark Townsend Can-Zac Aviation Ltd. HYPERLINK "mailto:president@can-zacaviation.com"president@can-zacaviation.com HYPERLINK "http://www.can-zacaviation.com/"www.can-zacaviation.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom and Bren Henderson Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 6:10 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons Damn, let it go!!!! Both options will work acceptably well in these airplanes. Let's get back to the scotch brite. Which color should I be using??? -- No virus found in this incoming message. 8/11/2006 -- 8/11/2006 ________________________________ Message 52 ____________________________________ Time: 03:56:40 PM PST US From: "Randy Bryant" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy Bryant" I'll bet you can order the QB kit either way... Randy Do Not Archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "TxDave" Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 6:25 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "TxDave" > > Isn't it odd that ZAC uses piano hinges on their own "Quick-Build" kits. I > saw a kit up close and personal today. Makes you wonder, doesn't it. Just > check out this photo from the ZAC website. Looks like a piano hinge to me. > > http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/construction/qbk1.jpg > > Dave Clay > Temple, TX > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54241#54241 > > > ________________________________ Message 53 ____________________________________ Time: 03:56:40 PM PST US From: "Zodie Rocket" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Zodie Rocket" The QBK is the base for the ELSA and SLSA created by AMD and it didn't make sense to have various different QBK options so yes you only get hinges on a QBK but remember most of those planes are used for flight training, Some days they will never see anything but the circuit. And as stated in a previous post short distance - hinged Traveling - hinge less Mark Townsend Can-Zac Aviation Ltd. president@can-zacaviation.com www.can-zacaviation.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of TxDave Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 6:25 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: "TxDave" Isn't it odd that ZAC uses piano hinges on their own "Quick-Build" kits. I saw a kit up close and personal today. Makes you wonder, doesn't it. Just check out this photo from the ZAC website. Looks like a piano hinge to me. http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/construction/qbk1.jpg Dave Clay Temple, TX Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54241#54241 -- No virus found in this incoming message. 8/11/2006 -- 8/11/2006 ________________________________ Message 54 ____________________________________ Time: 04:05:44 PM PST US From: "Bill Naumuk" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Rudder skin bending technique The stab can be done by one person, but I scrapped one before getting it right. I finally did it by screwing stop blocks on my table. Just to keep the edges square- not to hold anything down other than with duct tape. Bill Naumuk 40%HDS Townville, Pa ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom and Bren Henderson To: zenith-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 12:40 AM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Rudder skin bending technique I hate to say it, but that's the best method unless you have access to a hydraulic press brake. I had good luck using an 1/8" top punch in a .472" acute bottom die. I was only able to hit a 30 degree included angle, but it was close. Add a little pressure from a 2X4 (there's no getting away from that 2X4!), and it was a beautiful looking rudder skin. I used the table and 2X4 method for the Horizontal Tail skin, due to the larger radius. I got good results, but it's IMPERATIVE that you apply even pressure ALL along the full length to avoid smiles in the material. (Yeah, I went through two Horizontal Tail skins too. lol) A second person makes the job much easier, IF they understand they need to take their time. Inform them ahead of time that their impatience may cost them $100 for a new skin. Larry Winger wrote: As a 601XL scratch builder, I'm looking for guidance on bending my rudder skins. I have watched the "Scratch Building Basics" DVDs and will use their technique unless I hear differently from the list. In case you don't know, they do the following: Trailing edge skin -- They start the bend in the bending brake (which I have). They then move it to the worktable and complete the bend with even pressure on a 2x4. They bring it to a fairly sharp bend (presumably without exceeding a minimum radius). Leading edge skin -- They bring the ends together on the top of the worktable, and produce a smooth and broadly curved nose by gently applying pressure on the 2x4. Based on your experience, what works the best? Sorry if I missed a similar discussion in the archives. Larry Winger Tustin, CA Scratch building 601XL ________________________________ Message 55 ____________________________________ Time: 04:17:47 PM PST US From: NYTerminat@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons You are installing a Corvair engine and are worried about resale for the aileron hinges???? In a message dated 8/11/2006 5:15:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, barcusc@comcast.net writes: I have flown both and I really don't think there is much difference. I bought the hingeless kit but decided to convert it so I discussed this with Chris Heinz at Sun-N-Fun. I ask Chris about using .025 angle to change it over, after review he gave it his blessing. Chris is