Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:23 AM - Re: composite landing gear installation (Dave Johnson)
2. 04:31 AM - Re: Who's going to the Rudder Workshop next week? (Juan Vega)
3. 04:51 AM - nose bungee replacement (Dick)
4. 05:15 AM - Re: nose bungee replacement (Jim Hoak)
5. 05:17 AM - Re: bungee (Zed Smith)
6. 05:19 AM - Re: Ray Allen flap switch (Geoff Heap)
7. 05:32 AM - Re: long range tanks fuel selector valve (Big Gee)
8. 05:37 AM - Re: Main Gear Orientation (was) Zenairs & Snow, (T. Graziano)
9. 05:39 AM - Re: Re: 701 no slats again (John Bolding)
10. 05:48 AM - Re: Who's going to the Rudder Workshop next week? (N5SL)
11. 05:49 AM - Rudder workshop thoughts (Kevin Kinney)
12. 05:59 AM - Re: Who's going to the Rudder Workshop next week? (Robert Schoenberger)
13. 05:59 AM - Re: Re: 701 no slats again (n801bh@netzero.com)
14. 06:14 AM - Re: More basic battery explosion (Charles Wacker)
15. 07:14 AM - slats vs no slats + insrance problems ?? (Big Gee)
16. 07:19 AM - Antenna(s) (Harrison-Hutcheson)
17. 07:41 AM - Re: 701 no slats again (billmileski)
18. 07:53 AM - Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ?? (billmileski)
19. 09:33 AM - Re: 701 no slats again (Joe and Joan)
20. 09:38 AM - Re: Antenna(s) (Noel Loveys)
21. 10:02 AM - Re: composite landing gear installation ()
22. 10:19 AM - Re: More basic battery explosion ()
23. 10:41 AM - Re: Re: slats vs no slats (MacDonald Doug)
24. 12:12 PM - Re: 701 no slats again (Dave Ruddiman)
25. 01:49 PM - Temperature & Rudder Workshop (Tim Verthein)
26. 03:31 PM - Re: Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ?? (Big Gee)
27. 03:48 PM - Re: Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ?? (Juan Vega)
28. 03:52 PM - Re: 701 no slats again (Juan Vega)
29. 03:54 PM - Re: Re: 701 no slats again (Juan Vega)
30. 05:13 PM - Re: Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ?? (LRM)
31. 05:56 PM - Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ?? (billmileski)
32. 06:59 PM - slats / no slats / time out (Big Gee)
33. 07:36 PM - Matronics Email List Fund Raiser - November! (Matt Dralle)
34. 08:29 PM - Re: Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ?? (NYTerminat@aol.com)
35. 08:46 PM - Re: slats vs no slats (billmileski)
36. 08:55 PM - Re: Re: slats vs no slats (NYTerminat@aol.com)
37. 09:34 PM - Re: Antenna(s) (Bryan Martin)
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: composite landing gear installation |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave Johnson" <david_a_g_johnson@btinternet.com>
I am building an XL with composite gera from a (CZAW - UK) kit. I'm not sure
what parts are different, but the main difference seems to be a pair of
steel 'boxes' that the ends of the gear legs slide into with a pair of
vertical bolts that go through the boxes and the legs. There are a pair of
0.040" thick sections that run fore and aft and form the bottom of the
control tunnel sidewalls.
Sorry if I am not explaining it very well, but if you contact me off-list I
can give you dimensions, etc.
Dave Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: "leinad" <leinad@hughes.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:59 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: composite landing gear installation
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "leinad" <leinad@hughes.net>
>
> I recently received my composite landing gear for my XL and it's going to
> require some modifications to install it. Has anyone else gone this
> route? I have some ideas about how to do it, but was wondering what
> others have done.
>
> Dan Dempsey (601XL/Corvair)
>
> --------
> Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71431#71431
>
>
>
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: Who's going to the Rudder Workshop next week? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
Yes,
Build the rudder straight and take a demo flight!
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: PatrickW <pwhoyt@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Oct 31, 2006 9:49 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Who's going to the Rudder Workshop next week?
>
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt@yahoo.com>
>
>Hi Thread Friends,
>
>My wife has finally warmed up to the idea of building a plane, and we're signed
up for the Rudder Workshop next week.
>
>Who else is going?
>
>Any recommendations or tips from those who've gone before us?
>
>Thanks,
>
>- PatrickW
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71455#71455
>
>
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: | nose bungee replacement |
Looking for someone having replaced their nose gear bungees....
Having just replaced my nose bungee (1080HD), I noticed several things
during the process and would appreciate your comments.
1) Previously the gap between the fork tube top stop plate and
horizontal firewall brace was under a quarter inch when new with a
Continental 85. Just after replacement, the gap is now 11/16" just as
it was immediately before replacement??
2) The verticle side of the old bungee in contact with the fork tube
was worn through the external cord and was showing signs of stretching.
My 601HD has 700+ hours on it.
Thanks, Dick
rwripper@verizon.net
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: nose bungee replacement |
Dick,
Recently, I posted several messages about replacing bungees on my 601HD.
I ran into some things that surprised me. Contact me offline and I will
share all the stuff everybody has already seen. That way we won't bore
all the others who are not interested.
Jim Hoak at planejim@bellsouth.net
601HD - 912UL - 524 hours - 10 years
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:50 AM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Zenith-List: nose bungee replacement
Looking for someone having replaced their nose gear bungees....
Having just replaced my nose bungee (1080HD), I noticed several things
during the process and would appreciate your comments.
1) Previously the gap between the fork tube top stop plate and
horizontal firewall brace was under a quarter inch when new with a
Continental 85. Just after replacement, the gap is now 11/16" just as
it was immediately before replacement??
2) The verticle side of the old bungee in contact with the fork tube
was worn through the external cord and was showing signs of stretching.
My 601HD has 700+ hours on it.
Thanks, Dick
rwripper@verizon.net
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Zed Smith <zsmith3rd@earthlink.net>
Dick,
A short time ago this was discussed on this List. No real conclusion was reached,
but I can offer this:
I had two new 1080HD bungees laid out side-by-side three or four years ago; there
was a noticeable difference in the two. One was about 1/2 inch larger in overall
diameter. The smaller one had a thicker cross-section.
Both came from Spruce at different times (about three months apart).
Leads me to think that there is some variation in the assembly process by the manufacturer.
Both were nothing more than bunch of rubber bands with cloth covering, so I would
suggest that if it "fits" and works okay then there shouldn't be a problem.
Maybe others will offer better advice.
