Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:53 AM - Re: 701 airfoil and VG's (Monty Graves)
2. 05:59 AM - Re: 701 airfoil and VG's (Ron Butterfield)
3. 06:14 AM - Re: Re: 601 Main Gear (Jim Hoak)
4. 06:44 AM - Lowrance 2000c (Robert L. Stone)
5. 07:58 AM - HDS Aileron Spades (601corvair)
6. 08:31 AM - Re: 701 airfoil and VG's (LRM)
7. 08:44 AM - Re: 701 airfoil and VG's (LRM)
8. 10:40 AM - Canopy Templates (Jaybannist@cs.com)
9. 10:43 AM - Re: 701 airfoil and VG's (nyterminat@aol.com)
10. 10:52 AM - XL Canopy Construction (Jaybannist@cs.com)
11. 11:44 AM - Re: 701 airfoil and VG's (Zodie Rocket)
12. 11:49 AM - Re: 601 Main Gear (Mike Fothergill)
13. 01:04 PM - Nose gear bungees (George Swinford)
14. 01:06 PM - Re: Demo (LHusky@aol.com)
15. 01:48 PM - Re: Demo (Craig Payne)
16. 02:18 PM - Re: XL Canopy Construction (Jeff)
17. 02:23 PM - power panels (Jeff)
18. 02:52 PM - Re: power panels (Craig Payne)
19. 02:57 PM - Re: power panels (nyterminat@aol.com)
20. 03:40 PM - Re: power panels (george may)
21. 03:42 PM - Re: Nose gear bungees (Mike Fothergill)
22. 05:12 PM - RE : Re: power panels (Carlos Sa)
23. 06:06 PM - Re: HDS Aileron Spades (ALAN BEYER)
24. 06:46 PM - Re: Nose gear bungees (Peter Dunning)
25. 07:02 PM - Re: PIA depicted (Tim & Diane Shankland)
26. 11:02 PM - Re: Nose gear bungees (xl)
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: 701 airfoil and VG's |
According to this page. The HEINTZ Zenith CH701 uses the NACA 6515
mod. The modification is of course the slat.
http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html
I would be interested in how you determined it was the NACA
64018? Possibly do you mean the airfoil portion of the 701 with the slat
removed is the 64018?
removing the slat, would produce a VERY THICK round nose airfoil.....much
like many UL type aircraft use.
And this page, may be able to help you on the Coordinates of both or either.
http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html
Monty
At 03:47 PM 10/8/2006 +1000, you wrote:
>Hi, New to the list
>
>I have been looking for a dxf or dwg file of the NACA 64018 airfoil that
>the 701 uses. A search of the web does not produce anything. Anyone know
>where I could get hold of it?
>
>I am building my second 701. After reading about the changes made to the
>Savanah wing with extended nose rib, no slats and installed vg s and the
>results of some other Ausie pilots (www.stolspeed.com) after removing
>their slats and installing vg s I would like to compare the profile of the
>existing wing with the original NACA 64018. I was contemplating the
>retracting slat wing from Pegastol but it seems to be unavailable and may
>not provide much benefit.
>
>
>It would seem that using the original profile with VG s would produce a
>STOL wing with better top end performance. Any comments?
>
>
>Regards
>
>Bruno
>
>Scratch building in Canberra
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 airfoil and VG's |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Ron Butterfield" <ron.butterfield@gmail.com>
I don't know about which airfoil the 701 uses, but if you want to play
with airfoils there is a very useful utility available here:
http://www.profili2.com/eng/default.htm
In addition to the airfoil data included, the program can generate the
4- or 5-digit NACA profiles.
--
Regards,
RonB
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: 601 Main Gear |
Trevor and Listers,
This is a follow up to some previous info I sent out. I've done some
further investigation on the 601HD main gear ( well the nose gear too )
bungees. The ones received with the kit from ZAC back in 1995 were
1080HD manufactured by Superior. The ones recently received from A/C
Spruce ( probably also manufactured by Superior but not confirmed - only
Spruces P/N tag on them with no manufactruer identified ) were 1080 only
( no HD after the 1080 ) and the new ones actually measured
approximately 1" longer when the loops were laid side by side. I just
did that measurement with the other new bungees I have here that I
haven't used yet. Don't ask me why I didn't measure them before
installing the one's on my right main gear. Too dumb I guess! That
probably accounts for the retainer plate now having space under it on
top of the wing with the new bungees installed.
Do you supose the 1080 HD's received with the kit were the wrong ones?
These bungees are also approved for certified aircraft, thus must meet
certain manufacturing standards. Even though the ones I removed at 10
years, 730 landings and 531 hours, were in bad shape, the plate on top
of the wing was down tight. I always believed they were too stiff.
I guess what I'm warning you about is, if you have bungees identified as
1080HD I would consider getting the new ones without the HD if you
haven't actually installed them yet.
Jim Hoak
----- Original Message -----
From: Trevor Page
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 8:15 AM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Zenith-List: 601 Main Gear
A friend of mine recently changed one side of his main gear on a 601HD
with new 1080 bungies and noticed a gap on the top plate where there was
none before. Seems to me that either the new bungies are a bit longer or
perhaps softer (stretching) to account for the gap. Maybe a change in
the manufacturing process? Who makes these anyways?
Trev Page
C-IDUS 601HD R912
On Oct 5, 2006, at 9:28 PM, <planejim@bellsouth.net>
<planejim@bellsouth.net> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <planejim@bellsouth.net>
Listers,
This is primarily for those operating the OLD type bungee gear on
HDs and HDS'. Mine are 10 years old 531 hours with 730 landings. I have
never operated off of grass, well, some taxiing on grass.