a great guy to talk to, he understands the different preferences and that is why he offers both options. I was never concerned about the design, my reason was simple, I know the day will come when I will sell my plane and move on to land based toys. I think there is far more potential buyers that would be more comfortable with the typical hinge type versus hingeless. The controls are a ________________________________ Message 56 ____________________________________ Time: 04:20:17 PM PST US From: "Bill Naumuk" Subject: Zenith-List: Clecos OK, all you HD and HDS builders, how many clecos does it really take to build through the fuselage stage? I finally get back to work on the project this weekend after nearly a 5 month layoff building the garanger, (I'm only a month off schedule!!) and my cleco cans are pretty low. If I leave off riveting the center wing per the manual until later, I'm out a pile of clecos. But, thanks to the benefits of painful experience, I realize spending $100 on clecos is better than God knows how much time and money rebuilding a warped Center Wing. The puppy's nearly perfect, and at this point I'm pretty gun-shy. Bill Naumuk 40%HDS Townville, Pa ________________________________ Message 57 ____________________________________ Time: 04:27:00 PM PST US From: "Zodie Rocket" Subject: Zenith-List: Jim Pensinger --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Zodie Rocket" Sorry group I lost Jim Pensingers E-Mail address. Jim please send me a note privately to cdngoose@hsfx.ca Mark Townsend Can-Zac Aviation Ltd. president@can-zacaviation.com www.can-zacaviation.com do not archive -- 8/11/2006 ________________________________ Message 58 ____________________________________ Time: 04:32:38 PM PST US From: Tom and Bren Henderson Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons OH NO, you did NOT just start that up again did you?! : ) Oh, and for what it's worth, you'll get as much for a well built XL with a Corvair as you would for a Jab, minus the difference in engine costs. Which means....YOU'LL MAKE THE SAME AMOUNT WHEN YOU SELL A CORVAIR POWERED PLANE AS YOU WILL WHEN YOU SELL A JABIRU POWERED PLANE (give or take a bit.) That ten thousand dollar difference in price is easily made up in the fact that it cost thousands less to get it in the air. Oh, not to mention the fact that some people swear by them, not at them. One more time as a group..."TO EACH THEIR OWN!" NYTerminat@aol.com wrote: You are installing a Corvair engine and are worried about resale for the aileron hinges???? In a message dated 8/11/2006 5:15:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, barcusc@comcast.net writes: I have flown both and I really don't think there is much difference. I bought the hingeless kit but decided to convert it so I discussed this with Chris Heinz at Sun-N-Fun. I ask Chris about using .025 angle to change it over, after review he gave it his blessing. Chris is a great guy to talk to, he understands the different preferences and that is why he offers both options. I was never concerned about the design, my reason was simple, I know the day will come when I will sell my plane and move on to land based toys. I think there is far more potential buyers that would be more comfortable with the typical hinge type versus hingeless. The controls are a ________________________________ Message 59 ____________________________________ Time: 04:55:06 PM PST US From: "Robin Bellach" <601zv@ritternet.com> Subject: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons / Corvair - resale Makes sense to me. I believe the Corvair is especially noted for being econonical to maintain and overhaul (at the outside, all moving parts can be replaced for $1500 as I recall), hence a great selling point. On the other hand, any potential buyer not familiar with the hingeless system is likely to be very skeptical. ----- Original Message ----- From: NYTerminat@aol.com To: zenith-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 6:16 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons You are installing a Corvair engine and are worried about resale for the aileron hinges???? ________________________________ Message 60 ____________________________________ Time: 04:58:16 PM PST US From: "Bob Percival" Subject: Zenith-List: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas I'm dropping my youngest off at college next week and am eagerly anticipating accelerating from my glacial pace to one that is more snail like. This will clearly require the 12' x 4' bench. I've seen the bench plans on ch701.com and the zenith site but would like to know what has worked well for other 701 scratch builders. Do Not Archive Bob Percival 701 from plans Berthoud CO ________________________________ Message 61 ____________________________________ Time: 05:08:30 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas From: "Ron Lendon" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Ron Lendon" I'm not building a 701, 601XL actually but have found the plans from to work real well for me. The picture at the forum shows me standing on the table using it as a stomp press. It's still flat and straight but has a lot more holes in it now (pilot drilling and fixturing). -------- Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI Corvair Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54270#54270 ________________________________ Message 62 ____________________________________ Time: 05:11:25 PM PST US From: "Jim Hoak" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Clecos Bill, At our Basic Sheet Metal Workshop at SunNFun we teach that Clecoes alone don't completely hold critical structures in