Regards,
Zed/701/912/90+%/ect/do not archive
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: Ray Allen flap switch |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Geoff Heap" <stol10@comcast.net>
Peter. FYI, the (one of?) the tech support guys at RAY ALLEN owns a 701. Don't
have his name handy right now...Geoff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71509#71509
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: long range tanks fuel selector valve |
I agree with Craig 100%--- get the proper valve. Check out the number of
aircraft accidents caused by fuel MIS-management. Also put the valve in a
"proper location-- (not a problem with the CH designs) I.E. the unfortunat
e accident of John Denver.=0A=0AFritz-- 90/90--- Corvair=0A=0A=0A----- Orig
inal Message ----=0AFrom: Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com>=0ATo: zenith
-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:18:40 PM=0ASubject
: RE: Zenith-List: long range tanks fuel selector valve=0A=0A=0A--> Zenith-
List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>=0A=0A>> Have
you considered cascading 2 levels of standard 3 way selectors?=0A=0AThat s
ounds like a false economy to me - mishandling multiple tanks causes a=0Alo
t of accidents. I'd spring for the valve.=0A=0AAndair's 4 tank valve (FS20x
8M) appears to cost about $279 direct from=0AAndair: www.andair.co.uk. I'm
in the US and have successfully ordered from=0Atheir UK web site.=0A=0A-- C
=======================0A=0A
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: Main Gear Orientation (was) Zenairs & Snow, |
Craig,
The straight edge is on the back of my gear. If I were to turn it
around, my wheels would move forward, closer to the CG.
Tony
-----------------------------------------
RE: Re: Main Gear Orientation (was) Zenairs & Snow,
From: Craig Payne (craig@craigandjean.com)
Date: Tue Oct 31 - 9:07 AM
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
<craig@craigandjean.com>
Tony, just to be specific - is the straight edge on the front or back of
your main gear?
-- Craig
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 no slats again |
I would like to leave off the slats for several reasons.
First, I don't have to build them ,mount them,or maintain them. Second
would be the fact that the airplane would weigh less. Third would be
less places for salt water (float operations) to find a way inside the
wing. Forth, it MIGHT go "faster" , actually the same speed on less
power would be a better way to put it as we are not too far from the vne
anyway.
It has been noted on another 701 list that the same high lift airfoil
WITHOUT slats (65018) can be incorporated into a wing under construction
with the forming of just the nose rib. This make more sense to me than
just taking off the slats as you then have an unproven airfoil. However
there seems to be a fair amount of testing going on now so maybe it's
not really "unproven" any longer.
Hopefully, someone with a flying 701 with an itch to build something
will knock out a set of wings with no slats to put a real world test on
the theory. Of course, it COULD be done like Wittman used to do things
and just build ONE wing. Easy to compare then but I don't have the
stones for THAT !!
One of my friends put VG's on his Legal Eagle ultralight (4414 airfoil)
and the angle of attack before stall almost doubled so there IS a lot of
potential. Same guy just finished his 701 so maybe he's the fellow for
this project.
I guess what it all boils down to is... Do the VG's impart the same
energy to the air going over the top of the wing as the slats? Gonna be
interesting to see how this shakes out. LOW&SLOW John Bolding
>
> Just curious, but why don't you want the slats?
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Who's going to the Rudder Workshop next week? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: N5SL <nfivesl@yahoo.com>
Patrick:
First of all let me congratulate you for making the decision of attending the workshop.
You are doing the one thing that will keep you going after others have
given up. The workshop was a great experience for me.
My advice is to spend a lot of time with the workers who are building the parts
and study the completed and partially completed airplanes. Also, make sure you
get a demo ride in the airplane you are building. Bring your digital camera
with a large memory card. Take pictures of everything and fill up the card.
Have fun,
Scott Laughlin
Omaha, Nebraska
601XL / Corvair
www.cooknwithgas.com
Finishing up BRS installation
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message ----
From: PatrickW <pwhoyt@yahoo.com>
Hi Thread Friends,
My wife has finally warmed up to the idea of building a plane, and we're signed
up for the Rudder Workshop next week.
Who else is going?
Any recommendations or tips from those who've gone before us?
Thanks,
- PatrickW
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: | Rudder workshop thoughts |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Kevin Kinney <kkinney@fuse.net>
I'll admit my info is 5 years old, but I recall this.
1) You're in a large workshop. If you're the least bit coldblooded, dress appropriately.
2) Bring a folding chair or two.
3) Bring a digital camera. Take as many pictures of a flying aricraft as possible.
This includes photographing the *bottom* of the wings, stab & fuse. If
they pop the cowl, take a *lot* of pictures of the engine & FWF installation.
4) If you don't have sheetmetal experience, first learn the basics. Once you have
those down, learn how to fix problems. Ask how to fix oval holes, misdrilled
holes, including holes too close together or too close to the edge.
Just my thoughts,
Kevin Kinney
--
Woman 1 - I don't see how you can raise children & stay sane.
Woman 2 - You don't. You pick one and go with it.
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: Who's going to the Rudder Workshop next week? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Robert Schoenberger <hrs1@frontiernet.net>
Patrick . . . be sure that both you and your wife get a demo ride in the
type of aircraft you'll be building. Also go to Porky's just down the
road for some of the best baby ribs and pulled pork (nothing fancy -
levi type place). Robert Schoenberger 701 do not archive
PatrickW wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt@yahoo.com>
>
> Hi Thread Friends,
>
> My wife has finally warmed up to the idea of building a plane, and we're signed
up for the Rudder Workshop next week.
>
> Who else is going?
>
> Any recommendations or tips from those who've gone before us?
>
> Thanks,
>
> - PatrickW
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71455#71455
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 no slats again |
My ELT is right where you want yours to be, My com is just behind the tr
ap door on the bottom of the rear fuse and my transponder is where you w
ant to place yours. All positions work great for me on my 801..
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
On trhe subject of antenna placment, I have decided to put the elt ante
nnae on top at the back of the luggage area. The Comm antennae, I decid
ed to put a 45 degree nbend antennae under the copilot seat between the
wing stut and the landing gear, so the antennae will not be seen and o
n the bottom. ANy one else place it there?
Txspr antennae just behind firewall on bottom.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: billmileski <mileski@sonalysts.com>
>Sent: Oct 31, 2006 9:32 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 701 no slats again
>
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "billmileski" <mileski@sonalysts.com
>
>
>One more thing, Joe,
>
>Be sure to check (or at least consider) the weight and balance if you d
ecide to try it.. I was reminded by the factory that removing slats will
move the CG rearward, as they have some weight and they are forward of
the CG.
>
>By the way the factory clearly discourages this configuration. However
I am considering giving it a try too when the VGs are available. Sever
al people have tried it without the VGs and reported bad results, but su
rvived, and duplicating the VG installation probably limits the risk qui
te a bit.
>
>Bill
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71450#71450
>
>
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
<html><P>My ELT is right where you want yours to be, My com is just behi
nd the trap door on the bottom of the rear fuse and my transponder is wh
ere you want to place yours. All positions work great for me on my 801..