I have been working on one of my R/H Main Gear on my 601HD. I
removed the gear to add some gussets at the strut to fork attach plate
juncture since some folks have had failure at that point. The plates on
my main gear are the small .125" thick ones with just four bolt holes
attaching the fork. Upon disassembly I was shocked to find the bungees
in pretty bad shape. The plate in top of the wing was still riding down
tight, flush, like the bungees were still tight. This was supposed to be
an indication that the bungees were still in good shape. I seem to
remember someone saying that everything is OK until you have a 5/8" gap.
I noticed some fraying of the outer covering at the bottom but it didn't
look very bad. Where the bungees bend over the crosstube ( the tube that
slides up and down in the extrusions inside the gear box ) the outer
covering was completely gone and about 25% of the rubber bands were
broken, ( I think this is because the bungees make a real tight bend
there ) if you can believe it with the plate still tight down on top of
the wing.
I didn't find any cracks in the welds. I made four gussets, about 1
1/4" high of .065 Chromoly ( the same thickness as the strut wall ) and
welded them at 90 degrees to the strut, with two at the forward flange
and two at the aft flange between the bolt holes. I had to slightly open
up the top cutouts of the wheel fairing when I reinstalled the gear to
clear the gussets.
I also added a nylon wear block at the bottom of the strut. The top
was still a snug fit ( even though I couldn't get much grease it there
because the plates was so tight down on the top of the wing ) and there
was a few tousanths wear at the bottom aluminun wear plate. Note that my
gear did not have the nylon wear plates when I built this plane. I had
to add one to the bottom of the nose gear a couple of hundred hours
back. That is is the high wear area. I do keep it well greased too.
The big surprise was when I put the weight of the airplane on the
new bungees. ( Note that I always believed that the original 1080
bungees were too stiff ). With the new bungees ( 1080 purchased from A/C
Spruce last week ) there is now approx. a 3/16" gap under the plate on
top of the wing on the R/H side. I can grasp the right wing tip and
actually make the plate move up and down. Never could make it do that
with the old bungees. Both the old and new bungee packaging stated 1080,
so I don't know what the difference is.
I can't wait until I get the opportunity to do the left Main Gear so
that I have an airplane that actually taxiis on the bungees rather that
one that is stiff as a board.
So, if you have one of the older 601's you might keep an eye on the
gear!
Jim Hoak 601HD - Rotax 912UL - 532 hours - 732 landings.
- The Zenith-List Email Forum -
--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
--> http://forums.matronics.com
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
--> http://wiki.matronics.com
- List Contribution Web Site -
Thank you for your generous support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--> http://forums.matronics.com
http://wiki.matronics.com
===========
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 |
|
Will anyone who owns a Lowrance 2000c contact me off net. I have a
question or two to ask.
Bob Stone, Harker Heights, Tx
ZodiacXL (rstone4@hot.rr.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: | HDS Aileron Spades |
Has anyone tried aileron spades on hingeless ailerons to decrease in put force?
---------------------------------
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 airfoil and VG's |
The PegaStol wings or whatever the new owner, Raymond Miller, decides to
call them should be available this winter or early spring. Insofar as
the retractable slats not helping much could be somewhat true if the
difference between the PegaStol wings were only the slats. Even after
saying that, the slats by themselves has some positive effect. The
larger PegaStol slats will create more drag when deployed and certainly
less drag when retracted forming an unbroken leading edge. Combining
both, logic tells you that it will go slower and faster. But the
performance improvements of the PegaStol wing is only partly derived
from the slats. The airfoil is a NACA 2415, which is slimmer and more
aerodynamic than the 64018 Zenith uses. The PegaStol wings use
streamline struts with air deflectors at all connection points. Not
only is less drag produced, the added benefit is that the jury struts
are not needed or used. The only purpose jury struts serve is to control
the vibration/movement cause by air flow when using round tubing as
Zenith uses. The PegaStol flaperons are approximately 30% larger than
Zenith's and again use the NACA 2415 airfoil. That's not to mention the
entire wing setup is two feet longer.
My point is that people seem to want to narrow in on only the slats as
being what makes the PegaStol wings different than the Zenith wings.
The PegaStol performance improvements over the Zenith wing is the total
package, no one element makes a significant difference in or by it's
self. The PegaStol wing has a lower stall than the Zenith wing, 15
mph, higher cruise and top speed, vne is 125 mph. And a higher lift
capacity, 1600 lbs with a lift coefficient of 3.6, Zenith is 1100 lbs
and 3.3.
There is another little fact that no one seems to be aware of. The
PegaStol wings sit 2 1/2" lower on the fuselage than the Zenith wings.
I would think that this will give better airflow to the horizontal and
elevator. That should account for better control at lower speeds.
The only downside I know of is that the PegaStol wings are about 100 lbs
heavier than the Zenith wings. That's because PegaStol uses thicker
skin, .0025 and twice as many ribs, 12 per wing vs 6 for Zenith. No
beer canning there, and beer canning is another aerodynamic issue solved
with the PegaStol wings. The weight is more than offset be the
additional lift you get from the PegaStol wings.
And the beauty is that the price I paid was only $300 more than
Zenith's. And, Raymond has told me he will keep the price completive.
Nope, I don't work for Raymond. Maybe I should.
----- Original Message -----
From: Monty Graves
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 4:48 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 airfoil and VG's
According to this page. The HEINTZ Zenith CH701 uses the NACA 6515
mod. The modification is of course the slat.
http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html
I would be interested in how you determined it was the NACA 64018?
Possibly do you mean the airfoil portion of the 701 with the slat
removed is the 64018?
removing the slat, would produce a VERY THICK round nose
airfoil.....much like many UL type aircraft use.
And this page, may be able to help you on the Coordinates of both or
either.
http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html
Monty
At 03:47 PM 10/8/2006 +1000, you wrote:
Hi, New to the list
I have been looking for a dxf or dwg file of the NACA 64018 airfoil
that the 701 uses. A search of the web does not produce anything. Anyone
know where I could get hold of it?