alighnment. I always urge builders to use at least a few critically located clamps to maintain important alighnment. This is true especially after all deburring and prep is complete and riveting is about to begin. If your have a wing laying on a table with clecoes in every other hole, I can lift one corner of the wing off the table if your firmly hold the oppisite corner. Ask me how I know that you can build a warped wing this way! With proper clamping, you can remove many of the clecoes and use them elsewhere in your construction process. Of course there is nothing wrong with having a clecoe in every other hole when you are riveting, but if the structure isn't properly aligned AND CLAMPED it will come out warped. Again, ask me how I know! Good luck and build straight! Jim Hoak- 601HD- Rotax 912 UL- 525 hours do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Naumuk To: zenith list Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:19 PM Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Zenith-List: Clecos OK, all you HD and HDS builders, how many clecos does it really take to build through the fuselage stage? I finally get back to work on the project this weekend after nearly a 5 month layoff building the garanger, (I'm only a month off schedule!!) and my cleco cans are pretty low. If I leave off riveting the center wing per the manual until later, I'm out a pile of clecos. But, thanks to the benefits of painful experience, I realize spending $100 on clecos is better than God knows how much time and money rebuilding a warped Center Wing. The puppy's nearly perfect, and at this point I'm pretty gun-shy. Bill Naumuk 40%HDS Townville, Pa ________________________________ Message 63 ____________________________________ Time: 05:11:25 PM PST US From: "George Swinford" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Clecos Remember Bill, a can full of clecos is like money in the bank. They hold their value pretty well, and there is always another needy builder coming along. George Do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Naumuk To: zenith list Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 4:19 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Clecos OK, all you HD and HDS builders, how many clecos does it really take to build through the fuselage stage? I finally get back to work on the project this weekend after nearly a 5 month layoff building the garanger, (I'm only a month off schedule!!) and my cleco cans are pretty low. If I leave off riveting the center wing per the manual until later, I'm out a pile of clecos. But, thanks to the benefits of painful experience, I realize spending $100 on clecos is better than God knows how much time and money rebuilding a warped Center Wing. The puppy's nearly perfect, and at this point I'm pretty gun-shy. Bill Naumuk 40%HDS Townville, Pa ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- No virus found in this incoming message. 8/10/2006 ________________________________ Message 64 ____________________________________ Time: 05:12:18 PM PST US From: LHusky@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons AMEN TOM!!!! Larry Husky Lakeview, OR 601XL / Corvair Building Fuse Do Not Archive ________________________________ Message 65 ____________________________________ Time: 05:24:09 PM PST US From: Jaybannist@cs.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas Bob, I am not a scratch builder, but we all need the 4' x 12' table. I built the frame for mine with lumber yard 2 x 6s. I thought they were pretty straight, but found out later that they were not straight and were twisted. This makes one have to do a lot of minute shimming to get things level both ways. If I had it to do over, I would certainly not use lumber yard lumber. There is a section on Builders Resources about building a table structure with composite beams, made of lumber and plywood. That would assure a flatter finished top surface. That's the way I would go. Jay in Dallas, working on XL fuselage ________________________________ Message 66 ____________________________________ Time: 05:32:04 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Hinge less ailerons Hey! Wait a minute.Why, I oughta... Gary Boothe Cool, CA 601 HDSTD, WW Conversion Tail done, wings almost done.... Do not archive! .. ( OK now that your all laughing your ass of with the vision of anyone still using paper maps in a cockpit and not just tuning in the GPS) Mark Townsend Can-Zac Aviation Ltd. president@can-zacaviation.com www.can-zacaviation.com -- 8/11/2006 ________________________________ Message 67 ____________________________________ Time: 05:35:55 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Rudder skin bending technique From: "Ron Lendon" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Ron Lendon" I made mine without a brake by starting with a rectangle and folding it like paper. Hold the edges and bend it to a stop for the radius. Here is a link showing how: -------- Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI Corvair Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54278#54278 ________________________________ Message 68 ____________________________________ Time: 05:42:52 PM PST US From: Carlos Sa Subject: RE : Re: Zenith-List: Clecos --> Zenith-List message posted by: Carlos Sa Something that has worked for me is to insert the tail (smooth) end of old drill bits in some of the holes, to ensure parts remain aligned. A piece of masking tape on the drill bit will help keeping them in place (they tend to sneak away when you are not looking). Carlos CH601-HD, plans Montreal, Canada --- Jim Hoak a crit : > Bill, > > At our Basic Sheet Metal