</P>
<P>do not archive<BR><BR><BR>Ben Haas<BR>N801BH<BR>www.haaspowerair
.com<BR><BR>-- Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
; wrote:<BR>--> Zenith-List message posted b
y: Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net><BR><BR><BR
>On trhe subject of antenna placment, &nbs
p;I have decided to put the elt anten
nae on top at the back of the lu
ggage area. The Comm antennae, I dec
ided to put a 45 degree nbend antenna
e under the copilot seat between the
wing stut and the landing gear, so th
e antennae will not be seen an
d on the bottom. ANy one else p
lace it there?<BR>Txspr antennae just behind&nb
sp;firewall on bottom.<BR>Juan<BR><BR>-----Original Messa
ge-----<BR>>From: billmileski <mileski@sonalysts.com>
<BR>>Sent: Oct 31, 2006 9:32 PM<BR>>To:&n
bsp;zenith-list@matronics.com<BR>>Subject: Zenith-List: Re:
701 no slats again<BR>><BR>>--> Zenit
h-List message posted by: "billmileski" <mil
eski@sonalysts.com><BR>><BR>>One more thing, Joe
,<BR>><BR>>Be sure to check (or at l
east consider) the weight and balance if&n
bsp;you decide to try it.. I was remi
nded by the factory that removing slats&nb
sp;will move the CG rearward, as they 
;have some weight and they are forward&nbs
p;of the CG.<BR>><BR>>By the way the 
;factory clearly discourages this configuration.&nbs
p; However I am considering giving it 
;a try too when the VGs are available
. Several people have tried it witho
ut the VGs and reported bad results,
but survived, and duplicating the VG insta
llation probably limits the risk quite a&n
bsp;bit.<BR>><BR>>Bill<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>Read
this topic online here:<BR>><BR>>http://forum
s.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71450#71450<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR
========================
========================
sp; - The Zenith-List Email F
p;List utilities such as the Subscriptions 
========================
========================
- NEW MATRONICS WEB&n
========================
========================
sp; - NEW MATRONICS&n
========================
========================
- List Contribution Web&nbs
p; &nbs
p; -Mat
========================
========================
===<BR></P>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | More basic battery explosion |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Charles Wacker" <ccwacker@hotmail.com>
I am curious as to why explosions from the solenoids are an issue. Has there
been explosions from solenoids in the XL? Has this been a problem in other
airframes?
Chuck Wacker
N601CW, Quick Build
>From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: More basic battery explosion
>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:55:51 -0330
>
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>
>They should be maroon Scotch Brite pads... Just joking, I won't go there.
>
>The solenoids are completely sealed so they can and in most applications
>are, attached to the outside of the battery box.
>
>Years ago I got my first amateur radio VHF radio..... Now I'm talking about
>close to a 50 pound box in the back of my big V8 station wagon. I had to
>be
>very careful not to broadcast too long because the thirsty tubes in that
>old
>45 rig could suck a battery, any battery, dry in short order. That old rig
>had lots of open relay contacts and more than one Mountie lost the whole
>back of his car when the spark from those relays was able to ignite a whiff
>of gas from any small leak in the gas tank.
>
>Noel
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Zed Smith
> > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 7:15 PM
> > To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Zenith-List: More basic battery explosion
> >
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Zed Smith <zsmith3rd@earthlink.net>
> >
> > You'll need to stuff two or three green Scotch Brite pads in
> > between the battery and nearby solenoid to soak up the
> > escaping hydrogen gas so as to prevent an explosion caused by
> > non-Factory Mutual, non-approved-for-hazardous-locations,
> > solenoids (regardless of duty cycle).
> > This might be a bit more severe than no fuel or low coolant.
> > Regards,
> > Zed
> > do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | slats vs no slats + insrance problems ?? |
To the armchair aircraft designers, considering SLATS vs: NO SLATS. All I
have to say is"=0A=0AINSURANCE ? INSURANCE ? INSURANCE? INSURANCE? I
NSURANCE?=0A=0AFritz 90/90 Corvair=0A=0Ado not archive=0A=0A=0A----- Or
iginal Message ----=0AFrom: billmileski <mileski@sonalysts.com>=0ATo: zenit
h-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 9:32:41 PM=0ASubject
: Zenith-List: Re: 701 no slats again=0A=0A=0A--> Zenith-List message poste
d by: "billmileski" <mileski@sonalysts.com>=0A=0AOne more thing, Joe,=0A=0A
Be sure to check (or at least consider) the weight and balance if you decid
e to try it.. I was reminded by the factory that removing slats will move t
he CG rearward, as they have some weight and they are forward of the CG.=0A
=0ABy the way the factory clearly discourages this configuration. However
I am considering giving it a try too when the VGs are available. Several p
eople have tried it without the VGs and reported bad results, but survived,
and duplicating the VG installation probably limits the risk quite a bit.
=0A=0ABill=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.ma
================0A=0A
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I have just ordered NAV/COM (King KX-125) and Transponder (Garmin
GTX-327) - and am of the understanding that I will need 3 antennas. One
for COM, one for NAV, and one for transponder.
Any suggestions (both source and item numbers) for what to purchase?
Which units seem to work better? Which units seem to always cause
problems.
Appreciate any feedback.
Sam H.
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 no slats again |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "billmileski" <mileski@sonalysts.com>
The thought is that although the slat allows dramatically increased angle of attack,
and associated lift coefficient, it also creates a tremendous amount of
drag. This drag could be reducing climb rate. Vortex generators are only now
being freely experimented with (maybe I'm mistaken here), and the results are
so encouraging that perhaps they apply well to the un-slatted airfoil, and produce
an overall similar, or improved performance envelope. I don't have the
answers, but your comment sounds like a guess as well.
One thing that is nice about the normal configuration is the rate at which speed
bleeds off in the flare, as I've gotten into a pretty short ultralight strip
and certainly not worried about floating.
Bill
> Hello list, It is unlikely that a non slat wing will have the climb angle of
a slatted wing. If you disagree with the Heintz design then do your own then you
will understand.
>
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71545#71545
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ?? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "billmileski" <mileski@sonalysts.com>
Fritz,
That's a good point. And one that might very well discourage me from giving it
a try.
That said, I'm not redesigning anything. I'm just discussing several peoples' reported
experience with trying a different configuration.
I'm sure there are some people who self-insure, or take an insurance hit when deciding
to use something other than the factory recommended engine installation,
for example.
This is about what turns people on about experimental aircraft.
Bill
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71549#71549
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: 701 no slats again |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Joe and Joan" <jnjkimbell@hotmail.com>
Dave, if I can get the same landing and TO numbers and also get an extra 5
to 8 Knts cruise, who wouldn't.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Ruddiman" <pacificpainting@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave Ruddiman"
> <pacificpainting@comcast.net>
>
> Just curious, but why don't you want the slats?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe and Joan" <jnjkimbell@HOTMAIL.COM>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again
>
>
>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Joe and Joan"
>> <jnjkimbell@hotmail.com>
>>
>> Bill, I have a 701 and this looks like something I am going to try. I
>> contacted the owner of stolspeed and he is in the process of making it
>> possible to order his vg's. As soon as I get them and try them, I will
>> report to the list the results. Of course, I do not plan to remove the
>> attachements holding the slats until all tests are done. Joe from
>> Florida
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "billmileski" <mileski@sonalysts.com>
>> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 2:13 PM
>> Subject: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again
>>
>>
>>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "billmileski" <mileski@sonalysts.com>
>>>
>>> Okay, I recently looked at http://www.stolspeed.com/content.php
>>> and the claim there is that several 701's (in addition to Savannahs) are
>>> flying with VGs and no slats, with similar, or even improved STOL,
>>> climb, stability and glide characteristics. The web site author has a
>>> Savannah, but I don't know if his own results are completely applicable
>>> to the 701 (didn't someone say recently that the airfoil is different?).