I am building my second 701. After reading about the changes made to
the Savanah wing with extended nose rib, no slats and installed vg s and
the results of some other Ausie pilots (www.stolspeed.com) after
removing their slats and installing vg s I would like to compare the
profile of the existing wing with the original NACA 64018. I was
contemplating the retracting slat wing from Pegastol but it seems to be
unavailable and may not provide much benefit.
It would seem that using the original profile with VG s would
produce a STOL wing with better top end performance. Any comments?
Regards
Bruno
Scratch building in Canberra
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
http://forums.matronics.com
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
http://wiki.matronics.com
- List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
10/2/2006
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 airfoil and VG's |
The PegaStol wings or whatever the new owner, Raymond Miller, decides to
call them should be available this winter or early spring. Insofar as
the retractable slats not helping much, could be somewhat true if the
only difference between the PegaStol wings and Zenith wings were the
slats. Even after saying that, the slats by themselves has a positive
effect. The larger PegaStol slats will create more drag when deployed
and certainly less drag when retracted forming an unbroken leading edge.
Combining both, logic tells you that it will go somewhat slower and
faster. But the performance improvements of the PegaStol wing is only
partly derived from the slats. The airfoil is a NACA 2415, which is
slimmer and more aerodynamic than the 64018 Zenith uses. The PegaStol
wings use streamline struts with air deflectors at all connection
points. Not only is less drag produced, the added benefit is that the
jury struts are not needed or used. The only purpose jury struts serve
is to control the vibration/movement cause by air flow when using round
tubing as Zenith uses. The PegaStol flaperons are approximately 30%
larger than Zenith's and again use the NACA 2415 airfoil. Here again
you get lower and faster speeds.
There is another little fact that no one seems to be aware of. The
PegaStol wings sit 2 1/2" lower on the fuselage than the Zenith wings.
I would think that this will give better airflow to the horizontal and
elevator. That should account for better control at lower speeds.
The only downside I know of is that the PegaStol wings are about 100 lbs
heavier than the Zenith wings. That's because PegaStol wings are two
feet longer, use thicker skin, .0025 and twice as many ribs, 12 per wing
vs 6 for Zenith. No beer/tin canning there, and beer canning is another
aerodynamic issue solved with the PegaStol wings. The weight is more
than offset be the additional lift you get from the PegaStol wings.
My point is that people seem to want to narrow in on only the slats as
being what makes the PegaStol wings superior to the Zenith wings. The
PegaStol performance improvements over the Zenith wing is the total
package, no one element makes a significant difference in or by it's
self. The PegaStol wing has a lower stall than the Zenith wing, 15
mph, higher cruise and top speed, vne is 125 mph. And a higher lift
capacity, 1600 lbs with a lift coefficient of 3.6, Zenith is 1200 lbs
and 3.3.
And the beauty is that the price I paid was only $300 more than
Zenith's. And, Raymond has told me he will keep the price completive.
Nope, I don't work for Raymond. Maybe I should.
Larry, N1345L, www.skyhawg.com.
----- Original Message -----
From: Monty Graves
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 4:48 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 airfoil and VG's
According to this page. The HEINTZ Zenith CH701 uses the NACA 6515
mod. The modification is of course the slat.
http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html
I would be interested in how you determined it was the NACA 64018?
Possibly do you mean the airfoil portion of the 701 with the slat
removed is the 64018?
removing the slat, would produce a VERY THICK round nose
airfoil.....much like many UL type aircraft use.
And this page, may be able to help you on the Coordinates of both or
either.
http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html
Monty
At 03:47 PM 10/8/2006 +1000, you wrote:
Hi, New to the list
I have been looking for a dxf or dwg file of the NACA 64018 airfoil
that the 701 uses. A search of the web does not produce anything. Anyone
know where I could get hold of it?
I am building my second 701. After reading about the changes made to
the Savanah wing with extended nose rib, no slats and installed vg s and
the results of some other Ausie pilots (www.stolspeed.com) after
removing their slats and installing vg s I would like to compare the
profile of the existing wing with the original NACA 64018. I was
contemplating the retracting slat wing from Pegastol but it seems to be
unavailable and may not provide much benefit.
It would seem that using the original profile with VG s would
produce a STOL wing with better top end performance. Any comments?
Regards
Bruno
Scratch building in Canberra
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
http://forums.matronics.com
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
http://wiki.matronics.com
- List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
10/2/2006
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: | Canopy Templates |
XL builders, I have a tip that might prove useful for making temporary
templates, most specifically for the canopy. The ZAC pictoral guides show a complex
proceedure using plywood, cut with a saber saw, for templates. I decided to
try to use the large corrugated cardboard sheets that were in kit packing
crates. They are large enough, sufficiently stiff, and easily cut ( and adjusted)
with a box cutter. They are lighter; and less likely to scratch the canopy,
too. Multiple templates (as shown by ZAC) are not necessary. One can easily
see where trimming is needed. The areas needing trimming can be marked with a
Sharpie and trimmed with the box cutter. I went through about four trimmings
and didn't need to make new templates. Hope this helps.
Jay in Dallas, working on XL canopy
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 airfoil and VG's |
Larry,
Are you flying yet??????? I can't wait to see your report on how the wing flys.
I am very interested in the Pegastol wing. Hope all is well.
