Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:24 AM - Re: Gull-wing Doors (steveadams)
2. 06:56 AM - Re: 601 Forward Tilting Canopy - Pdf Document (zuluonecat)
3. 07:44 AM - Re: how do you like your engine? (Fred or Sandy Hulen)
4. 09:35 AM - Re: Ivoprop Question (Leo Gates)
5. 10:18 AM - Re: worktable-laminated I-beams (steveadams)
6. 12:15 PM - Re: Re: worktable-laminated I-beams (George Swinford)
7. 01:11 PM - 801 rivet substitution (George Swinford)
8. 02:15 PM - Re: 801 rivet substitution (Dave Ruddiman)
9. 02:46 PM - Re: 801 rivet substitution (George Swinford)
10. 09:32 PM - When Can I rivet the Front to Rear Fuse? (doug kandle)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Gull-wing Doors |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
The canopy on the CH2000 and CH640 with gull wing doors is a one piece structure
built from carbon fiber which extends from the firewall back to the rear windows.
It is amazingly thin and light, but very strong. I think to put gull wing
doors on a 601, you would need to build something similar, and would need to
be pretty good at working with composites. Not that it couldn't be done, but
it would be a very big job, and would likely change the aerodynamics of the 601
unless you built it to the same profile as the current canopy. To build it from
aluminum would IMHO be extremely difficult to do right.
Steve Adams
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55142#55142
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601 Forward Tilting Canopy - Pdf Document |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "zuluonecat" <easternflyingclub@hotmail.com>
That's it..!
Thanks very much Craig, I'd like to retrofit something like this to the standard
left-right opening canopy I have on the 601.
Cheers!
Chris.
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55161#55161
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: how do you like your engine? |
Time: 04:12:20 PM PST US
From: "Robert L. Stone" <rstone4@hot.rr.com>
Hi Fred, I am building an XL and plan on using the Jabiru 3300 engine.
I
just was wondering what you think of this engine.
Bob Stone, Harker Heights, Tx
++ Robert, I'm sure if you ask that question of other builders using
other engines their answer will be glowing as well unless they've have
had an on-going problem.
My Jabiru 3300 engine is the newest issue with hydraulic valve lifters
and several other updates. I worked a trade deal with Pete Krotje of
Jabiru USA when he needed a 3300 engine to overhaul for his engine
seminar. I couldn't be more impressed and satisfied. Besides the great
performance, installation is easy and un-cluttered and I get nice
comments regularly about "the way it sounds!".
Rather than the usual comments you'd expect from your question, perhaps
a few comments not normally offered might give you some new thoughts on
which engine to choose for your aircraft.
My first comment pertains to the 601 HDS series, NOT the newer XL
series, so read accordingly. The weight of the Jabiru 3300 has worked
out to give me the most "optimal" CG position I could have on my 601
HDS. This ideal CG along with other factors allows my HDS to meet the
stall specification of the sport pilot category. My aircraft is
registered as an experimental, but since it meets the requirements of
the sport category, private pilot licensed guys such as myself can fly
it in that category without a 3rd class medical if need be.... Heavier
engines typically won't allow the HDS series to meet the stall
requirements of the sport category. The lighter weight also allows me
to carry heavier passengers and more fuel and baggage within my CG range
and gross weight limits.
Before selecting your engine, I suggest that you check with several
insurance companies to see if they will cover you on "first flight",
and find out if you will be penalized with high premiums thereafter
because the insurance company has determined a less than sparkling
history regarding certain engines. Several builders that I have talked
to found out upon completion that the insurance companies wouldn't cover
them on first flight because of their engine choice, and thereafter had
to pay very large premiums. Some builders said they weren't covered for
a lengthy number of flight hours before the insurance would kick in.
There is a very large selection of nice engines to choose from for your
601 XL. If you find that the one you have your eye on has a good
reliability track record, is complimentary to your CG range, and
insurance companies will cover you from first flight on without high
premiums..... You'll more than likely be very happy with your choice.
Tail winds to all...
Fred Hulen
++ I receive the Zenith list only once a day (digest form), so pardon my
delay in answering.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ivoprop Question |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Leo Gates <leogates@allvantage.com>
I guess they don't work for all engines. I had mine static and dynamic
balanced, no adj. required. Just lucky I guess. On my Rotax 912 the
68" Ivoprop is VERY smooth from 1,800 to 5,800 RPM and QUIET.
Leo Gates
N601Z
LRM wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "LRM" <lrm@skyhawg.com>
>
> You can take this for what it's worth. I just got an IVOProp. It
> shook like a big dog, sent it back, got a refund, went back to my Warp
> Drive, nice and smooth. The Harley has a lot of torsional vibration.
> especially at low RPM, smoothes out at about 2000. That is due to the
> Harley having only two very large pistons, "4 3/8" and high
> compression 10.1 to 1. Using a short stiffer prop, 64" HP, seemed to
> solve the problem. The longer (70") lighter built IVOProp seemed to
> have too much flex. The tip tracking was at least 1/2' deflection.
> I may have just gotten a out of balance IVOProp, because it never
> smoothed out. Larry, N1345L, www.airhawg.com
> -----
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: worktable-laminated I-beams |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
grs-pms(at)comcast.net wrote:
> I too built my work table from laminated I-beams0 and I was very satisfied with
the result. I used two 120 foot beams George
You must have a bigger shop than mine :D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55209#55209
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: worktable-laminated I-beams |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "George Swinford" <grs-pms@comcast.net>
Thanks for reminding me that Spellcheck doesn't catch all my proofreading
sloppiness. If I only did have that big shop!