>>>
>>> I emailed the seller of the VGs and haven't heard back yet. Is there
>>> any experience on this list that would support or refute these claims?
>>>
>>> Curiously,
>>>
>>> Bill Mileski
>>> Connecticut
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=69736#69736
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
although all three are in approximately the same frequency range the Nav
antenna is usually horizontally polarized while the Com and the ELT are
vertical. In short you will need three antennae. the type of antennae
will
depend on the speed of your plane.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Harrison-Hutcheson
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:49 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Antenna(s)
I have just ordered NAV/COM (King KX-125) and Transponder (Garmin
GTX-327) -
and am of the understanding that I will need 3 antennas. One for COM,
one
for NAV, and one for transponder.
Any suggestions (both source and item numbers) for what to purchase?
Which
units seem to work better? Which units seem to always cause problems.
Appreciate any feedback.
Sam H.
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: composite landing gear installation |
Dan, I assume you're referring to the Czech gear. If not, read no furt
her. When I got the Czech gear, Pat Lorie was kind enough to send me
photos of what his looked like. But since mine is a taildragger, I had
to do things differently. I wasn't comfortable with the Czech method
of mounting, so I modified their gear attach somewhat. I welded two pi
eces of 3/4 square 4130 steel tubing to the inside of the attach fixtu
re, which I ran up the inside of the skin, to the top longeron. These
were eventually rivetted to the skin, and to a gusset plate at the lon
geron. I then fabricated two 4130 plates, about .060, 9 by 12, with a
1/4 inch flange on either side for strength, that lay on the floorboar
d and peeked up just outside the edges of the (in my case) heel suppor
t channel, where the gear goes if you're a taildragger. I drilled thos
e plates to coincide with the rivets that hold the channel. (I think t
hey were A-5's. at 60 pitch.) I then drilled through the legs, steel p
lates, and top of the channel for the two mounting bolts, with large w
ashers to spread the load on the legs. Last thing I did was enlarge th
e holes in the top of the channel, to allow for a socket to reach the
bolt heads. I didn't take pictures, and wouldn't know how to include
them if I did, but I think you get the idea. If you sectioned the set
up, you would see, from top to bottom, the channel, the 9 by 12 plate,
the floor skin, the Czech attach mount, the composite leg, the large
washer, and the nut. I have yet to do a drop test on this, until I ge
t the engine hung, but I think that the plates will spread the load ad
equately. I thought about, but rejected due to weight considerations,
making the steel plate run from side to side. Might yet have to go th
at way if it fails the drop tests. Anyway, I hope this will help.
=0A=0APaul Rodriguez=0A601XL/Corvair=0Astiiiiiiiilllll on the
canopy =0A ----- Original Message ----- =0A From: leinad<mail
to:leinad@hughes.net> =0A To: zenith-list@matronics.com<mailto:zen
ith-list@matronics.com> =0A Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 6:59 P
M=0A Subject: Zenith-List: composite landing gear installation
=0A=0A=0A --> Zenith-List message posted by: "leinad" <leinad@h
ughes.net<mailto:leinad@hughes.net>>=0A=0A I recently received
my composite landing gear for my XL and it's going to require some mod
ifications to install it. Has anyone else gone this route? I have so
me ideas about how to do it, but was wondering what others have done.
=0A=0A Dan Dempsey (601XL/Corvair)=0A=0A --------=0A
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
Read this topic online here:=0A=0A http://forums.matronics.co
m/viewtopic.php?p=71431#71431<http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.
php?p=71431#71431>=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
=======================
=======================
=======================
=======================
======================
=======================
=======================
=======================
=======================
=0A=0A=0A=0A
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | More basic battery explosion |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <dredmoody@cox.net>
Yep.... legend has it that those old 45 rigs always get their Mounties..
Sorry, couldn't resist,
Ed Moody II
Do Not Archive
Do Not Blow up Mounites
(it's not polite)
That old rig had lots of open relay contacts and more than one Mountie lost
the whole back of his car when the spark from those relays was able to ignite
a whiff
of gas from any small leak in the gas tank.
>
> Noel
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: slats vs no slats |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: MacDonald Doug <dougsnash@yahoo.com>
Hey guys, I'm still a ways away from having to worry
about VGs on my 701 project but figured I'd add a
little to the thought process.
Two years ago I attended one of Chris' design seminars
at Oshkosh. One of the statements he made with regard
to the CH-701 airfoil was, the leading edge of the
slat (not the leading edge of the main wing) is the
leading edge of the airfoil. Although the slat is
built as an add on to the wing to simplify
construction, it is actually more like cutting a slot
in a "normal" wing a few inches back of the leading
edge. This would suggest in my mind that the airfoil
shape of the CH-701 without the slat is actually a
totally new and untested airfoil.
The fact that the airfoil appears to be performing
well without the slat but with VGs suggests to me that
VGs are a very successful way to correct airflow
issues. I personally still would be concerned about
the stall characteristics of this new "unknown"
airfoil since it was not the airfoil Chris intended
when he designed the plane.
Just some food for thought.
Doug MacDonald
NW Ontario, Canada
CH-701 scratch builder
Working on cabin
do not archive
We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups
(http://groups.yahoo.com)
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: 701 no slats again |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave Ruddiman" <pacificpainting@comcast.net>
I don't really know anything about the slats except what I have read here.
No criticism, just curious. I won't build my 801 without them, but it's all
about what you want to do or not do.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe and Joan" <jnjkimbell@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Joe and Joan" <jnjkimbell@hotmail.com>
>
> Dave, if I can get the same landing and TO numbers and also get an extra 5
> to 8 Knts cruise, who wouldn't.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Ruddiman" <pacificpainting@comcast.net>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again
>
>
>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave Ruddiman"
>> <pacificpainting@comcast.net>
>>
>> Just curious, but why don't you want the slats?
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Joe and Joan" <jnjkimbell@HOTMAIL.COM>
>> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again
>>
>>
>>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Joe and Joan"
>>> <jnjkimbell@hotmail.com>
>>>
>>> Bill, I have a 701 and this looks like something I am going to try. I
>>> contacted the owner of stolspeed and he is in the process of making it
>>> possible to order his vg's. As soon as I get them and try them, I will
>>> report to the list the results. Of course, I do not plan to remove the
>>> attachements holding the slats until all tests are done. Joe from
>>> Florida
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "billmileski" <mileski@sonalysts.com>
>>> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 2:13 PM
>>> Subject: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again
>>>
>>>
>>>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "billmileski"
>>>> <mileski@sonalysts.com>
>>>>
>>>> Okay, I recently looked at http://www.stolspeed.com/content.php
>>>> and the claim there is that several 701's (in addition to Savannahs)
>>>> are flying with VGs and no slats, with similar, or even improved STOL,
>>>> climb, stability and glide characteristics. The web site author has a
>>>> Savannah, but I don't know if his own results are completely applicable
>>>> to the 701 (didn't someone say recently that the airfoil is
>>>> different?).