Bob Spudis
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: lrm@skyhawg.com
Sent: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 airfoil and VG's
The PegaStol wings or whatever the new owner, Raymond Miller, decides to call them
should be available this winter or early spring. Insofar as the retractable
slats not helping much, could be somewhat true if the only difference between
the PegaStol wings and Zenith wings were the slats. Even after saying that,
the slats by themselves has a positive effect. The larger PegaStol slats will
create more drag when deployed and certainly less drag when retracted forming
an unbroken leading edge. Combining both, logic tells you that it will go
somewhat slower and faster. But the performance improvements of the PegaStol
wing is only partly derived from the slats. The airfoil is a NACA 2415, which
is slimmer and more aerodynamic than the 64018 Zenith uses. The PegaStol wings
use streamline struts with air deflectors at all connection points. Not only
is less drag produced, the added benefit is that the jury struts are not needed
or used. The only purpose jury struts serve is
to control the vibration/movement cause by air flow when using round tubing as
Zenith uses. The PegaStol flaperons are approximately 30% larger than Zenith's
and again use the NACA 2415 airfoil. Here again you get lower and faster speeds.
There is another little fact that no one seems to be aware of. The PegaStol wings
sit 2 1/2" lower on the fuselage than the Zenith wings. I would think that
this will give better airflow to the horizontal and elevator. That should account
for better control at lower speeds.
The only downside I know of is that the PegaStol wings are about 100 lbs heavier
than the Zenith wings. That's because PegaStol wings are two feet longer, use
thicker skin, .0025 and twice as many ribs, 12 per wing vs 6 for Zenith. No
beer/tin canning there, and beer canning is another aerodynamic issue solved
with the PegaStol wings. The weight is more than offset be the additional lift
you get from the PegaStol wings.
My point is that people seem to want to narrow in on only the slats as being what
makes the PegaStol wings superior to the Zenith wings. The PegaStol performance
improvements over the Zenith wing is the total package, no one element makes
a significant difference in or by it's self. The PegaStol wing has a lower
stall than the Zenith wing, 15 mph, higher cruise and top speed, vne is 125
mph. And a higher lift capacity, 1600 lbs with a lift coefficient of 3.6,
Zenith is 1200 lbs and 3.3.
And the beauty is that the price I paid was only $300 more than Zenith's. And,
Raymond has told me he will keep the price completive.
Nope, I don't work for Raymond. Maybe I should.
Larry, N1345L, www.skyhawg.com.
----- Original Message -----
From: Monty Graves
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 4:48 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 airfoil and VG's
According to this page. The HEINTZ Zenith CH701 uses the NACA 6515 mod. The
modification is of course the slat.
http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html
I would be interested in how you determined it was the NACA 64018? Possibly do
you mean the airfoil portion of the 701 with the slat removed is the 64018?
removing the slat, would produce a VERY THICK round nose airfoil.....much like
many UL type aircraft use.
And this page, may be able to help you on the Coordinates of both or either.
http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html
Monty
At 03:47 PM 10/8/2006 +1000, you wrote:
Hi, New to the list
I have been looking for a dxf or dwg file of the NACA 64018 airfoil that the 701
uses. A search of the web does not produce anything. Anyone know where I could
get hold of it?
I am building my second 701. After reading about the changes made to the Savanah wing with extended nose rib, no slats and installed vg s and the results of some other Ausie pilots (www.stolspeed.com) after removing their slats and installing vg s I would like to compare the profile of the existing wing with the original NACA 64018. I was contemplating the retracting slat wing from Pegastol but it seems to be unavailable and may not provide much benefit.
It would seem that using the original profile with VG s would produce a STOL wing
with better top end performance. Any comments?
Regards
Bruno
Scratch building in Canberra
http://www.matron- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
http://forums.matronics.com
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
http://wiki.matronics.com
- List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools,
free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL
Mail and more.
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: | XL Canopy Construction |
BTW, canopy construction will test your thought processes. I have access to
three different photo guides on canopy construction. Each one shows a
completely different sequence, different parts and different methods. I can't
tell
you what the correct sequence is, but I would strongly advise getting
completely familiar with the construction of the canopy before you actually begin
construction. That includes the forward parts of the canopy frame, with the pivot
points, gas spring, cover plates; etc., and even the forward top skin.
Don't ask how I have arrived at this recommendation! (I now have quite a few
scratch-built parts in my airplane, along side of factory built parts.)
Jay in Dallas, working on XL canopy
Do Not Archive
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 701 airfoil and VG's |
Am I missing something here? Although I am a huge supporter of the
homebuilder and his right to make his plane any way he sees fit. I wish
to also temper some postings with reason for the newbie =91s on the
list.
Larry has made a lot of modifications to his plane, then modified again
and again to fit his idea of a plane suitable for him, and god bless him
I love his creativity whether I agree with some of his changes or not.
Now for the average builder of a 701 realize that it is a STOL aircraft
with the shortest wingspan possible for it=92s design. This allows you
to
get in and out of spots otherwise not possible. The slats are fixed and
have never been modified for safety reasons. Retracting slats are a
great thing but if you store your plane outside and may not be the most
active person in the maintenance dept it is possible to have a slat at
some point in time of the history of your 701 stick and worse yet only
one sticks. ( This has happened several times causing death to other
models, it has happened to Chris Heintz and put him in a spiral dive
unexpectantly ) But you do gain top end speed, you can make your 701 go
115mph except that it is rated at a Vne of 110. Most 701=92s can cruise
at 85- 90mph with the Rotax 912 and those with the 912S and cleaning up
several things like the struts will result in a cruise of 105mph (This
is a real world figure reported by the RAA in a magazine comparison). So
we all know Chris designs his planes with a great degree of safety in
mind and we all know that the 701 is truly an incredible STOL performing
aircraft ( that is why we buy them ) is it advisable to cruise at Vne
or just below it. ( I can=92t offer an opinion on that, I won=92t do it
myself) IS it worth installing all these different features not approved
by the designer? Not if your using the plane for it=92s intentions or
concerned about safety. For those who enjoy working on their plane a lot
and spend as much time or more fiddling as they do flying then I say
knock yourself out and change away. But if your looking for a great STOL
aircraft that will perform well then build it to plans and go flying !!