Workshop at SunNFun we teach that Clecoes alone don't completely hold > critical structures in alighnment. I always urge builders to use at least a few critically > located clamps to maintain important alighnment. This is true especially after all deburring > and prep is complete and riveting is about to begin. If your have a wing laying on a table with > clecoes in every other hole, I can lift one corner of the wing off the table if your firmly > hold the oppisite corner. Ask me how I know that you can build a warped wing this way! > > With proper clamping, you can remove many of the clecoes and use them elsewhere in your > construction process. Of course there is nothing wrong with having a clecoe in every other hole > when you are riveting, but if the structure isn't properly aligned AND CLAMPED it will come out > warped. Again, ask me how I know! > > Good luck and build straight! > > Jim Hoak- 601HD- Rotax 912 UL- 525 hours > p5.vert.ukl.yahoo.com uncompressed/chunked Sat Aug 12 00:23:37 GMT 2006 __________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 69 ____________________________________ Time: 05:44:19 PM PST US From: "kevinbonds" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas I have a few photos of my table construction here: http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds/Worktable.htm I followed someone's plans. It is perfect for me. 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 _____ From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Percival Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 6:53 PM Subject: Zenith-List: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas I'm dropping my youngest off at college next week and am eagerly anticipating accelerating from my glacial pace to one that is more snail like. This will clearly require the 12' x 4' bench. I've seen the bench plans on ch701.com and the zenith site but would like to know what has worked well for other 701 scratch builders. Do Not Archive Bob Percival 701 from plans Berthoud CO ________________________________ Message 70 ____________________________________ Time: 05:50:26 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas From: "TxDave" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "TxDave" Hey Bob, I started out with an 8 foot table and extended it to 12 foot when I got to my wing spars. Whatever frame design you use, the 3/4 MDF works great as a table top. You can easily drill and cleco parts directly to the table. Dave Clay Temple, TX 601XL scratch builder http://www.daves601xl.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54285#54285 ________________________________ Message 71 ____________________________________ Time: 05:51:41 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Rudder skin bending technique From: "lwinger" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "lwinger" Ron, What stop did you use? I see no reference in the plans to the radius. -------- Larry Winger Tustin, CA 601XL #6493 from scratch Building stabilizer & rudder parts Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54286#54286 ________________________________ Message 72 ____________________________________ Time: 06:00:02 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas From: "lwinger" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "lwinger" Bob, After a fair amount of web searching, I settled on a table based on the design of Gary Liming (www.liming.org/ch801/). His plan uses laminated I-beams for strength and straightness. In reality, they cost about the same as the component parts, and are a whole lot less work. For reference, the ones I ordered from Lowe's are Boise Cascade BCI 6000 2-5/16" x 9-1/2" x 12'. Three of them, running lengthwise, provide adequate support for the 4' x 12' table needed to construct the plane. The beams are held together (and straight) with plywood end caps. The surface I used was a layer of 3/4" CDX plywood topped with a 3/4" layer of MDF. I also left 6" of overhang on all sides for clamping. Good luck. -------- Larry Winger Tustin, CA 601XL #6493 from scratch Building stabilizer & rudder parts Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54287#54287 ________________________________ Message 73 ____________________________________ Time: 06:11:48 PM PST US From: "Clyde Barcus" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons I already considered your point, lets face it, that is a valid concern. After a lot of thought I decided if it doesn't sell I will sell it without the engine or replace it with a Lycoming or Continental and raise the price. I enjoy working on engines, building stock cars, you name it, changing engines is not a big deal, actually, I probably enjoy building more than flying. I am sure I could sell the Corvair to someone who likes to save money. On another note, I realize there is an anti-auto conversion crowd out there but I already know flying is not the safest hobby, my Lycoming quit in my Tiger (Look it up, N4519B), it was determined to be Lycomings fault and I was eventually reimbursed although it cost me thousands to get it back in the air. I also lost two friends, guess how, the crankshaft broke on their 210, of course it was a certified engine but they are still dead. Bottom line, flying is not as safe as walking but who in the hell wants to walk. Clyde Barcus 601XL Corvair Powered DO NOT ARCHIVE From: NYTerminat@aol.com To: zenith-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:16 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons You are installing a Corvair engine and are worried about resale for the aileron hinges???? In a message dated 8/11/2006 