>>>>
>>>> I emailed the seller of the VGs and haven't heard back yet. Is there
>>>> any experience on this list that would support or refute these claims?
>>>>
>>>> Curiously,
>>>>
>>>> Bill Mileski
>>>> Connecticut
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=69736#69736
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Temperature & Rudder Workshop |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Tim Verthein <minoxphotographer@yahoo.com>
First of all, it's 25 degrees here in northern Minnesota, and snowing.
My wife and I attended the rudder workshop last month. We had an
excellent time, learned a lot, and came home with a darn nice looking
rudder. Kept it in the living room as a conversation piece for a
couple weeks. The Zenith folks were very accomodating, super nice, and
helpful, answered what I'm sure were common newbie questions, gave each
of us great demo flights...I also got to fly the 701 a bit and got a
swell slow flight demonstration. Winds were about 30 mph that day..we
were off the ground into the wind in about 10 feet!
Their coffee was excellent as were the donuts. We left after buying
several Zenith shirts and hats too! Talking about jumping in!
I have a few pics at:
http://www.edselmotors.com/zenithworkshop.html
and
http://www.edselmotors.com/timzenith.html
My only advice is..be sure you have a room! Sevral of us found out the
hotel had overbooked!
Tim in Bovey
==
You *can* repair a flip-flop with a capacitor!
==
(http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com)
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: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ?? |
Hi Bill, I didn't intend my reply as directly to you. I have tried sendin
g emails directly to this site by typing the address in. They go out but d
o not get posted. ------- So now, I hit "reply" to a letter and they get
posted. I do try to pick a letter which is very close to the subject and I
do try to reword the "subject" so it will be approperiate. I do not inten
d to offend anyone. =0A I am familiar with the "copies " of the 701 and th
e 60l. I think it is wrong what that company did to Chris Heintz .=0AI sc
ratch built and flew a 701 and I would be the first one to admit that a fa
ster cruise speed, less fuel consumption would be great, but at what cost ?
and to who? I built a 701, registered it as a 701, and insured it as a 7
01.=0A =0AIn my opinion, taking the slats off is a major modification and
entering the ralm of "experimental". Yes I think "experimental " is gre
at. But once ertering that ralm, one should admit it, and register the air
craft as such,(by this I mean, do not call it a 701) and pay the insurance
premimums as necessary. Not doing this only makes it harder on others i.e.
"scratch building".=0A ( It could get to the point where Chris H. doesn't
want to sell plans or suport the "scratch builder.) It is not fair for an
yone to make a major modification to an airplane and than use the "proven s
afety record" of the original design to save money on insurance etc. Not o
nly that, but the insurance company would most likely refuse to pay a clai
m if they know the airplane was modified to such an extreme. =0A=0AConcerni
ng modification and experimental airplanes. I have said from the begining
that I do not like the "bubble canopy" on the 601. (no roll over protectio
n) So, on my 601 (scratch building) I am using a fixed windshield, gullwin
g doors, with added roll-over bar just forward, and higher than the existin
g two aluminum tubes just aft of the pilots head. My canopy, no doubt, wou
ld be considered "ugly" by some. ( I have the canopy frame, jigged up and r
eady for welding.) It will look like a cross between the Ch 2000 and an E
urcope. Will I still consider it a 601? Yes. I plan on getting Chris' ap
proval after I have my canopy finished and I can send Chris some pictures a
nd measurements. There are several pictures of 601's with gullwing doors
on Zenith's website.=0A=0AHappy building=0AFritz-- 601XL--90/90--- Corvair
=0Ado not archive=0A=0A=0A =0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: billmiles
ki <mileski@sonalysts.com>=0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Wednesda
y, November 1, 2006 10:52:10 AM=0ASubject: Zenith-List: Re: slats vs no sla
ts + insrance problems ??=0A=0A=0A--> Zenith-List message posted by: "billm
ileski" <mileski@sonalysts.com>=0A=0AFritz,=0A=0AThat's a good point. And
one that might very well discourage me from giving it a try.=0A=0AThat said
, I'm not redesigning anything. I'm just discussing several peoples' report
ed experience with trying a different configuration.=0A=0AI'm sure there ar
e some people who self-insure, or take an insurance hit when deciding to us
e something other than the factory recommended engine installation, for exa
mple. =0A=0AThis is about what turns people on about experimental aircraft.
=0A=0ABill=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.ma
================0A=0A
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ?? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
Ladies,
remember all the other modsyou will have to make. The plane is designed for slats
so the distance to the prop will be changed. You may need to move the wing
forward. Maybe. CG wil be affected since leading edge of foil is moved back.
Elevator. It was designed to pushg the tail down and let the Slat bite into
the air. The same pitch tendency will stall the plane if you don't get rid
of the upside down foil. Other than that, if the guy wants to remove the slats
, let him move the slats. thats the fun of it all. Maybe it will work so
well that the Savanah producers will "borrow " that design as well. Ouch, sore
subject.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Big Gee <taffy0687@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Nov 1, 2006 6:29 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ??
>
>Hi Bill, I didn't intend my reply as directly to you. I have tried sending emails
directly to this site by typing the address in. They go out but do not
get posted. ------- So now, I hit "reply" to a letter and they get posted.
I do try to pick a letter which is very close to the subject and I do try to reword
the "subject" so it will be approperiate. I do not intend to offend anyone.
> I am familiar with the "copies " of the 701 and the 60l. I think it is wrong
what that company did to Chris Heintz .
>I scratch built and flew a 701 and I would be the first one to admit that a faster
cruise speed, less fuel consumption would be great, but at what cost ? and
to who? I built a 701, registered it as a 701, and insured it as a 701.
>
>In my opinion, taking the slats off is a major modification and entering the
ralm of "experimental". Yes I think "experimental " is great. But once ertering
that ralm, one should admit it, and register the aircraft as such,(by this
I mean, do not call it a 701) and pay the insurance premimums as necessary.
Not doing this only makes it harder on others i.e. "scratch building".
> ( It could get to the point where Chris H. doesn't want to sell plans or suport
the "scratch builder.) It is not fair for anyone to make a major modification
to an airplane and than use the "proven safety record" of the original design
to save money on insurance etc. Not only that, but the insurance company
would most likely refuse to pay a claim if they know the airplane was modified
to such an extreme.
>
>Concerning modification and experimental airplanes. I have said from the begining
that I do not like the "bubble canopy" on the 601. (no roll over protection)
So, on my 601 (scratch building) I am using a fixed windshield, gullwing
doors, with added roll-over bar just forward, and higher than the existing two
aluminum tubes just aft of the pilots head. My canopy, no doubt, would be considered
"ugly" by some. ( I have the canopy frame, jigged up and ready for welding.)
It will look like a cross between the Ch 2000 and an Eurcope. Will
I still consider it a 601? Yes. I plan on getting Chris' approval after I have
my canopy finished and I can send Chris some pictures and measurements.