Larry when are you going to get in the air, I want to see that HOG fly.
Will you make it to Sun-N-Fun ? I believe your plane has been painted
for two years now and I=92m dying to see it.
I=92m not in any way trying to insult anyone, or think ill in any way.
However, I just want new owners to recognize that everybody is different
and each plane is in some way is built different. We all add our special
touches to our machines and each of us think that they are great
additions. I=92m proud of some of my changes and smacking an idiot
sticker
on my forehead for some other choices( I=92ve done some beauts over the
years that made complete sense at the start but looking back were
idiotic). If your building your plane to have a flying aircraft then
build to plans as Chris designed you will get what you want. If your
building for adventure of building then consider all possibilities and
be adventurous. For the rest of you read close to distinguish the
difference in the builders personality, their best choices may be your
worse nightmare, were all different, which is exciting. Now go build !
Also to all Canadians Happy Thanksgiving ! U.S. people have to wait
another month and a bit.
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started
HYPERLINK "http://www.ch601.org"www.ch601.org / HYPERLINK
"http://www.ch701.com"www.ch701.com/ HYPERLINK
"http://www.Osprey2.com"www.Osprey2.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
nyterminat@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 airfoil and VG's
Larry,
Are you flying yet??????? I can't wait to see your report on how the
wing flys. I am very interested in the Pegastol wing. Hope all is well.
Bob Spudis
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: lrm@skyhawg.com
Sent: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 airfoil and VG's
The PegaStol wings or whatever the new owner, Raymond Miller, decides to
call them should be available this winter or early spring. Insofar as
the retractable slats not helping much, could be somewhat true if the
only difference between the PegaStol wings and Zenith wings were the
slats. Even after saying that, the slats by themselves has a positive
effect. The larger PegaStol slats will create more drag when deployed
and certainly less drag when retracted forming an unbroken leading edge.
Combining both, logic tells you that it will go somewhat slower and
faster. But the performance improvements of the PegaStol wing is only
partly derived from the slats. The airfoil is a NACA 2415, which is
slimmer and more aerodynamic than the 64018 Zenith uses. The PegaStol
wings use streamline struts with air deflectors at all connection
points. Not only is less drag produced, the added benefit is that the
jury struts are not needed or used. The only purpose jury struts serve
is to control the vibration/movement cause by air flow when using round
tubing as Zenith uses. The PegaStol flaperons are approximately 30%
larger than Zenith's and again use the NACA 2415 airfoil. Here again
you get lower and faster speeds.
There is another little fact that no one seems to be aware of. The
PegaStol wings sit 2 1/2" lower on the fuselage than the Zenith wings.
I would think that this will give better airflow to the horizontal and
elevator. That should account for better control at lower speeds.
The only downside I know of is that the PegaStol wings are about 100 lbs
heavier than the Zenith wings. That's because PegaStol wings are two
feet longer, use thicker skin, .0025 and twice as many ribs, 12 per wing
vs 6 for Zenith. No beer/tin canning there, and beer canning is another
aerodynamic issue solved with the PegaStol wings. The weight is more
than offset be the additional lift you get from the PegaStol wings.
My point is that people seem to want to narrow in on only the slats as
being what makes the PegaStol wings superior to the Zenith wings. The
PegaStol performance improvements over the Zenith wing is the total
package, no one element makes a significant difference in or by it's
self. The PegaStol wing has a lower stall than the Zenith wing, 15
mph, higher cruise and top speed, vne is 125 mph. And a higher lift
capacity, 1600 lbs with a lift coefficient of 3.6, Zenith is 1200 lbs
and 3.3.
And the beauty is that the price I paid was only $300 more than
Zenith's. And, Raymond has told me he will keep the price completive.
Nope, I don't work for Raymond. Maybe I should.
Larry, N1345L, HYPERLINK "http://www.skyhawg.com/" \nwww.skyhawg.com.
----- Original Message -----
From: HYPERLINK
"javascript:parent.ComposeTo('mgraves@usmo.com',%20'');"Monty Graves
"javascript:parent.ComposeTo('zenith-list@matronics.com',%20'');"zenith-
list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 4:48 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 airfoil and VG's
According to this page. The HEINTZ Zenith CH701 uses the NACA 6515 mod.
The modification is of course the slat.
HYPERLINK "http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html"
\nhttp://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html
I would be interested in how you determined it was the NACA 64018?
Possibly do you mean the airfoil portion of the 701 with the slat
removed is the 64018?
removing the slat, would produce a VERY THICK round nose
airfoil.....much like many UL type aircraft use.
And this page, may be able to help you on the Coordinates of both or
either.
HYPERLINK "http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html"
\nhttp://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html
Monty
At 03:47 PM 10/8/2006 +1000, you wrote:
Hi, New to the list
I have been looking for a dxf or dwg file of the NACA 64018 airfoil that
the 701 uses. A search of the web does not produce anything. Anyone know
where I could get hold of it?
I am building my second 701. After reading about the changes made to the
Savanah wing with extended nose rib, no slats and installed vg s and the
results of some other Ausie pilots (HYPERLINK
"http://www.stolspeed.com/" \nwww.stolspeed.com) after removing their
slats and installing vg s I would like to compare the profile of the
existing wing with the original NACA 64018. I was contemplating the
retracting slat wing from Pegastol but it seems to be unavailable and
may not provide much benefit.
It would seem that using the original profile with VG s would produce a
STOL wing with better top end performance. Any comments?
Regards
Bruno
Scratch building in Canberra
HYPERLINK "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List"
\nhttp://www.matron- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
HYPERLINK "http://forums.matronics.com/" \nhttp://forums.matronics.com
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
HYPERLINK "http://wiki.matronics.com/" \nhttp://wiki.matronics.com
- List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
_____
_____
HYPERLINK
"http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redi
r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom%2Fnewaol" \nCheck out the new AOL. Most
comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to
millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and
more.