5:15:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, barcusc@comcast.net writes: I have flown both and I really don't think there is much difference. I bought the hingeless kit but decided to convert it so I discussed this with Chris Heinz at Sun-N-Fun. I ask Chris about using .025 angle to change it over, after review he gave it his blessing. Chris is a great guy to talk to, he understands the different preferences and that is why he offers both options. I was never concerned about the design, my reason was simple, I know the day will come when I will sell my plane and move on to land based toys. I think there is far more potential buyers that would be more comfortable with the typical hinge type versus hingeless. The controls are a ________________________________ Message 74 ____________________________________ Time: 06:33:21 PM PST US From: "Paul Moore" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hinge types --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Paul Moore" Ah Zed, once again you come through with the very best in subtle humor...... Still laughing, Paul XL - O200 ----- Original Message ----- > > Just did a Google for "hinge". > Found out the exact type Heintz is using.....it is called the "rising butt > hinge". > > Makes sense. > > PLEASE do not archive > > Zed ________________________________ Message 75 ____________________________________ Time: 06:50:17 PM PST US From: "Randy Bryant" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas Yep... I agree... Here's my table made with 2X6's and an MDF top... It works really well.. Randy XL Wings - Plans Only http://www.n344rb.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "TxDave" Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 8:49 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "TxDave" > > Hey Bob, > > I started out with an 8 foot table and extended it to 12 foot when I got > to my wing spars. Whatever frame design you use, the 3/4 MDF works great > as a table top. You can easily drill and cleco parts directly to the > table. > > Dave Clay > Temple, TX > 601XL scratch builder > > http://www.daves601xl.com > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54285#54285 > > > ________________________________ Message 76 ____________________________________ Time: 07:35:10 PM PST US Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons From: "John Hines" Dear lord, I apologize for starting this thread. From now on I will just stick to "Polish vs. Paint". At Corvair day in Mexico a few months ago there was a guy building a Long EZ with a funny story. Someone in his family freaked out that he was building a "John Denver plane". When he decided to put a Corvair engine on it the same family member said "You mean a Ralph Nader engine?". He answered "Yes, I'm putting a Ralph Nader engine on a John Denver plane!" He said he loves to tell people that just to freak them out. It was so funny I just had to share. Ya'll have a good weekend! John www.johnsplane.com ________________________________ From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clyde Barcus Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:07 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons I already considered your point, lets face it, that is a valid concern. After a lot of thought I decided if it doesn't sell I will sell it without the engine or replace it with a Lycoming or Continental and raise the price. I enjoy working on engines, building stock cars, you name it, changing engines is not a big deal, actually, I probably enjoy building more than flying. I am sure I could sell the Corvair to someone who likes to save money. On another note, I realize there is an anti-auto conversion crowd out there but I already know flying is not the safest hobby, my Lycoming quit in my Tiger (Look it up, N4519B), it was determined to be Lycomings fault and I was eventually reimbursed although it cost me thousands to get it back in the air. I also lost two friends, guess how, the crankshaft broke on their 210, of course it was a certified engine but they are still dead. Bottom line, flying is not as safe as walking but who in the hell wants to walk. Clyde Barcus 601XL Corvair Powered DO NOT ARCHIVE From: NYTerminat@aol.com To: zenith-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:16 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons You are installing a Corvair engine and are worried about resale for the aileron hinges???? In a message dated 8/11/2006 5:15:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, barcusc@comcast.net writes: I have flown both and I really don't think there is much difference. I bought the hingeless kit but decided to convert it so I discussed this with Chris Heinz at Sun-N-Fun. I ask Chris about using .025 angle to change it over, after review he gave it his blessing. Chris is a great guy to talk to, he understands the different preferences and that is why he offers both options. I was never concerned about the design, my reason was simple, I know the day will come when I will sell my plane and move on to land based toys. I think there is far more potential buyers that would be more comfortable with the typical hinge type versus hingeless. The controls are a John R. Hines IT Manager Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. 901 N. 47th Street, Suite 200 Rogers, AR 72756 Office: 479-878-2449 Mobile: 479-366-4783 Fax: 479-631-6224 John.Hines@craftontull.com www.craftontull.com Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. exists to anticipate and understand the needs of our clients and provide them with successful solutions. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