There are several pictures of 601's with gullwing doors on Zenith's website.
>
>Happy building
>Fritz-- 601XL--90/90--- Corvair
>do not archive
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: billmileski <mileski@sonalysts.com>
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 10:52:10 AM
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ??
>
>
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "billmileski" <mileski@sonalysts.com>
>
>Fritz,
>
>That's a good point. And one that might very well discourage me from giving it
a try.
>
>That said, I'm not redesigning anything. I'm just discussing several peoples'
reported experience with trying a different configuration.
>
>I'm sure there are some people who self-insure, or take an insurance hit when
deciding to use something other than the factory recommended engine installation,
for example.
>
>This is about what turns people on about experimental aircraft.
>
>Bill
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.ma==============
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 no slats again |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
you will probably get more of a ten knot increase if you put fairing on struts,
and if you are hell bent on Mods , change the airfoil on the elevator to a
more asymetrical Foil,
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Joe and Joan <jnjkimbell@HOTMAIL.COM>
>Sent: Nov 1, 2006 7:25 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again
>
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Joe and Joan" <jnjkimbell@hotmail.com>
>
>Dave, if I can get the same landing and TO numbers and also get an extra 5
>to 8 Knts cruise, who wouldn't.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dave Ruddiman" <pacificpainting@comcast.net>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:13 PM
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again
>
>
>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave Ruddiman"
>> <pacificpainting@comcast.net>
>>
>> Just curious, but why don't you want the slats?
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Joe and Joan" <jnjkimbell@HOTMAIL.COM>
>> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again
>>
>>
>>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Joe and Joan"
>>> <jnjkimbell@hotmail.com>
>>>
>>> Bill, I have a 701 and this looks like something I am going to try. I
>>> contacted the owner of stolspeed and he is in the process of making it
>>> possible to order his vg's. As soon as I get them and try them, I will
>>> report to the list the results. Of course, I do not plan to remove the
>>> attachements holding the slats until all tests are done. Joe from
>>> Florida
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "billmileski" <mileski@sonalysts.com>
>>> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 2:13 PM
>>> Subject: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again
>>>
>>>
>>>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "billmileski" <mileski@sonalysts.com>
>>>>
>>>> Okay, I recently looked at http://www.stolspeed.com/content.php
>>>> and the claim there is that several 701's (in addition to Savannahs) are
>>>> flying with VGs and no slats, with similar, or even improved STOL,
>>>> climb, stability and glide characteristics. The web site author has a
>>>> Savannah, but I don't know if his own results are completely applicable
>>>> to the 701 (didn't someone say recently that the airfoil is different?).
>>>>
>>>> I emailed the seller of the VGs and haven't heard back yet. Is there
>>>> any experience on this list that would support or refute these claims?
>>>>
>>>> Curiously,
>>>>
>>>> Bill Mileski
>>>> Connecticut
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=69736#69736
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 no slats again |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
thanx,
Juan
DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Original Message-----
>From: "n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com>
>Sent: Nov 1, 2006 8:57 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 701 no slats again
>
>My ELT is right where you want yours to be, My com is just behind the trap door
on the bottom of the rear fuse and my transponder is where you want to place
yours. All positions work great for me on my 801..
>do not archive
>
>
>Ben Haas
>N801BH
>www.haaspowerair.com
>
>-- Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net> wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
>
>
>On trhe subject of antenna placment, I have decided to put the elt antennae on
top at the back of the luggage area. The Comm antennae, I decided to put a
45 degree nbend antennae under the copilot seat between the wing stut and the
landing gear, so the antennae will not be seen and on the bottom. ANy one else
place it there?
>Txspr antennae just behind firewall on bottom.
>Juan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: billmileski <mileski@sonalysts.com>
>>Sent: Oct 31, 2006 9:32 PM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 701 no slats again
>>
>>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "billmileski" <mileski@sonalysts.com>
>>
>>One more thing, Joe,
>>
>>Be sure to check (or at least consider) the weight and balance if you decide
to try it.. I was reminded by the factory that removing slats will move the CG
rearward, as they have some weight and they are forward of the CG.
>>
>>By the way the factory clearly discourages this configuration. However I am
considering giving it a try too when the VGs are available. Several people have
tried it without the VGs and reported bad results, but survived, and duplicating
the VG installation probably limits the risk quite a bit.
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71450#71450
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>===================================
>===================================
>===================================
>===================================
>===================================
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ?? |
Chris Heintz appears to be a nice person and I certainly admire him for
his accomplishments. But this ""copies " of the 701" I keep hearing
from several sources needs examining. I can't speak to a 601, I know
very little about it.
The only thing I know of on a 701 that is unique and I'm not sure about
that, is the inverted horizontal. Everything else is a copy. Slats,
thick wings, high tails, that's all been around for years, pre-WWII.
So basically what I am saying is that no one has done anything to Chris,
Chris didn't do to someone else. He copied stuff and put it together.
He put it together in a nice package, but for all practical purposes
it's still copies. As for as I know there are no really new designs it
a while, they are all copies of some sort or another. No one did
anything wrong to Chris, if anything, they improved on his copy of a
copy of a copy. Each one, hopefully, is an improvement on the last.
Larry, N1345L, www.skyhawg.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Big Gee
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ??
Hi Bill, I didn't intend my reply as directly to you. I have tried
sending emails directly to this site by typing the address in. They go
out but do not get posted. ------- So now, I hit "reply" to a letter
and they get posted. I do try to pick a letter which is very close to
the subject and I do try to reword the "subject" so it will be
approperiate. I do not intend to offend anyone.
I am familiar with the "copies " of the 701 and the 60l. I think
it is wrong what that company did to Chris Heintz .
I scratch built and flew a 701 and I would be the first one to admit
that a faster cruise speed, less fuel consumption would be great, but at
what cost ? and to who? I built a 701, registered it as a 701, and
insured it as a 701.
In my opinion, taking the slats off is a major modification and
entering the ralm of "experimental". Yes I think "experimental " is
great. But once ertering that ralm, one should admit it, and register
the aircraft as such,(by this I mean, do not call it a 701) and pay the
insurance premimums as necessary. Not doing this only makes it harder
on others i.e. "scratch building".
( It could get to the point where Chris H. doesn't want to sell
plans or suport the "scratch builder.) It is not fair for anyone to
make a major modification to an airplane and than use the "proven safety
record" of the original design to save money on insurance etc. Not only
that, but the insurance company would most likely refuse to pay a claim
if they know the airplane was modified to such an extreme.
Concerning modification and experimental airplanes. I have said from
the begining that I do not like the "bubble canopy" on the 601. (no
roll over protection) So, on my 601 (scratch building) I am using a
fixed windshield, gullwing doors, with added roll-over bar just forward,
and higher than the existing two aluminum tubes just aft of the pilots
head. My canopy, no doubt, would be considered "ugly" by some. ( I have
the canopy frame, jigged up and ready for welding.) It will look like
a cross between the Ch 2000 and an Eurcope. Will I still consider it a
601? Yes. I plan on getting Chris' approval after I have my canopy
finished and I can send Chris some pictures and measurements. There
are several pictures of 601's with gullwing doors on Zenith's website.