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List"http://www.matronics.com
/Navigator?Zenith-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
"http://wiki.matronics.com"http://wiki.matronics.com
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribu
tion
--
10/7/2006
--
10/7/2006
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601 Main Gear |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Fothergill <mfothergill@sympatico.ca>
Hi;
The spare bungees that I have on hand for my CH-601HDS are Superioring
1080HD, manufactured by SBC Industies Inc. These are the same as
originally supplied with the kit. So far, after 10 years I have only
replaced one bungee on each side. Meanwhile my friend has had to replace
the nosegear bungeee several times.
Mike
CH-601HDS C-FRND 1000hrs+
UHS Spinners
Jim Hoak wrote:
> Trevor and Listers,
>
> This is a follow up to some previous info I sent out. I've done some
> further investigation on the 601HD main gear ( well the nose gear too )
> bungees. The ones received with the kit from ZAC back in 1995 were
> 1080HD manufactured by Superior. The ones recently received from A/C
> Spruce ( probably also manufactured by Superior but not confirmed - only
> Spruces P/N tag on them with no manufactruer identified ) were 1080 only
> ( no HD after the 1080 ) and the new ones actually measured
> approximately 1" longer when the loops were laid side by side. I just
> did that measurement with the other new bungees I have here that I
> haven't used yet. Don't ask me why I didn't measure them before
> installing the one's on my right main gear. Too dumb I guess! That
> probably accounts for the retainer plate now having space under it on
> top of the wing with the new bungees installed.
>
> Do you supose the 1080 HD's received with the kit were the wrong ones?
> These bungees are also approved for certified aircraft, thus must meet
> certain manufacturing standards. Even though the ones I removed at 10
> years, 730 landings and 531 hours, were in bad shape, the plate on top
> of the wing was down tight. I always believed they were too stiff.
>
> I guess what I'm warning you about is, if you have bungees identified as
> 1080HD I would consider getting the new ones without the HD if you
> haven't actually installed them yet.
>
> Jim Hoak
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Trevor Page <mailto:webmaster@upac.ca>
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com <mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 8:15 AM
> Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Zenith-List: 601 Main Gear
>
> A friend of mine recently changed one side of his main gear on a
> 601HD with new 1080 bungies and noticed a gap on the top plate where
> there was none before. Seems to me that either the new bungies are a
> bit longer or perhaps softer (stretching) to account for the gap.
> Maybe a change in the manufacturing process? Who makes these anyways?
>
> Trev Page
> C-IDUS 601HD R912
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2006, at 9:28 PM, <planejim@bellsouth.net
> <mailto:planejim@bellsouth.net>> <planejim@bellsouth.net
> <mailto:planejim@bellsouth.net>> wrote:
>
>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: <planejim@bellsouth.net
>> <mailto:planejim@bellsouth.net>>
>>
>> Listers,
>>
>> This is primarily for those operating the OLD type bungee gear on
>> HDs and HDS'. Mine are 10 years old 531 hours with 730 landings.
>> I have never operated off of grass, well, some taxiing on grass.
>>
>> I have been working on one of my R/H Main Gear on my 601HD. I
>> removed the gear to add some gussets at the strut to fork attach
>> plate juncture since some folks have had failure at that point.
>> The plates on my main gear are the small .125" thick ones with
>> just four bolt holes attaching the fork. Upon disassembly I was
>> shocked to find the bungees in pretty bad shape. The plate in top
>> of the wing was still riding down tight, flush, like the bungees
>> were still tight. This was supposed to be an indication that the
>> bungees were still in good shape. I seem to remember someone
>> saying that everything is OK until you have a 5/8" gap. I noticed
>> some fraying of the outer covering at the bottom but it didn't
>> look very bad. Where the bungees bend over the crosstube ( the
>> tube that slides up and down in the extrusions inside the gear box
>> ) the outer covering was completely gone and about 25% of the
>> rubber bands were broken, ( I think this is because the bungees
>> make a real tight bend there ) if you can believe it with the
>> plate still tight down on top of the wing.
>>
>> I didn't find any cracks in the welds. I made four gussets, about
>> 1 1/4" high of .065 Chromoly ( the same thickness as the strut
>> wall ) and welded them at 90 degrees to the strut, with two at the
>> forward flange and two at the aft flange between the bolt holes. I
>> had to slightly open up the top cutouts of the wheel fairing when
>> I reinstalled the gear to clear the gussets.
>>
>> I also added a nylon wear block at the bottom of the strut. The
>> top was still a snug fit ( even though I couldn't get much grease
>> it there because the plates was so tight down on the top of the
>> wing ) and there was a few tousanths wear at the bottom aluminun
>> wear plate. Note that my gear did not have the nylon wear plates
>> when I built this plane. I had to add one to the bottom of the
>> nose gear a couple of hundred hours back. That is is the high wear
>> area. I do keep it well greased too.
>>
>> The big surprise was when I put the weight of the airplane on the
>> new bungees. ( Note that I always believed that the original 1080
>> bungees were too stiff ). With the new bungees ( 1080 purchased
>> from A/C Spruce last week ) there is now approx. a 3/16" gap under
>> the plate on top of the wing on the R/H side. I can grasp the
>> right wing tip and actually make the plate move up and down. Never
>> could make it do that with the old bungees. Both the old and new
>> bungee packaging stated 1080, so I don't know what the difference is.
>>
>> I can't wait until I get the opportunity to do the left Main Gear
>> so that I have an airplane that actually taxiis on the bungees
>> rather that one that is stiff as a board.
>>
>> So, if you have one of the older 601's you might keep an eye on
>> the gear!