Dear lord, I apologize for starting this thread.  From now on I will just stick to “Polish vs. Paint”.

 

At Corvair day in Mexico a few months ago there was a guy building a Long EZ with a funny story.  Someone in his family freaked out that he was building a “John Denver plane”.  When he decided to put a Corvair engine on it the same family member said “You mean a Ralph Nader engine?”.  He answered “Yes, I’m putting a Ralph Nader engine on a John Denver plane!”  He said he loves to tell people that just to freak them out.  It was so funny I just had to share.

 

Ya’ll have a good weekend!

 

John

www.johnsplane.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



John R. Hines
IT Manager
John.Hines@craftontull.com

Office: 479-878-2449
Mobile: 479-366-4783
Fax: 479-631-6224
www.craftontull.com
901 N. 47th Street, Suite 200 ·Rogers, AR 72756
Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. exists to anticipate and understand the needs of our clients and provide them with successful solutions.

From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clyde Barcus
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:07 PM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons

 

I already considered your point, lets face it, that is a valid concern. After a lot of thought I decided if it doesn't sell I will sell it without the engine or replace it with a Lycoming or Continental and raise the price. I enjoy working on engines, building stock cars, you name it, changing engines is not a big deal, actually, I probably enjoy building more than flying. I am sure I could sell the Corvair to someone who likes to save money. On another note, I realize there is an anti-auto conversion crowd out there but I already know flying is not the safest hobby, my Lycoming quit in my Tiger (Look it up, N4519B), it was determined to be Lycomings fault and I was eventually reimbursed although it cost me thousands to get it back in the air. I also lost two friends, guess how, the crankshaft broke on their 210, of course it was a certified engine but they are still dead. Bottom line, flying is not as safe as walking but who in the hell wants to walk.

 

Clyde Barcus

601XL Corvair Powered

 

DO NOT ARCHIVE

 

Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:16 PM

Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons

 

You are installing a Corvair engine and are worried about resale for the aileron hinges????

 

 

 

In a message dated 8/11/2006 5:15:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, barcusc@comcast.net writes:

I have flown both and I really don't think there is much difference. I
bought the hingeless kit but decided to convert it so I discussed this with
Chris Heinz at Sun-N-Fun. I ask Chris about using .025 angle to change it
over, after review he gave it his blessing. Chris is a great guy to talk to,
he understands the different preferences and that is why he offers both
options. I was never concerned about the design, my reason was simple, I
know the day will come when I will sell my plane and move on to land based
toys. I think there is far more potential buyers that would be more
comfortable with the typical hinge type versus hingeless. The controls are a

 