Happy building
Fritz-- 601XL--90/90--- Corvair
do not archive
----- Original Message ----
From: billmileski <mileski@sonalysts.com>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 10:52:10 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ??
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "billmileski"
<mileski@sonalysts.com>
Fritz,
That's a good point. And one that might very well discourage me from
giving it a try.
That said, I'm not redesigning anything. I'm just discussing several
peoples' reported experience with trying a different configuration.
I'm sure there are some people who self-insure, or take an insurance
hit when deciding to use something other than the factory recommended
engine installation, for example.
This is about what turns people on about experimental aircraft.
Bill
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71549#71549http://www.matro
nics.com/sp; - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -;
-Matt Drallcom/contribution"
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution=======
====
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
11/1/2006
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ?? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "billmileski" <mileski@sonalysts.com>
> Ladies,
> remember all the other modsyou will have to make. The plane is designed for slats
so the distance to the prop will be changed. You may need to move the wing
forward. Maybe. CG wil be affected since leading edge of foil is moved back.
Elevator. It was designed to pushg the tail down and let the Slat bite into the
air. The same pitch tendency will stall the plane if you don't get rid of the
upside down foil
>
Once again, a guess, and you didn't read from the start of this thread, which began
with:
>
> Okay, I recently looked at http://www.stolspeed.com/content.php
> and the claim there is..
>
The basis for my inquiry was some detailed reporting on the behavior of the 701/Savannah
with VGs instead of slats. Go read the web site and email the guy with
the Savannah, and then the guy with the 701.
We all have a dozen guesses as to what would happen, it's just interesting that
there are people that have chosen to operate in this different configuration,
and are happier with the behavior. Do they have a death wish? Are they complete
wackos? Lunatics? People who enjoy rabid stall behavior and high landing
speeds, and loss of STOL characteristics? Possibly. But maybe not.
Bill[/quote]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71630#71630
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | slats / no slats / time out |
Larry (and list)--- I don't want to start another "skotch-brite" discussion
here. But Larry, you have to admit what that company did was; copy more
than a basic idea. You give as examples " basic ideas". I am not talking
about that, I am talking about taking someones plans, making modifications
to those plans and than marketing the product as if it was their own desig
n (plans) it is wrong.--------- some on this list will agree with me, some
will agree with you, and none of this will change the other fellows way of
thinking.---------time out- =0A Fritz--- 601 XL--90/90-- Corvair=0A=0Ado no
t archive=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: LRM <lrm@skyhawg.com>
=0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 8:11:3
6 PM=0ASubject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems
??=0A=0A=0AChris Heintz appears to be a nice person and I certainly admire
him for his accomplishments. But this ""copies " of the 701" I keep hearin
g from several sources needs examining. I can't speak to a 601, I know ver
y little about it.=0A =0AThe only thing I know of on a 701 that is unique a
nd I'm not sure about that, is the inverted horizontal. Everything else is
a copy. Slats, thick wings, high tails, that's all been around for years,
pre-WWII. So basically what I am saying is that no one has done anything
to Chris, Chris didn't do to someone else. He copied stuff and put it tog
ether. He put it together in a nice package, but for all practical purpose
s it's still copies. As for as I know there are no really new designs it a
while, they are all copies of some sort or another. No one did anything
wrong to Chris, if anything, they improved on his copy of a copy of a copy.
Each one, hopefully, is an improvement on the last. =0A =0ALarry, N1345
L, www.skyhawg.com =0A----- Original Message ----- =0AFrom: Big Gee =0ATo:
zenith-list@matronics.com =0ASent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 5:29 PM=0AS
ubject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ??=0A=0A
=0AHi Bill, I didn't intend my reply as directly to you. I have tried sen
ding emails directly to this site by typing the address in. They go out bu
t do not get posted. ------- So now, I hit "reply" to a letter and they g
et posted. I do try to pick a letter which is very close to the subject an
d I do try to reword the "subject" so it will be approperiate. I do not in
tend to offend anyone. =0A I am familiar with the "copies " of the 701 and
the 60l. I think it is wrong what that company did to Chris Heintz .=0AI
scratch built and flew a 701 and I would be the first one to admit that a
faster cruise speed, less fuel consumption would be great, but at what cos
t ? and to who? I built a 701, registered it as a 701, and insured it as
a 701.=0A =0AIn my opinion, taking the slats off is a major modification a
nd entering the ralm of "experimental". Yes I think "experimental " is
great. But once ertering that ralm, one should admit it, and register the
aircraft as such,(by this I mean, do not call it a 701) and pay the insuran
ce premimums as necessary. Not doing this only makes it harder on others i
.e. "scratch building".=0A ( It could get to the point where Chris H. does
n't want to sell plans or suport the "scratch builder.) It is not fair for
anyone to make a major modification to an airplane and than use the "prove
n safety record" of the original design to save money on insurance etc. No
t only that, but the insurance company would most likely refuse to pay a c
laim if they know the airplane was modified to such an extreme. =0A =0AConc
erning modification and experimental airplanes. I have said from the begin
ing that I do not like the "bubble canopy" on the 601. (no roll over prote
ction) So, on my 601 (scratch building) I am using a fixed windshield, gul
lwing doors, with added roll-over bar just forward, and higher than the exi
sting two aluminum tubes just aft of the pilots head. My canopy, no doubt,
would be considered "ugly" by some. ( I have the canopy frame, jigged up a
nd ready for welding.) It will look like a cross between the Ch 2000 and
an Eurcope. Will I still consider it a 601? Yes. I plan on getting Chris
' approval after I have my canopy finished and I can send Chris some pictur
es and measurements. There are several pictures of 601's with gullwing d
oors on Zenith's website.=0A =0AHappy building=0AFritz-- 601XL--90/90--- Co
rvair=0Ado not archive=0A=0A=0A =0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: bill
mileski <mileski@sonalysts.com>=0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Wed
nesday, November 1, 2006 10:52:10 AM=0ASubject: Zenith-List: Re: slats vs n
o slats + insrance problems ??=0A=0A=0A--> Zenith-List message posted by: "
billmileski" <mileski@sonalysts.com>=0A=0AFritz,=0A=0AThat's a good point.
And one that might very well discourage me from giving it a try.=0A=0AThat
said, I'm not redesigning anything. I'm just discussing several peoples' r
eported experience with trying a different configuration.=0A=0AI'm sure the
re are some people who self-insure, or take an insurance hit when deciding
to use something other than the factory recommended engine installation, fo
r example. =0A=0AThis is about what turns people on about experimental airc
raft.=0A=0ABill=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://foru
ms.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71549#71549</&NBSP;&NBSP;&NBSP;&NBSP;&NB
SP;&NBSP;&NBSP;&NBSP;&NBSP;&NBSP;- target="_blank" Navigator?Zenith-List?
ronics.com Zenith-List The>http://www.matronics.com/sp;
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -; -Matt Drallcom/contribu
tion" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution=====
========0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0Ahref="http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matron=0A=0A=0A=0ADate: 11/1/2006=0A=0A
=====================0A=0A
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Matronics Email List Fund Raiser - November! |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
Each November I hold a PBS-like fund raiser to support the continued operation
and upgrade of the List services at Matronics. It's through these sole Contributions
of List members that these Matronics Lists are possible.