>>
>> Jim Hoak 601HD - Rotax 912UL - 532 hours - 732 landings.
>>
>>
>> - The Zenith-List Email Forum -
>> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
>> - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>> --> http://forums.matronics.com
>> - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
>> --> http://wiki.matronics.com
>> - List Contribution Web Site -
>> Thank you for your generous support!
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List via the Web
>> List Wiki!
>> ==========
>>
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Nose gear bungees |
Could the deterioration of the nose gear bungees be related to heat
under the cowl? Particularly in installations where the muffler is
close to the bottom of the bungee? Anyone try to shield the bungee from
radiated heat?
George
Do not archive
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I just flew in Ole #1 and it was great. Got some good air to air of Bob's
plane also. Worth the trip down there.
Larry Husky
Lakeview, OR
601XL / Corvair
Building Fuse
Do Not Archive
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
So, what do you think? Dual or Y stick?
Did you attend the Corvair class this weekend? How was it?
-- Craig
_____
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of LHusky@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Demo
I just flew in Ole #1 and it was great. Got some good air to air of Bob's
plane also. Worth the trip down there.
Larry Husky
Lakeview, OR
601XL / Corvair
Building Fuse
Do Not Archive
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | XL Canopy Construction |
..., canopy construction will test your thought processes. I have access to
three different photo guides on canopy construction. Each one shows a
completely different sequence, different parts and different methods. I
can't tell you what the correct sequence is, but I would strongly advise
getting completely familiar with the construction of the canopy before you
actually begin construction. That includes the forward parts of the canopy
frame, with the pivot points, gas spring, cover plates; etc., and even the
forward top skin.
I just "finished" my canopy and can definitely vouch for Jay's comments.
Nick told me that they last updated the photo guide about a year ago. I
wasn't able to find the older versions on the web site anymore. If you have
a kit older than that and try to use the current photo guide, be careful to
read the entire guide with your kit in mind to find the differences. You
will find some in the guide and in the plans. The cardboard idea is great.
I used plywood. For me, the tubes were pre-bent just about right and needed
very little adjusting. The plywood helped to identify where to cut the ends
of the tube off.
Jeff Davidson
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I'm moving on to the electrical systems and considering "power panels".
There seem to be two products in the market to simplify building electrical
systems. These are the EXPBUS 2V by Control Vision Corporation and the
Power Panel by Composite Design. Both also have variations of the product
available. The EXP BUS is sold by Van's for use in the RVs. Has anyone
considered using either of these for 601s? Any installations or
recommendations? Thanks ..
Jeff Davidson
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
If you have not already you should read this review and follow-up of this
type of product by Bob Richter of AeroElectric fame:
www.aeroelectric.com/articles/expbusad.html
www.aeroelectric.com/articles/expbusthd.html
Also Bob's book is a great place to start in designing your plane's
electrical system:
www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/pub/pub.html
When specific questions pop-up there is also an AeroElectric list hosted by
Matronics.
-- Craig
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: power panels |
Jeff,
I used the EXP BUS EXP-TRAY from Aircraft Spruce in my 701 and love it. It h
as a lot of great features that you don't even read about until you do the a
ctual installation and read the installation manual. Very easy to install an
d to modify if you need to.
Bob Spudis
N701ZX CH701/912S
-----Original Message-----
From: jeffrey_davidson@earthlink.net
Sent: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 4:23 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: power panels
I'm moving on to the electrical systems and considering "power panels". The
re seem to be two products in the market to simplify building electrical sys
tems. These are the EXPBUS 2V by Control Vision Corporation and the Power P
anel by Composite Design. Both also have variations of the product availabl
e. The EXP BUS is sold by Van's for use in the RVs. Has anyone considered
using either of these for 601s? Any installations or recommendations? Than
ks .
Jeff Davidson
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security t
ools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, fr
ee AOL Mail and more.
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "george may" <gfmjr_20@hotmail.com>
I used the EXPBus on my 601XL and believe it has some exceptional features
all packaged in a very small unit. I did the Aeroelectric thing on the last
plane I built. It's less expensive doing all the work yourself and it will
take longer to do. The exp is easy to install, no old time fuses needed--or
at least a minimal number, takes up little space and has some neat features
that you probably would not be able to easily make on your own.
It's a great little unit!
George May
601XL 912s---currently in taxi stage
>From: "Jeff " <jeffrey_davidson@earthlink.net>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Zenith-List: power panels
>Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:23:07 -0400
>
>I'm moving on to the electrical systems and considering "power panels".
>There seem to be two products in the market to simplify building electrical
>systems. These are the EXPBUS 2V by Control Vision Corporation and the
>Power Panel by Composite Design. Both also have variations of the product
>available. The EXP BUS is sold by Van's for use in the RVs. Has anyone
>considered using either of these for 601s? Any installations or
>recommendations? Thanks ..
>
>
>Jeff Davidson
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Try the new Live Search today!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nose gear bungees |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Fothergill <mfothergill@sympatico.ca>
Hi;
The nose gear is subject to wear due to rotation for steering, both in
the air and on the ground. It is also bounced more. Make sure that you
smooth out the welds where the bungee passes around the 3/4" tubes.
Mike
UHS Spinners
George Swinford wrote:
> Could the deterioration of the nose gear bungees be related to heat
> under the cowl? Particularly in installations where the muffler is
> close to the bottom of the bungee? Anyone try to shield the bungee from
> radiated heat?
>
> George
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Carlos Sa <carlosfsa@yahoo.com>
I suggest seaching the aero-electric list archives for EXPBUS.
There were many discussions on the subjet there.
http://www.matronics.com/search/
BTW, Happy Thanksgiving to all Canadian listers
Carlos
Ch601-HD, plans
Montreal, Canada
> >From: "Jeff " <jeffrey_davidson@earthlink.net>
> >To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: Zenith-List: power panels
> >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:23:07 -0400
> >
> >I'm moving on to the electrical systems and considering "power panels".