This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. ________________________________ Message 77 ____________________________________ Time: 07:43:53 PM PST US From: Peter Chapman Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons --> Zenith-List message posted by: Peter Chapman I went to hinged ailerons on the 601 HDS after trying out the hingeless on another 601. In cruising flight, the hingeless ones were nice enough and not a distraction. But on approach I found it had poor control harmony. There were light pitch forces combined with somewhat heavy roll forces when using a lot of aileron, such as when dealing with turbulence on approach. While control harmony isn't perfect with the hinged ailerons, I like the overall feel better. Peter Chapman Toronto, ON ________________________________ Message 78 ____________________________________ Time: 08:01:59 PM PST US From: Subject: Zenith-List: Back inside cover of Kit Planes The back inside cover of the September issue of Kit Planes has a nice photo of a 701 and the proud owner / builder. (who is probably reading this)..... Ya know, the 601 is sweet, fast and sexy looking, but the 701 is like an old comfortable shoe....slip it on ever so easy.....easy in and out. The 601 is a little more demanding to get in and out of ....but it is such a looker.... Anyone else choose the 701 over the 601 for such reasons?? I am in the looking/dreaming stage at this time. Bill in Central Florida ________________________________ Message 79 ____________________________________ Time: 08:07:08 PM PST US From: "Randy Stout" Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons John Hinge vs. no hinge is going to be a personal preference. I have the hinge less design on my HD. For the most part they are a non-issue. Simple design for the builder, and they work well in flight. There is just about no chance of them failing in your lifetime and if they did, you would have lots of warning. It would take a long time for a crack to propagate far enough to be an inflight problem. There have only been a couple of times when I had thought it would be better to have the hinge. Strong crosswind takeoffs and landings is one. You normally start out with full aileron, so you have to lean on the stick a little harder than you would if you had the hinge. It's not really a big deal. You know you have to pull a little harder on the stick, so you do it. The other was when I made my emergency landing in a field. It would have been nice to pull off the ailerons just to help protect them better when we trailed the plane back to my airport. Bottom line for me, I would not change them out now. And if I were building new wings, I still think I would still go hinge less. Randy Stout San Antonio, TX n282rs"at"earthlink.net www.geocities.com/r5t0ut21 ________________________________ Message 80 ____________________________________ Time: 08:39:52 PM PST US From: "Chuck Deiterich" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Back inside cover of Kit Planes Bill, I got a 701 so I could keep it at home and fly out of my pasture. Chuck D. N701TX do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: allpro2@bellsouth.net To: zenith-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 9:58 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Back inside cover of Kit Planes The back inside cover of the September issue of Kit Planes has a nice photo of a 701 and the proud owner / builder. (who is probably reading this)..... Ya know, the 601 is sweet, fast and sexy looking, but the 701 is like an old comfortable shoe....slip it on ever so easy.....easy in and out. The 601 is a little more demanding to get in and out of ....but it is such a looker.... Anyone else choose the 701 over the 601 for such reasons?? I am in the looking/dreaming stage at this time. Bill in Central Florida ________________________________ Message 81 ____________________________________ Time: 09:29:23 PM PST US From: NYTerminat@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinge less ailerons Just playing with you, Your analogy will probably be correct and I will look to see more Corvairs in the sky. :) In a message dated 8/11/2006 7:34:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, admin@arachnidrobotics.com writes: OH NO, you did NOT just start that up again did you?! : ) Oh, and for what it's worth, you'll get as much for a well built XL with a Corvair as you would for a Jab, minus the difference in engine costs. Which means....YOU'LL MAKE THE SAME AMOUNT WHEN YOU SELL A CORVAIR POWERED PLANE AS YOU WILL WHEN YOU SELL A JABIRU POWERED PLANE (give or take a bit.) That ten thousand dollar difference in price is easily made up in the fact that it cost thousands less to get it in the air. Oh, not to mention the fact that some people swear by them, not at them. One more time as a group..."TO EACH THEIR OWN!" NYTerminat@aol.com wrote: You are installing a Corvair engine and are worried about resale for the aileron hinges???? do not archive ________________________________ Message 82 ____________________________________ Time: 09:42:25 PM PST US From: NYTerminat@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Back inside cover of Kit Planes Bill, Ditto for me, I fly out of my back yard, would like to build a bigger and faster plane but the selection is limited because of my short runway. Bob Spudis N701ZX CH701/912S In a message dated 8/11/2006 11:41:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, cffd@pgrb.com writes: Bill, I got a 701 so I could keep it at home and fly out of my pasture. Chuck D. N701TX do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: _allpro2@bellsouth.net_ (mailto:allpro2@bellsouth.net) Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 9:58 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Back inside cover of Kit Planes The back inside cover of the September issue of Kit Planes has a nice photo of a 701 and the proud owner / builder. (who is probably reading this)..... Ya know, the 601 is sweet, fast and sexy looking, but the 701 is like an old comfortable shoe....slip it on ever so easy.....easy in and out. The 601 is a little more demanding to get in and out of ....but it is such a looker.... Anyone else choose the 701 over the 601 for such reasons?? I am in the looking/dreaming stage at this time. Bill in Central Florida ________________________________ Message 83 ____________________________________ Time: 09:43:27 PM PST US From: "Bob Percival" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bob Percival" Thanks everybody - as usual, lots of good solutions! Do Not Archive Bob Percival 701 from plans Berthoud CO -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Bryant Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:47 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas Yep... I agree... Here's my table made with 2X6's and an MDF top... It works really well.. Randy XL Wings - Plans Only http://www.n344rb.