You have probably noticed that there are no banner ads or pop-up windows on any of the Matronics Lists or related web sites such as the Forums site ( http://forums.matronics.com ), Wiki site ( http://wiki.matronics.com ), or other related pages such as the List Search Engine ( http://www.matornics.com/search ), List Browse ( http://www.matornics.com/listbrowse ), etc. This is because I believe in a List experience that is completely about the sport we all enjoy - namely Airplanes and not about annoying advertisments.
During the month of November I will be sending out List messages every few days
reminding everyone that the Fund Raiser is underway. Each message will generally
highlight a particular feature or benefit of the Matronics Lists or detail
a new feature or service that was added this year. I ask for your patience
and understanding during the Fund Raiser and throughout these regular messages.
The Fund Raiser is only financial support mechanism I have to pay all of the
bills associated with running these lists.
Once again, this year I've got a terrific line up of free gifts to go along with
the various Contribution levels. Most all of these gifts have been provided
by some of the vary members and vendors that you'll find on Matronics Lists and
have been either donated or provided at substantially discounted rates.
This year, these generous people include Bob Nuckolls of the AeroElectric Connection (http://www.aeroelectric.com/), Paul Besing of Aeroware Enterprises aka Kitlog Pro (http://www.kitlog.com/), Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore (http://www.buildersbooks.com/), and Jon Croke of HomebuiltHELP (http://www.homebuilthelp.com/).
These are extremely generous guys and I encourage you to visit their respective
web sites. Each one offers a unique and very useful aviation-related product
line. I would like publicly to thank Bob, Paul, Andy, and Jon for their generous
support of the Lists again this year!!
You can make your List Contribution using any one of three secure methods this
year including using a credit card, PayPal, or by personal check. All three methods
afford you the opportunity to select one of this year's free gifts with
a qualifying Contribution amount!!
To make your Contribution, please visit the secure site below:
https://www.matronics.com/contribution
I would like to thank everyone in advance for their generous financial AND moral
support over the years. I know it sounds a little cliche, but you guys really
do feel like family.
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ?? |
After reading the information on StolSpeed Aerodynamics website , I am
inclined to order and try the VGs. It sounds as if they have done quite a bit of
flight testing both on the Savannah and the 701, as well as others. They have
taken a lot of the risk out of the no slat flying. The CG does not appear to
be a problem, The short field stall perfomance is still there and you fly
faster, and use less fuel. Also the website says that the Savannah is coming out
with a no slat model with the VGs. There must be something to it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Meantime my strut fairings just arrived and I will se how much difference
they make.
Bob Spudis
N701ZX/ CH701/ 912S/ 87 hrs
In a message dated 11/1/2006 6:49:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
amyvega2005@earthlink.net writes:
Ladies,
remember all the other modsyou will have to make. The plane is designed
for slats so the distance to the prop will be changed. You may need to move
the wing forward. Maybe. CG wil be affected since leading edge of foil is
moved back. Elevator. It was designed to pushg the tail down and let the Slat
bite into the air. The same pitch tendency will stall the plane if you don't
get rid of the upside down foil. Other than that, if the guy wants to
remove the slats , let him move the slats. thats the fun of it all. Maybe it
will work so well that the Savanah producers will "borrow " that design as well.
Ouch, sore subject.
Juan
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: slats vs no slats |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "billmileski" <mileski@sonalysts.com>
Yeah, it seems that way. I guess part of the reason I brought it up again, and
am so curious about it, is that I was shocked to find a few people swearing by
the results. It does seem like a huge configuration change, an afterthought
on a design that has proven to be well balanced. Sure lights up the list a little,
talking about it.
Maybe a few others would be scratching their heads if they read the claims and
experiences of the author of stolspeed.com, regarding testing with and without
slats, with and without VGs, and with the gap between the slats and airfoil sealed.
The fact that he sells the VGs makes one want to seek addtional opinions.
Anyway, interesting food for thought.
Sorry if I've seemed a little discourteous in some of my recent posts, I've been
in a bit of a mood since a Bell 407 helicopter pilot blew my parked 701 onto
its wing tip and nose, only two days after completion of a flawless 40 hour flight
test period.
Bill
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71714#71714
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
_-
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: slats vs no slats |
Bill,
I am sorry about your mishap, I hope that tings work out for you. I believe
that many of the posters have not visited the website and have only thrown
out their own opinions without any facts.
Bob Spudis
do not archive
In a message dated 11/1/2006 11:47:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mileski@sonalysts.com writes:
Sorry if I've seemed a little discourteous in some of my recent posts, I've
been in a bit of a mood since a Bell 407 helicopter pilot blew my parked 701
onto its wing tip and nose, only two days after completion of a flawless 40
hour flight test period.
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
The nav and com radios operate in the nearly the same frequency band
but the transponder operates at a much higher frequency band. The
transponder antenna is usually a short (~1 1/2") spike antenna
mounted on the belly of the airplane. You can pick one up for about
$15 at Aircraft Spruce.
The VOR signal used by the nav receiver is transmitted with a
horizontal polarization because that results in less distortion of
the signal. It requires a horizontally polarized antenna to recieve a
decent signal. I built my own Nav antenna from a couple of FM whip
antennas, a PVC pipe cap and some coax cable for about $15 in parts.
I mounted it on top of the rudder and it works pretty well. You don't
need to spend a lot of money to get good results.
For the com radio you should use a wide band antenna to get decent
function across the entire com band. A simple wire whip is only good
for a narrow band of frequencies. You could make a com antenna out of
copper tape embedded in a fiberglass shell. It needs to be mounted
vertically. Any commercially available antenna designed for the com
band will work as long as it's installed properly.
Jim Weir has published some articles on how to make your own antennas
in KitPlanes magazine. I the artcles are available on his website
http://www.rst-engr.com/
A general rule of thumb is to mount any transmitter antennas at least
three feet from any other antenna to reduce the chance of interference.
On Nov 1, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Noel Loveys wrote:
> although all three are in approximately the same frequency range
> the Nav antenna is usually horizontally polarized while the Com and
> the ELT are vertical. In short you will need three antennae. the
> type of antennae will depend on the speed of your plane.
>
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-
> list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Harrison-Hutcheson
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:49 AM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Antenna(s)
>
> I have just ordered NAV/COM (King KX-125) and Transponder (Garmin
> GTX-327) - and am of the understanding that I will need 3
> antennas. One for COM, one for NAV, and one for transponder.
>
> Any suggestions (both source and item numbers) for what to
> purchase? Which units seem to work better? Which units seem to
> always cause problems.
>
> Appreciate any feedback.
>
> Sam H.
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
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! --
|