George
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:17 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: worktable-laminated I-beams
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
>
>
> grs-pms(at)comcast.net wrote:
> > I too built my work table from laminated I-beams0 and I was very
satisfied with the result. I used two 120 foot beams George
>
> You must have a bigger shop than mine :D
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55209#55209
>
>
> --
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 801 rivet substitution |
A driven or squeezed rivet puts the surrounding material in compression,
which is good from the standpoint of fatigue resistance. A pulled rivet
also expands to fill its hole. A bolt hole which is oversize or one
which is out of round feels to the surrounding material like an open
hole. An open hole is a definite "stress-riser", a place where a fatigue
crack may start. Fastener strength isn't the first concern here.
Either a rivet or a bolt has adequate strength.
A bolt is OK from a fatigue standpoint if it is tight enough to swell
the hole as it is pressed or tapped into place. Common AN bolts have
enough variation in diameter that you can't count on getting a tight
fit, particularly in a drilled hole. Close tolerance AN bolts (AN173,
AN174 etc) are made for this reason. The combination of a
close-tolerance bolt in a reamed hole of the proper diameter provides
good fatigue resistance as well as strength. The Standard Aircraft
Handbook defines the proper hole diameter as being a maximum of .0015
larger than the diameter of the close tolerance bolt in question. It
takes a reamer to get this kind of tolerance.
I used AN 173 bolts in reamed holes in that spot in my 601 spars. I
was a structures designer, and loose holes in spar chords make me
nervous.
Enough on this subject. If I don't get off my duff and finish the
airplane fatigue won't be a problem anyway.
George
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 801 rivet substitution |
George,
Thanks for the good information. I guess I better find the rivets or buy
some more. There is only 2 and who knows what I did with them.
Dave in Salem
801
----- Original Message -----
From: George Swinford
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 1:09 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: 801 rivet substitution
A driven or squeezed rivet puts the surrounding material in
compression, which is good from the standpoint of fatigue resistance. A
pulled rivet also expands to fill its hole. A bolt hole which is
oversize or one which is out of round feels to the surrounding material
like an open hole. An open hole is a definite "stress-riser", a place
where a fatigue crack may start. Fastener strength isn't the first
concern here. Either a rivet or a bolt has adequate strength.
A bolt is OK from a fatigue standpoint if it is tight enough to swell
the hole as it is pressed or tapped into place. Common AN bolts have
enough variation in diameter that you can't count on getting a tight
fit, particularly in a drilled hole. Close tolerance AN bolts (AN173,
AN174 etc) are made for this reason. The combination of a
close-tolerance bolt in a reamed hole of the proper diameter provides
good fatigue resistance as well as strength. The Standard Aircraft
Handbook defines the proper hole diameter as being a maximum of .0015
larger than the diameter of the close tolerance bolt in question. It
takes a reamer to get this kind of tolerance.
I used AN 173 bolts in reamed holes in that spot in my 601 spars. I
was a structures designer, and loose holes in spar chords make me
nervous.
Enough on this subject. If I don't get off my duff and finish the
airplane fatigue won't be a problem anyway.
George
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 801 rivet substitution |
You could check the situation with Chris Heintz. Could be that the
stresses are low enough in that location that you are OK. He would
know.
George
do not archive
From: Dave Ruddiman
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 801 rivet substitution
George,
Thanks for the good information. I guess I better find the rivets or
buy some more. There is only 2 and who knows what I did with them.
Dave in Salem
801
----- Original Message -----
From: George Swinford
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 1:09 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: 801 rivet substitution
A driven or squeezed rivet puts the surrounding material in
compression, which is good from the standpoint of fatigue resistance. A
pulled rivet also expands to fill its hole. A bolt hole which is
oversize or one which is out of round feels to the surrounding material
like an open hole. An open hole is a definite "stress-riser", a place
where a fatigue crack may start. Fastener strength isn't the first
concern here. Either a rivet or a bolt has adequate strength.
A bolt is OK from a fatigue standpoint if it is tight enough to
swell the hole as it is pressed or tapped into place. Common AN bolts
have enough variation in diameter that you can't count on getting a
tight fit, particularly in a drilled hole. Close tolerance AN bolts
(AN173, AN174 etc) are made for this reason. The combination of a
close-tolerance bolt in a reamed hole of the proper diameter provides
good fatigue resistance as well as strength. The Standard Aircraft
Handbook defines the proper hole diameter as being a maximum of .0015
larger than the diameter of the close tolerance bolt in question. It
takes a reamer to get this kind of tolerance.
I used AN 173 bolts in reamed holes in that spot in my 601 spars.
I was a structures designer, and loose holes in spar chords make me
nervous.
Enough on this subject. If I don't get off my duff and finish the
airplane fatigue won't be a problem anyway.
George
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
8/16/2006
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | When Can I rivet the Front to Rear Fuse? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "doug kandle" <d_kandle@velocitus.net>
I have completed jigging the front to rear fuselage. I have ordered the "new"
firewall forward kit from ZAC but they say it won't ship until sometime in September.
Therefore I can't bolt the cabin frame to the firewall.
I plan to move on to the next step that would follow section 11 (instrument plane)
as I don't want to attach anything to the firewall until I have the engine
mounts bolted to it.
My question is this: is it OK to go ahead and rivet up the front to rear fuselage
at this point? The assembly guide shows clecos still in the fuselage while
they put together the front sides and instrument panel. But I would like to
rivet up the fuse and go on to the controls and main gear.
Does anyone see any problem with this?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55281#55281
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|