> >There seem to be two products in the market to simplify building electrical
> >systems. These are the EXPBUS 2V by Control Vision Corporation and the
> >Power Panel by Composite Design. Both also have variations of the product
> >available. The EXP BUS is sold by Van's for use in the RVs. Has anyone
> >considered using either of these for 601s? Any installations or
> >recommendations? Thanks ..
> >
> >
> >
> >Jeff Davidson
__________________________________________________________
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: HDS Aileron Spades |
Does your HDS have that much force that sdades might be needed? How much time
do you have in your plane? Mine has been in the air for almost 2 years (240 Hrs.),
and I think they feel just fine. Two other CFI's have been in the plane
and also said how nice they feel. Wednesday night my friends Corvair Zodiac
is going to be inspected. How much time is on your engine, and how do you like
it. What are you using for a Carb. ?
Al from Oshkosh
601corvair <airvair601@yahoo.com> wrote:
Has anyone tried aileron spades on hingeless ailerons to decrease in put force?
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nose gear bungees |
Hi George,
I did make up a heat shield (see attached image) to deal with the issue
of radiated and circulated heat after engine shut-down. FWIW, I have yet
to prove any benefit, but it was simple to do at the time.
Tail winds
Peter Dunning
CH601HD/6-3884/912S
----- Original Message -----
From: George Swinford
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 9:02 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Nose gear bungees
Could the deterioration of the nose gear bungees be related to heat
under the cowl? Particularly in installations where the muffler is
close to the bottom of the bungee? Anyone try to shield the bungee from
radiated heat?
George
Do not archive
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: PIA depicted |
Bill,
Just saw this message, it was caught in my spam filter, anyway you
mentioned that AS only carries part of Nuvite's line. I buy mine
directly from Nuvite either on-line over the phone or this year up at
Osh. You might check with them if the F grades are still available.
According to their website http://www.nuvitechemical.com they have F9
and F7 available.
Tim Shankland
Bill Naumuk wrote:
> Gordon and all-
> My first response got zapped out by Norton- seems someone wants to
> change my home page. Big deal- they can have it.
> I have two auto polishers, a 6" and a 9". I thought the 6" was a
> straight up rotary, but it turns out it's an orbital, too. Regardless
> of the brand, I would recommend a straight up rotary for the first
> pass. Good luck finding one. The bonnets on those that chuck in a
> drill don't hold tight enough. The bonnet stays still while the
> backing plate grinds itself to pieces. At this point I have more money
> in bonnets than the polishers.
> Tim Shank turned me on to the Nuvite system, and I have no regrets
> other than the fact that ACS doesn't carry the heavier F grits. I
> decided to scrap the fuse side skins and cut new ones using the
> plastic coated sheet available from Wick's. I'm not comfortable with
> the fact that I had to remove the worst of the corrosion with 220
> grit- I'm sure I weakened the sheet. I figure that I can polish the
> remaining structure with no coarser than G6. Between not having to pay
> $40 for an F grit (If I could find it) and the time savings of
> polishing virgin aluminum, I'm time and money ahead cutting new skins.
> What the hell, I've got a 50% scratch-built kit as it is!
> For those into "Alternative methods" I repeat my observations.
> Mother's is the grit equivalent of G6, and Dupont Polishing Compound
> is the equivalent of C. Nuvite S may well be in a category of it's
> own. I can't say what the corrosion protective qualities of the
> alternatives are and don't really care since I'm only using the
> alternatives far upstream of Nuvite C and S.
> Good building!
> Bill Naumuk
> HDS Fuselage
> Townville, Pa
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gordon <mailto:cscsail@gmavt.net>
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com <mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 7:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: PIA depicted
>
> Bill,
> Looks great, but I noticed you are using what appears to be a
> light duty polisher for car waxing. I use a Porter Cable 6"
> Random Orbit Polisherbsp; available via
> -========================nbsp; Email List nbsp;
> generous bsp; ================
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nose gear bungees |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: xl <xl@prosody.org>
I just replaced my nose gear bungee at 400 hours.
The outer cover was frayed and some of the rubber
bands were cut. I ordered the new 1080 bungee from
Zenith. It wasn't clear to me which one to order from
Aircraft Spruce, so I went with the 'safe one'.
The new bungee must be about 1" longer because now
I have about a 1/2" gap at the top of the steel plate.
I had no gap before the replacement. The bungee is
about the same diameter and it works so I'll go with it.
I have no heat shield and the old bungee did not look
like it was affected adversely by the engine + exhaust heat.
I tried the bungee replacement tool sold by Travis, of
Kobush Welding and Machining, LLC. It did not work for
me. It could not get a grip under the bungee and it did damage
the old bungee when I tried to use the tool to remove the
bungee. I was reluctant to use it to install the new bungee.
I found that I didn't need it anyway. And the instructions
were poor. For example, no mention of having to remove the gear
to drop it enough to remove the old bungee. Yes, that is obvious,
so why isn't it in the instructions?? I sent an email to
Travus a week ago telling him that the tool did not work for
me and asking him if I could return it. I did not get a reply
yet.....
To get the front gear back in place I used a rachet strap
around the front gear and the main gear. I let gravity
do the work of compressing the bungee.
BTW, I use two 60 pound sand bags on the elevator to lift
the nose when I need to work on the front gear.
These are the same sand bags I used to put 240 pounds in
the passenger seat for gross weight flight testing.
The couple of dollars/bag weren't wasted.
Joe E
N633Z @ BFI
CH601XL, 400 hours (677 hours to go before flight time = build time)
Jabiru 3300, Sensenich 49x64 wood prop
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! --
|