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "TxDave" Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 8:49 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 12' x 4' Workbench Ideas > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "TxDave" > > Hey Bob, > > I started out with an 8 foot table and extended it to 12 foot when I got > to my wing spars. Whatever frame design you use, the 3/4 MDF works great > as a table top. You can easily drill and cleco parts directly to the > table. > > Dave Clay > Temple, TX > 601XL scratch builder > > http://www.daves601xl.com > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54285#54285 > > > ________________________________ Message 84 ____________________________________ Time: 09:59:03 PM PST US From: "Bob Percival" Subject: Zenith-List: sourcing .25" angle for Dave Clay's brake press I've been shopping around for angle for this brake but haven't had much luck finding 8' pieces. Further, the 4' pieces I've found at Lowe's go for about twenty five bucks. Any suggestions where to locate this stuff? Thanks in advance! Do Not Archive Bob Percival 701 from plans Berthoud CO ________________________________ Message 85 ____________________________________ Time: 10:02:37 PM PST US From: "George Swinford" Subject: Zenith-List: worktable-laminated I-beams I too built my work table from laminated I-beams and I was very satisfied with the result. I used two 12 foot beams for the longitudinal members and a third for the end members and center cross member. I think I only had two inches of overhang on the top. Using some of the packing crate plywood, I made a small shelf and attached it to the lower edge of the longitudinal beams to hold small tools, drill bits, Sharpie markers etc. Each leg was made from two pieces of 3/4 plywood screwed to a 2x2. I used threaded inserts on the foot of the legs with bolts for leveling. I thought that I would need a leg at the midpoint of the longitudinal beams, but the beams didn't sag in the middle at all. Most of the assembly was done using the drywall screws from the packing crate. The work surface was two pieces of 3/4 plywood spliced on the center cross member. I laid out a centerline and several cross reference lines with a Sharpie marker to help in lining up large structural assemblies. A 50 by 50mm grid would have been even better. Best of all, when it came time to set the fuselage down on the gear I sold the table to another homebuilder for most of what I had invested. George ________________________________ Message 86 ____________________________________ Time: 10:14:33 PM PST US From: "Bob Percival" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Back inside cover of Kit Planes Bill, I'm a clear weather low and slow kind of guy so the not so snappy 701 cruise doesn't bother me. I also like the fact that the wings can be detached as I am building in one bay of a two car garage. I prefer high wing a/c for sight seeing. There are many short unimproved fields in my area and I expect the 701 will be wonderful for visiting these. Finally, sniff, I have to use training wheels so my STOL options are limited. PLEASE Do Not Archive Bob Percival 701 from plans Berthoud CO -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of allpro2@bellsouth.net Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 8:58 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Back inside cover of Kit Planes The back inside cover of the September issue of Kit Planes has a nice photo of a 701 and the proud owner / builder. (who is probably reading this)..... Ya know, the 601 is sweet, fast and sexy looking, but the 701 is like an old comfortable shoe....slip it on ever so easy.....easy in and out. The 601 is a little more demanding to get in and out of ....but it is such a looker.... Anyone else choose the 701 over the 601 for such reasons?? I am in the looking/dreaming stage at this time. Bill in Central Florida ________________________________ Message 87 ____________________________________ Time: 11:02:09 PM PST US From: "Larry Winger" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: sourcing .25" angle for Dave Clay's brake press I'd be surprised if your answer is found in a "big box" home improvement store. I had to do something I almost never do since discovering the wonders of Google: I actually pulled out the Yellow Pages (remember those!?) By looking under "Metal" I found an industrial metal supplier. You might also look under metal fabrication, given them a call, and ask where you can buy the needed stock. A little sleuthing by phone should save you some dollars. Larry Winger On 8/11/06, Bob Percival wrote: > > the 4' pieces I've found at Lowe's go for about twenty five bucks. Any > suggestions where to locate this stuff? > ________________________________ Message 88 ____________________________________ Time: 11:57:21 PM PST US From: Tom and Bren Henderson Subject: Re: Zenith-List: sourcing .25" angle for Dave Clay's brake press Nearly every fabrication shop can order the material for you as well. You'll pay their mark-up, but it's almost always cheaper than your shipping would be (they get it delivered for free). Anyone in the NW corner of Oregon should feel free to call me if they need material. Anything you need to build the XL is either in our shop, or I can get it for you. Pricing? Might be better, might be worse than Aircraft Spruce. It just depends on the item. Also, Coast Aluminum has recently moved into the Portland area. They've got .032 and .040 4x12 6061-T6 sheets at about $125 will-call if youpurchase in quantity. For another 22 cents a square foot you'll get it Vinyl clad for protection. If you look at Aircraft spruces updated pricing, that's not a bad deal since you're not paying to ship it. Larry Winger wrote: I'd be surprised if your answer is found in a "big box" home improvement store. I had to do something I almost never do since discovering the wonders of Google: I actually pulled out the Yellow Pages (remember those!?) By looking under "Metal" I found an industrial metal supplier. You might also look under metal fabrication, given them a call, and ask where you can buy the needed stock. A little sleuthing by phone should save you some dollars. Larry Winger On 8/11/06, Bob Percival wrote: the 4' pieces I've found at Lowe's go for about twenty five bucks. Any suggestions where to locate this stuff?